Oral Citations Sourcing

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
26 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Oral Citations Sourcing

Thomas Morton
Splitting this off, Achal, I hope that's OK :)

There's a discussion on at the reliable sources notice board, for instance,
> which highlights some of the interpretive problems you raise:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/**
> Noticeboard#Oral_Citations<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Oral_Citations>


Thanks for the pointer there; I'll try and place some comments in there
later. It is certainly an interesting discussion.

But here are some initial thoughts (please bear in mind I have only scanned
that discussion, and whilst I have had an ongoing interest in the oral
citations project I never dug into in too much depth). Also remember this
is based on my interpretation of our policies, so others may well differ!


> Can I ask you how you would analyse the work of the oral citations project
> (http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Research:Oral_Citations<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations>)
> in terms of our policies on original research, and verifiability?
>

The best way I can address this is to lay out my thoughts on our sourcing
policy.

Material on Wikipedia can be divided into "fact" and "opinion". The latter
of these is, perhaps confusingly, the simplest to address; because opinion,
viewpoints and perception can quite easily be collated and summarised. The
only real difficulty exists in figuring out which opinions are noteworthy
to record.

The problem is facts; as I am sure everyone can appreciate, facts are very
easy to get wrong (maliciously or not). This is especially a problem in
History where events can be pieced together via all manner of sources. Even
WW2 history can differ dramatically depending on the accounts you read -
some overuse oral citation (humans are fallible) and others misuse official
records (which can range from faked through to inaccurate).

The problem with primary sourcing of the oral form is that it comes
directly from an individual - with all of their perceptions and biases. To
make an extreme example out of this; imagine taking an oral citation from
Hitler, and a Jew in a concentration camp. Such citations would, I imagine,
give radically different viewpoints of the Holocaust. Obviously other
accounts, by third parties, show us which account is accurate - but if we
had only those two viewpoints I hope it is obvious how
difficult separating fact and fiction could be (ignoring that any rational
person would see the obvious).

So that brings us to the ideas behind sourcing; which is that we should
consider not only the material but author and publisher. This is important
because if the author of the source is partisan to the material then you
have to consider they may be biased to their viewpoint. As less extreme
example might be two citations from a Republican and a Democrat. Both say
"My Party is the Best because our policies are..." - you can't use either
source to say one party is better, because they are partisan. But you could
use it to relate their parties policies; and as partisans they are well
positioned to relate those policies!

If the author is a third party, of course, that lends weight to their
material.

The publisher is the stumbling block in this case; because it is a
non-expert [sic] researcher uploading material to Commons. What could
mitigate this is a detailed description of the methodology used to collect
the citations, which would allow editors to review it for problems.

One final thing to consider is that WP:V talks about controversial or
challenged material. Whilst that might be a risk policy on the face (it
would be easy to present something non-controversial but also not true as
fact) it's critical to letting us actually write article (otherwise we
would be stifled in citations :)). For example; I've sourced material to
personal sites before with minimal problems - sometimes it is questioned
and what I usually say is "If you can show someone saying the opposite, or
make a sensible argument against, then lets remove it". (FWIW, and this is
an aside, I think is relaxed form to building articles is a Good Thing, and
we should do it more often - worrying about being wrong is stifling).

So now I've picked it apart here is my thinking; Oral citations on Commons
could be excellent sources in the right context.

Sure if the material is disputed or otherwise problematic then it is better
to look for a source that has peer review. But for simplistic, factual
things then I think it is rock solid. One example that comes to mind (and I
don't know if the Oral citations covers this sort of thing) is this: I was
recently on holiday in New Zealand. They have excellent museums there,
fanatically maintained (which is amazing compared to most countries...).
One nice feature is that a lot of the Mauri history exhibits have audio
from those of Mauri ancestory describing some cultural fact or other.
Things like recipes.

Something like that is an excellent oral citation; the author is
authoritative (being Mauri) and the content uncontroversial.

Boiled down, I think that oral citations have a distinct place as a source
- and we should encourage people to consider them as sources when writing.
But they are not something you could, for example, base an entire article
around. We should also explore ways to make them more "reliable", and more
usable. For example making them obviously available to experts in the field
they cover.

It *is* important to get secondary coverage of a topic, because we are
tertiary source. This is the core idea of our primary source policy; if we
utilise primary material and research something to the extent that we are
the main authoritative source that becomes *hugely* problematic!

And further, how these policies might apply to the idea of social media, as
> well as more private archives, say, corporate archives, being used as
> citations? (And on that point, is there a difference between the the Native
> American folk archive at the Smithsonian and the corporate archives of the
> Michelin corporation in France, for our purposes?)
>

Corporate archives I would deal with in the same way as any primary source;
use it to cite facts, bear in mind the author/publisher. WP:SPS talks about
being wary of unduly self-serving material, and I think that is an
excellent way of putting the approach to corporate archives.

In terms of social media, this is tricky. Because social media is vastly
more accessible than other mediums - particularly to hacks. Wordpress blogs
are trivial to make, for example, and you can sound authoritative or
convincing on a subject to a layman with only medium effort. I'd treat
these with more caution.

Phew, that was dumped out in a stream of conciousness way - so it might be
a bit "buggy". But that's what I figure :)

Tom

(Just as a note; I consider "publisher" quite broadly - i.e. the person who
hosts or maintains the material)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oral Citations Sourcing

Achal Prabhala-2


On Thursday 23 February 2012 01:10 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:

> Splitting this off, Achal, I hope that's OK :)
>
> There's a discussion on at the reliable sources notice board, for instance,
>> which highlights some of the interpretive problems you raise:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/**
>> Noticeboard#Oral_Citations<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Oral_Citations>
>
> Thanks for the pointer there; I'll try and place some comments in there
> later. It is certainly an interesting discussion.
>
> But here are some initial thoughts (please bear in mind I have only scanned
> that discussion, and whilst I have had an ongoing interest in the oral
> citations project I never dug into in too much depth). Also remember this
> is based on my interpretation of our policies, so others may well differ!
>
>
>> Can I ask you how you would analyse the work of the oral citations project
>> (http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Research:Oral_Citations<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations>)
>> in terms of our policies on original research, and verifiability?
>>
> The best way I can address this is to lay out my thoughts on our sourcing
> policy.
>
> Material on Wikipedia can be divided into "fact" and "opinion". The latter
> of these is, perhaps confusingly, the simplest to address; because opinion,
> viewpoints and perception can quite easily be collated and summarised. The
> only real difficulty exists in figuring out which opinions are noteworthy
> to record.
>
> The problem is facts; as I am sure everyone can appreciate, facts are very
> easy to get wrong (maliciously or not). This is especially a problem in
> History where events can be pieced together via all manner of sources. Even
> WW2 history can differ dramatically depending on the accounts you read -
> some overuse oral citation (humans are fallible) and others misuse official
> records (which can range from faked through to inaccurate).
>
> The problem with primary sourcing of the oral form is that it comes
> directly from an individual - with all of their perceptions and biases. To
> make an extreme example out of this; imagine taking an oral citation from
> Hitler, and a Jew in a concentration camp. Such citations would, I imagine,
> give radically different viewpoints of the Holocaust. Obviously other
> accounts, by third parties, show us which account is accurate - but if we
> had only those two viewpoints I hope it is obvious how
> difficult separating fact and fiction could be (ignoring that any rational
> person would see the obvious).

Of course. So, for the oral citations project, we specifically chose
topics that are in the present, that are seen and done by thousands of
people (i.e. not obscure), and that are also as uncontroversial as
possible. Examples: village games, temple rituals, recipes.


>
> So that brings us to the ideas behind sourcing; which is that we should
> consider not only the material but author and publisher. This is important
> because if the author of the source is partisan to the material then you
> have to consider they may be biased to their viewpoint. As less extreme
> example might be two citations from a Republican and a Democrat. Both say
> "My Party is the Best because our policies are..." - you can't use either
> source to say one party is better, because they are partisan. But you could
> use it to relate their parties policies; and as partisans they are well
> positioned to relate those policies!
>
> If the author is a third party, of course, that lends weight to their
> material.
>
> The publisher is the stumbling block in this case; because it is a
> non-expert [sic] researcher uploading material to Commons. What could
> mitigate this is a detailed description of the methodology used to collect
> the citations, which would allow editors to review it for problems.
>
> One final thing to consider is that WP:V talks about controversial or
> challenged material. Whilst that might be a risk policy on the face (it
> would be easy to present something non-controversial but also not true as
> fact) it's critical to letting us actually write article (otherwise we
> would be stifled in citations :)). For example; I've sourced material to
> personal sites before with minimal problems - sometimes it is questioned
> and what I usually say is "If you can show someone saying the opposite, or
> make a sensible argument against, then lets remove it". (FWIW, and this is
> an aside, I think is relaxed form to building articles is a Good Thing, and
> we should do it more often - worrying about being wrong is stifling).
>
> So now I've picked it apart here is my thinking; Oral citations on Commons
> could be excellent sources in the right context.

:)


>
> Sure if the material is disputed or otherwise problematic then it is better
> to look for a source that has peer review. But for simplistic, factual
> things then I think it is rock solid. One example that comes to mind (and I
> don't know if the Oral citations covers this sort of thing) is this: I was
> recently on holiday in New Zealand. They have excellent museums there,
> fanatically maintained (which is amazing compared to most countries...).
> One nice feature is that a lot of the Mauri history exhibits have audio
> from those of Mauri ancestory describing some cultural fact or other.
> Things like recipes.


Yes, we encountered exactly this. When looking for aspects of everyday
life that people both widely knew about and did in India and South
Africa, but were also undocumented in scholarship or even print,
everything we had came back to 'culture'.


> Something like that is an excellent oral citation; the author is
> authoritative (being Mauri) and the content uncontroversial.
>
> Boiled down, I think that oral citations have a distinct place as a source
> - and we should encourage people to consider them as sources when writing.
> But they are not something you could, for example, base an entire article
> around. We should also explore ways to make them more "reliable", and more
> usable. For example making them obviously available to experts in the field
> they cover.


I agree that an article wholly based on oral citations is less desirable
than an article that mixes traditional and non-traditional sources. Two
things here though: (a) There are actually a pretty large number of
things that are both widely known and done and not documented in print,
so this is a real problem; and in these cases, having articles solely
based on oral citations could still be useful, akin to a stub, awaiting
further refinement. (b) Though this is not directly related to the
conversation, it does relate to earlier points made by Sarah and you
regarding primary sources. It is sometimes hard to separate fact from
opinion within the oral citation - which is to say, X person's fact may
be Y person's opinion, etc. - and in my opinion, even the cleanest set
of facts gleamed from an oral citation will contain some perspective or
opinion. I don't see that as a problem (and this is regardless of how it
would parse through the OR policy) as long as the perspective is
attributed as just that, or even challenged. We encountered this, and
recorded it - in articles on village games in Limpopo in South Africa.
The older ladies we spoke to said young people didn't play the games
they had just shown us, and the young people we spoke to said they did,
but with a slightly different template, and we recorded and reported it
exactly as said, as two conflicting perspectives. (Would that be a
responsible use of primary sources? I think so.)


>
> It *is* important to get secondary coverage of a topic, because we are
> tertiary source. This is the core idea of our primary source policy; if we
> utilise primary material and research something to the extent that we are
> the main authoritative source that becomes *hugely* problematic!
>
> And further, how these policies might apply to the idea of social media, as
>> well as more private archives, say, corporate archives, being used as
>> citations? (And on that point, is there a difference between the the Native
>> American folk archive at the Smithsonian and the corporate archives of the
>> Michelin corporation in France, for our purposes?)
>>
> Corporate archives I would deal with in the same way as any primary source;
> use it to cite facts, bear in mind the author/publisher. WP:SPS talks about
> being wary of unduly self-serving material, and I think that is an
> excellent way of putting the approach to corporate archives.


I had an interesting discussion on this with Florence and Christophe, so
I'll share this with them if they miss it here. My own first instinct is
to trust a self-avowedly 'neutral' source (like the Smithsonian) more
than a corporation (like Michelin) but for our purposes, it doesn't seem
to make much sense to treat them any differently.


>
> In terms of social media, this is tricky. Because social media is vastly
> more accessible than other mediums - particularly to hacks. Wordpress blogs
> are trivial to make, for example, and you can sound authoritative or
> convincing on a subject to a layman with only medium effort. I'd treat
> these with more caution.
>
> Phew, that was dumped out in a stream of conciousness way - so it might be
> a bit "buggy". But that's what I figure :)
>
> Tom
>
> (Just as a note; I consider "publisher" quite broadly - i.e. the person who
> hosts or maintains the material)
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oral Citations Sourcing

Florence Devouard-3
On 2/23/12 7:29 PM, Achal Prabhala wrote:

>
>
> On Thursday 23 February 2012 01:10 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
>> Splitting this off, Achal, I hope that's OK :)
>>
>> There's a discussion on at the reliable sources notice board, for
>> instance,
>>> which highlights some of the interpretive problems you raise:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/**
>>> Noticeboard#Oral_Citations<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Oral_Citations>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the pointer there; I'll try and place some comments in there
>> later. It is certainly an interesting discussion.
>>
>> But here are some initial thoughts (please bear in mind I have only
>> scanned
>> that discussion, and whilst I have had an ongoing interest in the oral
>> citations project I never dug into in too much depth). Also remember this
>> is based on my interpretation of our policies, so others may well differ!
>>
>>
>>> Can I ask you how you would analyse the work of the oral citations
>>> project
>>> (http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Research:Oral_Citations<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations>)
>>>
>>> in terms of our policies on original research, and verifiability?
>>>
>> The best way I can address this is to lay out my thoughts on our sourcing
>> policy.
>>
>> Material on Wikipedia can be divided into "fact" and "opinion". The
>> latter
>> of these is, perhaps confusingly, the simplest to address; because
>> opinion,
>> viewpoints and perception can quite easily be collated and summarised.
>> The
>> only real difficulty exists in figuring out which opinions are noteworthy
>> to record.
>>
>> The problem is facts; as I am sure everyone can appreciate, facts are
>> very
>> easy to get wrong (maliciously or not). This is especially a problem in
>> History where events can be pieced together via all manner of sources.
>> Even
>> WW2 history can differ dramatically depending on the accounts you read -
>> some overuse oral citation (humans are fallible) and others misuse
>> official
>> records (which can range from faked through to inaccurate).
>>
>> The problem with primary sourcing of the oral form is that it comes
>> directly from an individual - with all of their perceptions and
>> biases. To
>> make an extreme example out of this; imagine taking an oral citation from
>> Hitler, and a Jew in a concentration camp. Such citations would, I
>> imagine,
>> give radically different viewpoints of the Holocaust. Obviously other
>> accounts, by third parties, show us which account is accurate - but if we
>> had only those two viewpoints I hope it is obvious how
>> difficult separating fact and fiction could be (ignoring that any
>> rational
>> person would see the obvious).
>
> Of course. So, for the oral citations project, we specifically chose
> topics that are in the present, that are seen and done by thousands of
> people (i.e. not obscure), and that are also as uncontroversial as
> possible. Examples: village games, temple rituals, recipes.
>
>
>>
>> So that brings us to the ideas behind sourcing; which is that we should
>> consider not only the material but author and publisher. This is
>> important
>> because if the author of the source is partisan to the material then you
>> have to consider they may be biased to their viewpoint. As less extreme
>> example might be two citations from a Republican and a Democrat. Both say
>> "My Party is the Best because our policies are..." - you can't use either
>> source to say one party is better, because they are partisan. But you
>> could
>> use it to relate their parties policies; and as partisans they are well
>> positioned to relate those policies!
>>
>> If the author is a third party, of course, that lends weight to their
>> material.
>>
>> The publisher is the stumbling block in this case; because it is a
>> non-expert [sic] researcher uploading material to Commons. What could
>> mitigate this is a detailed description of the methodology used to
>> collect
>> the citations, which would allow editors to review it for problems.
>>
>> One final thing to consider is that WP:V talks about controversial or
>> challenged material. Whilst that might be a risk policy on the face (it
>> would be easy to present something non-controversial but also not true as
>> fact) it's critical to letting us actually write article (otherwise we
>> would be stifled in citations :)). For example; I've sourced material to
>> personal sites before with minimal problems - sometimes it is questioned
>> and what I usually say is "If you can show someone saying the
>> opposite, or
>> make a sensible argument against, then lets remove it". (FWIW, and
>> this is
>> an aside, I think is relaxed form to building articles is a Good
>> Thing, and
>> we should do it more often - worrying about being wrong is stifling).
>>
>> So now I've picked it apart here is my thinking; Oral citations on
>> Commons
>> could be excellent sources in the right context.
>
> :)
>
>
>>
>> Sure if the material is disputed or otherwise problematic then it is
>> better
>> to look for a source that has peer review. But for simplistic, factual
>> things then I think it is rock solid. One example that comes to mind
>> (and I
>> don't know if the Oral citations covers this sort of thing) is this: I
>> was
>> recently on holiday in New Zealand. They have excellent museums there,
>> fanatically maintained (which is amazing compared to most countries...).
>> One nice feature is that a lot of the Mauri history exhibits have audio
>> from those of Mauri ancestory describing some cultural fact or other.
>> Things like recipes.
>
>
> Yes, we encountered exactly this. When looking for aspects of everyday
> life that people both widely knew about and did in India and South
> Africa, but were also undocumented in scholarship or even print,
> everything we had came back to 'culture'.
>
>
>> Something like that is an excellent oral citation; the author is
>> authoritative (being Mauri) and the content uncontroversial.
>>
>> Boiled down, I think that oral citations have a distinct place as a
>> source
>> - and we should encourage people to consider them as sources when
>> writing.
>> But they are not something you could, for example, base an entire article
>> around. We should also explore ways to make them more "reliable", and
>> more
>> usable. For example making them obviously available to experts in the
>> field
>> they cover.
>
>
> I agree that an article wholly based on oral citations is less desirable
> than an article that mixes traditional and non-traditional sources. Two
> things here though: (a) There are actually a pretty large number of
> things that are both widely known and done and not documented in print,
> so this is a real problem; and in these cases, having articles solely
> based on oral citations could still be useful, akin to a stub, awaiting
> further refinement. (b) Though this is not directly related to the
> conversation, it does relate to earlier points made by Sarah and you
> regarding primary sources. It is sometimes hard to separate fact from
> opinion within the oral citation - which is to say, X person's fact may
> be Y person's opinion, etc. - and in my opinion, even the cleanest set
> of facts gleamed from an oral citation will contain some perspective or
> opinion. I don't see that as a problem (and this is regardless of how it
> would parse through the OR policy) as long as the perspective is
> attributed as just that, or even challenged. We encountered this, and
> recorded it - in articles on village games in Limpopo in South Africa.
> The older ladies we spoke to said young people didn't play the games
> they had just shown us, and the young people we spoke to said they did,
> but with a slightly different template, and we recorded and reported it
> exactly as said, as two conflicting perspectives. (Would that be a
> responsible use of primary sources? I think so.)
>
>
>>
>> It *is* important to get secondary coverage of a topic, because we are
>> tertiary source. This is the core idea of our primary source policy;
>> if we
>> utilise primary material and research something to the extent that we are
>> the main authoritative source that becomes *hugely* problematic!
>>
>> And further, how these policies might apply to the idea of social
>> media, as
>>> well as more private archives, say, corporate archives, being used as
>>> citations? (And on that point, is there a difference between the the
>>> Native
>>> American folk archive at the Smithsonian and the corporate archives
>>> of the
>>> Michelin corporation in France, for our purposes?)
>>>
>> Corporate archives I would deal with in the same way as any primary
>> source;
>> use it to cite facts, bear in mind the author/publisher. WP:SPS talks
>> about
>> being wary of unduly self-serving material, and I think that is an
>> excellent way of putting the approach to corporate archives.
>
>
> I had an interesting discussion on this with Florence and Christophe, so
> I'll share this with them if they miss it here. My own first instinct is
> to trust a self-avowedly 'neutral' source (like the Smithsonian) more
> than a corporation (like Michelin) but for our purposes, it doesn't seem
> to make much sense to treat them any differently.

Bear with me, I'd love it if the Michelin Corp was opening its archives
:) But having worked for them and living in the city of their
headquarters, their discretion and love of confidentiality is such that
I doubt it will happen :(

The situation is complex. Should corp archives be somehow trusted or not
much or not at all. I would say "it depends".
It depends on the company (reputation).
It depends largely of which department produced the archives. Docs
produced by marketing departments should be taken with a HUGE pinch of
salt. The language is non neutral, they conveniently drop the
embarassing facts, and they tend to forget to put basic stuff such as
dates ("ok, it is written you produce 10 millions yoghurt, but when was
that ?") or references to countries ("ok, you write that you sell 10
millions of yoghurt in Global South, but can you better define which
Global South you are talking about ?") (yeah, true stories even if
figures are invented).

Docs produced by departments of research or finances, I would put a lot
of trust in them. There is always the bad luck to stumble on a cheating
company just as it also happens that Museum Staff host a black sheep
from time to time. But generally, I consider information out of these
departments quite safe.

But the most difficult ennoying point is simply that most corp archives
appear to be a mess. Because companies are bought and sold, information
is lost on the way. Because of poor communication between departments.
Because staff come and go. And because the acceleration of business
processes unfortunately make it so that in the past dozen of years, less
and less time and money has been spent (invested) on a proper archive
system, on good procedures and efficient implementation. So when you ask
"can you retrieve the past 20 years of sales regarding this yoghurt",
you'll get a blank stare. Truth is, no one knows the date and no one
knows where to find the info.

Some companies sometimes hire external services (private historians) to
"clean up" their archives and some good stuff can get out of this, such
as a book or a museum (Michelin did that. Do visit the museum
http://www.aventure-michelin.com/ if you happen to come. It is very
nicely done).

Usually, I recommand good sense. If the information does not appear
"weird" or "controversial" at all, I use the corp information as
"trusted source". If it is clearly misleading or potentially illegal
info, I trash it. But in between there is room to accept the data as
long as there is another source, that may not be so great but that
appears independant. For large companies, there are usually independant
sources. But for most medium size companies, not. I give the situation a
certain degree of tolerance.

Difficult to put that into any sort of policy except for "good sense".

Florence

>>
>> In terms of social media, this is tricky. Because social media is vastly
>> more accessible than other mediums - particularly to hacks. Wordpress
>> blogs
>> are trivial to make, for example, and you can sound authoritative or
>> convincing on a subject to a layman with only medium effort. I'd treat
>> these with more caution.
>>
>> Phew, that was dumped out in a stream of conciousness way - so it
>> might be
>> a bit "buggy". But that's what I figure :)
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> (Just as a note; I consider "publisher" quite broadly - i.e. the
>> person who
>> hosts or maintains the material)
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oral Citations Sourcing

Ziko van Dijk-2
Leave the use of historical sources to historians, and then cite from
their books. That's what historians are for.
Kind regards
Ziko


2012/2/24 Florence Devouard <[hidden email]>:

> On 2/23/12 7:29 PM, Achal Prabhala wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday 23 February 2012 01:10 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
>>>
>>> Splitting this off, Achal, I hope that's OK :)
>>>
>>> There's a discussion on at the reliable sources notice board, for
>>> instance,
>>>>
>>>> which highlights some of the interpretive problems you raise:
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/**
>>>>
>>>> Noticeboard#Oral_Citations<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Oral_Citations>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the pointer there; I'll try and place some comments in there
>>> later. It is certainly an interesting discussion.
>>>
>>> But here are some initial thoughts (please bear in mind I have only
>>> scanned
>>> that discussion, and whilst I have had an ongoing interest in the oral
>>> citations project I never dug into in too much depth). Also remember this
>>> is based on my interpretation of our policies, so others may well differ!
>>>
>>>
>>>> Can I ask you how you would analyse the work of the oral citations
>>>> project
>>>>
>>>> (http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Research:Oral_Citations<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations>)
>>>>
>>>> in terms of our policies on original research, and verifiability?
>>>>
>>> The best way I can address this is to lay out my thoughts on our sourcing
>>> policy.
>>>
>>> Material on Wikipedia can be divided into "fact" and "opinion". The
>>> latter
>>> of these is, perhaps confusingly, the simplest to address; because
>>> opinion,
>>> viewpoints and perception can quite easily be collated and summarised.
>>> The
>>> only real difficulty exists in figuring out which opinions are noteworthy
>>> to record.
>>>
>>> The problem is facts; as I am sure everyone can appreciate, facts are
>>> very
>>> easy to get wrong (maliciously or not). This is especially a problem in
>>> History where events can be pieced together via all manner of sources.
>>> Even
>>> WW2 history can differ dramatically depending on the accounts you read -
>>> some overuse oral citation (humans are fallible) and others misuse
>>> official
>>> records (which can range from faked through to inaccurate).
>>>
>>> The problem with primary sourcing of the oral form is that it comes
>>> directly from an individual - with all of their perceptions and
>>> biases. To
>>> make an extreme example out of this; imagine taking an oral citation from
>>> Hitler, and a Jew in a concentration camp. Such citations would, I
>>> imagine,
>>> give radically different viewpoints of the Holocaust. Obviously other
>>> accounts, by third parties, show us which account is accurate - but if we
>>> had only those two viewpoints I hope it is obvious how
>>> difficult separating fact and fiction could be (ignoring that any
>>> rational
>>> person would see the obvious).
>>
>>
>> Of course. So, for the oral citations project, we specifically chose
>> topics that are in the present, that are seen and done by thousands of
>> people (i.e. not obscure), and that are also as uncontroversial as
>> possible. Examples: village games, temple rituals, recipes.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> So that brings us to the ideas behind sourcing; which is that we should
>>> consider not only the material but author and publisher. This is
>>> important
>>> because if the author of the source is partisan to the material then you
>>> have to consider they may be biased to their viewpoint. As less extreme
>>> example might be two citations from a Republican and a Democrat. Both say
>>> "My Party is the Best because our policies are..." - you can't use either
>>> source to say one party is better, because they are partisan. But you
>>> could
>>> use it to relate their parties policies; and as partisans they are well
>>> positioned to relate those policies!
>>>
>>> If the author is a third party, of course, that lends weight to their
>>> material.
>>>
>>> The publisher is the stumbling block in this case; because it is a
>>> non-expert [sic] researcher uploading material to Commons. What could
>>> mitigate this is a detailed description of the methodology used to
>>> collect
>>> the citations, which would allow editors to review it for problems.
>>>
>>> One final thing to consider is that WP:V talks about controversial or
>>> challenged material. Whilst that might be a risk policy on the face (it
>>> would be easy to present something non-controversial but also not true as
>>> fact) it's critical to letting us actually write article (otherwise we
>>> would be stifled in citations :)). For example; I've sourced material to
>>> personal sites before with minimal problems - sometimes it is questioned
>>> and what I usually say is "If you can show someone saying the
>>> opposite, or
>>> make a sensible argument against, then lets remove it". (FWIW, and
>>> this is
>>> an aside, I think is relaxed form to building articles is a Good
>>> Thing, and
>>> we should do it more often - worrying about being wrong is stifling).
>>>
>>> So now I've picked it apart here is my thinking; Oral citations on
>>> Commons
>>> could be excellent sources in the right context.
>>
>>
>> :)
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Sure if the material is disputed or otherwise problematic then it is
>>> better
>>> to look for a source that has peer review. But for simplistic, factual
>>> things then I think it is rock solid. One example that comes to mind
>>> (and I
>>> don't know if the Oral citations covers this sort of thing) is this: I
>>> was
>>> recently on holiday in New Zealand. They have excellent museums there,
>>> fanatically maintained (which is amazing compared to most countries...).
>>> One nice feature is that a lot of the Mauri history exhibits have audio
>>> from those of Mauri ancestory describing some cultural fact or other.
>>> Things like recipes.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, we encountered exactly this. When looking for aspects of everyday
>> life that people both widely knew about and did in India and South
>> Africa, but were also undocumented in scholarship or even print,
>> everything we had came back to 'culture'.
>>
>>
>>> Something like that is an excellent oral citation; the author is
>>> authoritative (being Mauri) and the content uncontroversial.
>>>
>>> Boiled down, I think that oral citations have a distinct place as a
>>> source
>>> - and we should encourage people to consider them as sources when
>>> writing.
>>> But they are not something you could, for example, base an entire article
>>> around. We should also explore ways to make them more "reliable", and
>>> more
>>> usable. For example making them obviously available to experts in the
>>> field
>>> they cover.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree that an article wholly based on oral citations is less desirable
>> than an article that mixes traditional and non-traditional sources. Two
>> things here though: (a) There are actually a pretty large number of
>> things that are both widely known and done and not documented in print,
>> so this is a real problem; and in these cases, having articles solely
>> based on oral citations could still be useful, akin to a stub, awaiting
>> further refinement. (b) Though this is not directly related to the
>> conversation, it does relate to earlier points made by Sarah and you
>> regarding primary sources. It is sometimes hard to separate fact from
>> opinion within the oral citation - which is to say, X person's fact may
>> be Y person's opinion, etc. - and in my opinion, even the cleanest set
>> of facts gleamed from an oral citation will contain some perspective or
>> opinion. I don't see that as a problem (and this is regardless of how it
>> would parse through the OR policy) as long as the perspective is
>> attributed as just that, or even challenged. We encountered this, and
>> recorded it - in articles on village games in Limpopo in South Africa.
>> The older ladies we spoke to said young people didn't play the games
>> they had just shown us, and the young people we spoke to said they did,
>> but with a slightly different template, and we recorded and reported it
>> exactly as said, as two conflicting perspectives. (Would that be a
>> responsible use of primary sources? I think so.)
>>
>>
>>>
>>> It *is* important to get secondary coverage of a topic, because we are
>>> tertiary source. This is the core idea of our primary source policy;
>>> if we
>>> utilise primary material and research something to the extent that we are
>>> the main authoritative source that becomes *hugely* problematic!
>>>
>>> And further, how these policies might apply to the idea of social
>>> media, as
>>>>
>>>> well as more private archives, say, corporate archives, being used as
>>>> citations? (And on that point, is there a difference between the the
>>>> Native
>>>> American folk archive at the Smithsonian and the corporate archives
>>>> of the
>>>> Michelin corporation in France, for our purposes?)
>>>>
>>> Corporate archives I would deal with in the same way as any primary
>>> source;
>>> use it to cite facts, bear in mind the author/publisher. WP:SPS talks
>>> about
>>> being wary of unduly self-serving material, and I think that is an
>>> excellent way of putting the approach to corporate archives.
>>
>>
>>
>> I had an interesting discussion on this with Florence and Christophe, so
>> I'll share this with them if they miss it here. My own first instinct is
>> to trust a self-avowedly 'neutral' source (like the Smithsonian) more
>> than a corporation (like Michelin) but for our purposes, it doesn't seem
>> to make much sense to treat them any differently.
>
>
> Bear with me, I'd love it if the Michelin Corp was opening its archives :)
> But having worked for them and living in the city of their headquarters,
> their discretion and love of confidentiality is such that I doubt it will
> happen :(
>
> The situation is complex. Should corp archives be somehow trusted or not
> much or not at all. I would say "it depends".
> It depends on the company (reputation).
> It depends largely of which department produced the archives. Docs produced
> by marketing departments should be taken with a HUGE pinch of salt. The
> language is non neutral, they conveniently drop the embarassing facts, and
> they tend to forget to put basic stuff such as dates ("ok, it is written you
> produce 10 millions yoghurt, but when was that ?") or references to
> countries ("ok, you write that you sell 10 millions of yoghurt in Global
> South, but can you better define which Global South you are talking about
> ?") (yeah, true stories even if figures are invented).
>
> Docs produced by departments of research or finances, I would put a lot of
> trust in them. There is always the bad luck to stumble on a cheating company
> just as it also happens that Museum Staff host a black sheep from time to
> time. But generally, I consider information out of these departments quite
> safe.
>
> But the most difficult ennoying point is simply that most corp archives
> appear to be a mess. Because companies are bought and sold, information is
> lost on the way. Because of poor communication between departments. Because
> staff come and go. And because the acceleration of business processes
> unfortunately make it so that in the past dozen of years, less and less time
> and money has been spent (invested) on a proper archive system, on good
> procedures and efficient implementation. So when you ask "can you retrieve
> the past 20 years of sales regarding this yoghurt", you'll get a blank
> stare. Truth is, no one knows the date and no one knows where to find the
> info.
>
> Some companies sometimes hire external services (private historians) to
> "clean up" their archives and some good stuff can get out of this, such as a
> book or a museum (Michelin did that. Do visit the museum
> http://www.aventure-michelin.com/ if you happen to come. It is very nicely
> done).
>
> Usually, I recommand good sense. If the information does not appear "weird"
> or "controversial" at all, I use the corp information as "trusted source".
> If it is clearly misleading or potentially illegal info, I trash it. But in
> between there is room to accept the data as long as there is another source,
> that may not be so great but that appears independant. For large companies,
> there are usually independant sources. But for most medium size companies,
> not. I give the situation a certain degree of tolerance.
>
> Difficult to put that into any sort of policy except for "good sense".
>
> Florence
>
>>>
>>> In terms of social media, this is tricky. Because social media is vastly
>>> more accessible than other mediums - particularly to hacks. Wordpress
>>> blogs
>>> are trivial to make, for example, and you can sound authoritative or
>>> convincing on a subject to a layman with only medium effort. I'd treat
>>> these with more caution.
>>>
>>> Phew, that was dumped out in a stream of conciousness way - so it
>>> might be
>>> a bit "buggy". But that's what I figure :)
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> (Just as a note; I consider "publisher" quite broadly - i.e. the
>>> person who
>>> hosts or maintains the material)
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



--

-----------------------------------------------------------
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
http://wmnederland.nl/
-----------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oral Citations Sourcing

CasteloBranco
On 24-02-2012 07:48, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> Leave the use of historical sources to historians, and then cite from
> their books. That's what historians are for.
> Kind regards
> Ziko
Ziko,

there's a lack of historians writing books outside Europe/US, specially
on some traditional oral history. They love to write about what other
historians like, and the unpublished content remains unpublished.

If i understood correctly, Oral Citations Project doesn't intend to
replace books. Its focus is on what is not covered by books.

Amike,

Castelo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oral Citations Sourcing

Ziko van Dijk-2
Those people who would like to write on Wikipedia about any subject
can write a book or pdf about it. It does not have to be a scholarly
work in every aspect. And then, the Wikipedia in language X can decide
that it accepts this kind of literature as reliable. (Those various
standards are not uncommon in the different Wikipedias.)
Not everything has to happen *in* Wikipedia.
Kind regards
Ziko



2012/2/25 Castelo <[hidden email]>:

> On 24-02-2012 07:48, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
>>
>> Leave the use of historical sources to historians, and then cite from
>> their books. That's what historians are for.
>> Kind regards
>> Ziko
>
> Ziko,
>
> there's a lack of historians writing books outside Europe/US, specially on
> some traditional oral history. They love to write about what other
> historians like, and the unpublished content remains unpublished.
>
> If i understood correctly, Oral Citations Project doesn't intend to replace
> books. Its focus is on what is not covered by books.
>
> Amike,
>
> Castelo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



--

-----------------------------------------------------------
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
http://wmnederland.nl/
-----------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oral Citations Sourcing

CasteloBranco
On 24-02-2012 23:18, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> Those people who would like to write on Wikipedia about any subject
> can write a book or pdf about it. It does not have to be a scholarly
> work in every aspect. And then, the Wikipedia in language X can decide
> that it accepts this kind of literature as reliable. (Those various
> standards are not uncommon in the different Wikipedias.)
> Not everything has to happen*in*  Wikipedia.
> Kind regards
> Ziko
In the case of Oral Citations, the people who tells the facts are not
the same people who want to write on Wikipedia, and definitively, not
people willing to write a book or pdf. Editors are recording them for
using this material in Wikipedia.

We are willing to apply this in Brazil, with indigenous traditions. Some
of the indians cannot write a book, a pdf or a Wikipedia article and
those are exactly who have more expertise on their traditions. This can
give them authority when describing their rituals, clothings, artefacts,
fights, cuisine, etc., much more than a wikipedian can. And we still
have a huge lack on articles about them, because for certains indigenous
nations, there are almost no published material (some have no written
material at all, as far as i know). I live in the capital city, where
some of them usually come for present their culture in a national
museum, and go back to their territories. In moments like these, we
wikimedians can go there, take photos and record an interview (most
speak a bit Portuguese, as well as their own languages), for publishing
in Commons and Commons/Wikinews, respectively, for using in Wikipedia
articles.

I'm not thinking only on Wikipedia, we have also other projects not
mentioned here, that can work together on it. Each project for a kind of
content. In Wikinews, original reporting is fine, in Wikiversity, even
original research is fine. They can be more reliable than a book, in
some cases. It depends on how we do that, by reviewing, approval, etc,
there's a lot of extensions that can be used on it.

Castelo
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oral Citations Sourcing

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
I think it is important to remember that anyone trying to suppress the
truth, will lose in the long run.

--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oral Citations Sourcing

Lodewijk
In reply to this post by CasteloBranco
Hi Castelo,

just to make the discussion clearer: could you just give say 5 or 10
examples of topics where you believe oral citations are unavoidable? Then I
hope that Ziko in his turn can explain how we can write about those
examples without using them.

Best regards,
Lodewijk

No dia 25 de Fevereiro de 2012 05:17, Castelo <[hidden email]
> escreveu:

> On 24-02-2012 23:18, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
>
>> Those people who would like to write on Wikipedia about any subject
>> can write a book or pdf about it. It does not have to be a scholarly
>> work in every aspect. And then, the Wikipedia in language X can decide
>> that it accepts this kind of literature as reliable. (Those various
>> standards are not uncommon in the different Wikipedias.)
>> Not everything has to happen*in*  Wikipedia.
>> Kind regards
>> Ziko
>>
> In the case of Oral Citations, the people who tells the facts are not the
> same people who want to write on Wikipedia, and definitively, not people
> willing to write a book or pdf. Editors are recording them for using this
> material in Wikipedia.
>
> We are willing to apply this in Brazil, with indigenous traditions. Some
> of the indians cannot write a book, a pdf or a Wikipedia article and those
> are exactly who have more expertise on their traditions. This can give them
> authority when describing their rituals, clothings, artefacts, fights,
> cuisine, etc., much more than a wikipedian can. And we still have a huge
> lack on articles about them, because for certains indigenous nations, there
> are almost no published material (some have no written material at all, as
> far as i know). I live in the capital city, where some of them usually come
> for present their culture in a national museum, and go back to their
> territories. In moments like these, we wikimedians can go there, take
> photos and record an interview (most speak a bit Portuguese, as well as
> their own languages), for publishing in Commons and Commons/Wikinews,
> respectively, for using in Wikipedia articles.
>
> I'm not thinking only on Wikipedia, we have also other projects not
> mentioned here, that can work together on it. Each project for a kind of
> content. In Wikinews, original reporting is fine, in Wikiversity, even
> original research is fine. They can be more reliable than a book, in some
> cases. It depends on how we do that, by reviewing, approval, etc, there's a
> lot of extensions that can be used on it.
>
>
> Castelo
> ______________________________**_________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email].**org <[hidden email]>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/foundation-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oral Citations Sourcing

Ting Chen-2
Mountain, the first ever editor on zh-wp, and still active until today,
told me the following story one day (it was before the Oral Citation
project but I remembered the story very well):

He came from the coast of Shandong, and his father told him that earlier
there was a local tradition where people went early morning to the coast
to catch crabs or mollusks (one of them). They used to use a special
technique to catch the animals. But meanwhile no one is using this
technique anymore, not only because there are now plenty of crabs or
mollusks on the market from the hydroculture, but also because the coast
which was wild earlier are now all urbanized, with oil terminals and
harbors and those. When Mountain told me that story he felt he would
like to write down those stories because in maybe 10 or 20 years, latest
in 50 years, no one would ever know that there was such a thing on the
world. And that tradition would be lost for ever. But he also felt he
could not write them on Wikipedia because he had no resources, because
until now no of the ethmologists ever had interested on such traditions
and no academic resources ever mentioned it. With the Oral Citations
Sourcing it would be possible to interview the old people or even let
them show how the techniques worked.

Greetings
Ting

On 25.02.2012 09:02, wrote Lodewijk:

> Hi Castelo,
>
> just to make the discussion clearer: could you just give say 5 or 10
> examples of topics where you believe oral citations are unavoidable? Then I
> hope that Ziko in his turn can explain how we can write about those
> examples without using them.
>
> Best regards,
> Lodewijk
>


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oral Citations Sourcing

Ziko van Dijk-2
Yes Ting, and for these cases there is the method of [[oral history]].
This is a means to create what the Anglosaxons call "primary sources".
It is recorded and can later be used by a scholar (historian,
ethnologist etc.) for his research, for his "secondary sources".
These, with their scholar reflections, can be used by an encyclopedia.

There are good reasons for this way. One is, that it is not very
practical to cite from audiotapes/audiofiles. Another, that what this
individual is describing may be true for his personal environment but
cannot be generalized to others. For that, one needs the scholar.
Remember: witnesses are the most unreliable source ever. People tell
you plain nonsense - not because they want to ly or are stupid but
because the human brain is simply not created to be a historian. It
has the greatest difficulties to store information truthfully. So you
need to record, and compare the different assertions from different
people.

It is a possibility to record oral and visual expressions from
illiterates, and only later to do something with it scholarly. But all
this has nothing to do with Wikipedia.

Kind regards
Ziko



2012/2/25 Ting Chen <[hidden email]>:

> Mountain, the first ever editor on zh-wp, and still active until today, told
> me the following story one day (it was before the Oral Citation project but
> I remembered the story very well):
>
> He came from the coast of Shandong, and his father told him that earlier
> there was a local tradition where people went early morning to the coast to
> catch crabs or mollusks (one of them). They used to use a special technique
> to catch the animals. But meanwhile no one is using this technique anymore,
> not only because there are now plenty of crabs or mollusks on the market
> from the hydroculture, but also because the coast which was wild earlier are
> now all urbanized, with oil terminals and harbors and those. When Mountain
> told me that story he felt he would like to write down those stories because
> in maybe 10 or 20 years, latest in 50 years, no one would ever know that
> there was such a thing on the world. And that tradition would be lost for
> ever. But he also felt he could not write them on Wikipedia because he had
> no resources, because until now no of the ethmologists ever had interested
> on such traditions and no academic resources ever mentioned it. With the
> Oral Citations Sourcing it would be possible to interview the old people or
> even let them show how the techniques worked.
>
> Greetings
> Ting
>
> On 25.02.2012 09:02, wrote Lodewijk:
>
>> Hi Castelo,
>>
>> just to make the discussion clearer: could you just give say 5 or 10
>> examples of topics where you believe oral citations are unavoidable? Then
>> I
>> hope that Ziko in his turn can explain how we can write about those
>> examples without using them.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Lodewijk
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



--

-----------------------------------------------------------
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
http://wmnederland.nl/
-----------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oral Citations Sourcing

Florence Devouard-3
In reply to this post by CasteloBranco
On 2/25/12 2:12 AM, Castelo wrote:

> On 24-02-2012 07:48, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
>> Leave the use of historical sources to historians, and then cite from
>> their books. That's what historians are for.
>> Kind regards
>> Ziko
> Ziko,
>
> there's a lack of historians writing books outside Europe/US, specially
> on some traditional oral history. They love to write about what other
> historians like, and the unpublished content remains unpublished.
>
> If i understood correctly, Oral Citations Project doesn't intend to
> replace books. Its focus is on what is not covered by books.
>
> Amike,
>
> Castelo
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


Most companies do not get a dedicated historian to deal with their own
archives. Few historian do that as volunteers, and many companies just
do not spend money on this type of activity.

Florence


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oral Citations Sourcing

Ting Chen-2
In reply to this post by Ziko van Dijk-2
Hello Ziko,

I disagree :-)

Yes, it is the way how classic encyclopedia worked. But Wikipedia is not
a classic encyclopedia, and I don't see the sense to bound ourselves
possibilities just to please some old traditional rules.

Classic encyclopedias were written by scholars, Wikipedia is not.
Wikipedia say, everyone can work on an encyclopedia, and because of
this, the content included in Wikipedia is far more richer and broader
than in a classic encyclopedia.

Scholars have limited capacities. A lot of things scholars cannot pay
attention to everything. In give everyone the possibility to pay
attention to what they think is interesting and important in their life,
we can free a lot of potentials that the scholars cannot.

Scholars have their own point of view. Over eons scholars thought only
what kings and knights did are important for the history. We know today
this is wrong, and the scholars of today are happy if they can find a
garbage dump from a village of thousands of years ago, so that they can
catch a glimps about how people lived then. Suppose the people in those
villages could have recorded their lives with the oral citations.

In the history of science it is proven many times that also amateurs can
provide breakthroughs and insights that scholars neglected. Done in an
orderly way oral citations on Wikimedia projects can provide a lot of
sources and informations that the scholarship are not able to because of
the lack of capacity, interest, ideology.

And Ziko, you didn't answer Lodewijk's question. Lodewijk asked examples
where Castelo (in this case me) think oral citation is inavoidable. And
he asked you to say how this can be solved without oral citation. The
method you come upon is not a solution, because maybe no scholar will
probably ever write anything about the crab catchers when the coast of
Shandong was still rural. Which means, you think this would be lost for
ever. And you take it is (probably as sad), but given. But I think there
are possibilities where we can save such knowledges. And that is engage
and enpower volunteers to gather these informations, as I said, in an
orderly way.

Greetings
Ting

Am 25.02.2012 11:47, schrieb Ziko van Dijk:

> Yes Ting, and for these cases there is the method of [[oral history]].
> This is a means to create what the Anglosaxons call "primary sources".
> It is recorded and can later be used by a scholar (historian,
> ethnologist etc.) for his research, for his "secondary sources".
> These, with their scholar reflections, can be used by an encyclopedia.
>
> There are good reasons for this way. One is, that it is not very
> practical to cite from audiotapes/audiofiles. Another, that what this
> individual is describing may be true for his personal environment but
> cannot be generalized to others. For that, one needs the scholar.
> Remember: witnesses are the most unreliable source ever. People tell
> you plain nonsense - not because they want to ly or are stupid but
> because the human brain is simply not created to be a historian. It
> has the greatest difficulties to store information truthfully. So you
> need to record, and compare the different assertions from different
> people.
>
> It is a possibility to record oral and visual expressions from
> illiterates, and only later to do something with it scholarly. But all
> this has nothing to do with Wikipedia.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
> 2012/2/25 Ting Chen<[hidden email]>:
>> Mountain, the first ever editor on zh-wp, and still active until today, told
>> me the following story one day (it was before the Oral Citation project but
>> I remembered the story very well):
>>
>> He came from the coast of Shandong, and his father told him that earlier
>> there was a local tradition where people went early morning to the coast to
>> catch crabs or mollusks (one of them). They used to use a special technique
>> to catch the animals. But meanwhile no one is using this technique anymore,
>> not only because there are now plenty of crabs or mollusks on the market
>> from the hydroculture, but also because the coast which was wild earlier are
>> now all urbanized, with oil terminals and harbors and those. When Mountain
>> told me that story he felt he would like to write down those stories because
>> in maybe 10 or 20 years, latest in 50 years, no one would ever know that
>> there was such a thing on the world. And that tradition would be lost for
>> ever. But he also felt he could not write them on Wikipedia because he had
>> no resources, because until now no of the ethmologists ever had interested
>> on such traditions and no academic resources ever mentioned it. With the
>> Oral Citations Sourcing it would be possible to interview the old people or
>> even let them show how the techniques worked.
>>
>> Greetings
>> Ting
>>
>> On 25.02.2012 09:02, wrote Lodewijk:
>>
>>> Hi Castelo,
>>>
>>> just to make the discussion clearer: could you just give say 5 or 10
>>> examples of topics where you believe oral citations are unavoidable? Then
>>> I
>>> hope that Ziko in his turn can explain how we can write about those
>>> examples without using them.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Lodewijk
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>


--
Ting

Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oral Citations Sourcing

CasteloBranco
In reply to this post by Lodewijk
On 25-02-2012 06:02, Lodewijk wrote:
> Hi Castelo,
>
> just to make the discussion clearer: could you just give say 5 or 10
> examples of topics where you believe oral citations are unavoidable? Then I
> hope that Ziko in his turn can explain how we can write about those
> examples without using them.
>
> Best regards,
> Lodewijk
Hi, Lodewijk

I don't believe oral citations are unavoidable, i believe they can help
in sourcing informations not yet covered by printed materials. Yes, it's
possibile to avoid them, but "possible" doesn't means "feasible", in
practical terms. All information that we can have by oral citations
surely can be inserted in a book, someday. But for centuries, this
wasn't made, and there's no evidence to think they will be now. I will
then rather give you one example on oral citations can be more feasible
than classical sources:

In Brazil, there are ~230 indigenous peoples, each one with their own
traditions, clothing, cuisine, rituals, beliefs, and languages. Some of
them are well covered by anthropologists, while others aren't. We can
say a lot in an article on Yanomami people [1], but on the AikanĂ£[2],
all the info published in books or in internet are already in the
article, and there are still a huge lack about their traditions, and
their differences to the others. That solution of "wait for a book to be
published by someone" is been used, with minor results, in this case. By
oral citations, we don't want to replace the info already inserted, but
we can complement the article, by inserting info about what is missing,
and we can easily check by ourselves, as i told before (attending a
presentation of the people itself at indigenous national museum and
recording an interview for collect those specific informations that are
not covered by the sources we found).

In my opinion, and i already pointed that in Meta discussion, Wikipedia
is not the place for original content, but Wikinews can publish the
interviews and the content can be uploaded to Commons so others
volunteers can check the material. We can create an editing process that
fits the criteria for reliable sources in Wikipedia. I don't see any
diference between this and using a newspaper that would make exactly the
same thing (well, a bit less transparently) and would be undoubtly
considered a reliable source. The only reason for this is that are no
newspapers or books covering this issues now (and in the last 5
centuries). How long we must wait for them to start covering those
topics, before we can edit well-known (and undisputed) informations
about that?

Regards,

Castelo

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanomami
[2] http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aican%C3%A3s


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oral Citations Sourcing

Michael Peel-4

On 25 Feb 2012, at 17:15, Castelo wrote:

> In my opinion, and i already pointed that in Meta discussion, Wikipedia is not the place for original content, but Wikinews can publish the interviews and the content can be uploaded to Commons so others volunteers can check the material.

Actually, Wikipedia sort of is the place for original content - when it comes to illustrations in articles. It's possible to envisage audio recordings being used in appropriate Wikipedia articles along the lines of 'listen to a fisherman from the coast of Shandong talk about his work', more in the current role of pictures/photographs rather than as references.

Just a thought.

Thanks,
Mike


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oral Citations Sourcing

CasteloBranco
On 25-02-2012 15:58, Michael Peel wrote:
> Actually, Wikipedia sort of is the place for original content - when it comes to illustrations in articles.
Those illustrations are mainly in Commons, with exception of the images
in fair use, but linked in the articles. That kind of original content
also plays a minor role, only "illustrating" the article, but we cannot
reference a sentence as "vide image", for instance.
> It's possible to envisage audio recordings being used in appropriate Wikipedia articles along the lines of 'listen to a fisherman from the coast of Shandong talk about his work', more in the current role of pictures/photographs rather than as references.
In this case, the audio files will be in Commons, too, and as you
pointed, won't be used for referencing a specific assertation in the
text. It will be, just like images, illustrating the written content, as
we do now with music samples in musicians biography[1]. I suggest
transcribe the interview for Wikinews and use it in inline citations, as
in {{cite news}}, for i) easier checking than by {{cite video}} and ii)
facilitate translating.

Castelo

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Dickinson#Singing_style

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oral Citations Sourcing

Ziko van Dijk-2
As said, all the great things Oral history can be done - outside of
Wikipedia. And what local Wikipedians like to do with it, will be
decided in the community.
Kind regards
Ziko


2012/2/25 Castelo <[hidden email]>:

> On 25-02-2012 15:58, Michael Peel wrote:
>>
>> Actually, Wikipedia sort of is the place for original content - when it
>> comes to illustrations in articles.
>
> Those illustrations are mainly in Commons, with exception of the images in
> fair use, but linked in the articles. That kind of original content also
> plays a minor role, only "illustrating" the article, but we cannot reference
> a sentence as "vide image", for instance.
>
>> It's possible to envisage audio recordings being used in appropriate
>> Wikipedia articles along the lines of 'listen to a fisherman from the coast
>> of Shandong talk about his work', more in the current role of
>> pictures/photographs rather than as references.
>
> In this case, the audio files will be in Commons, too, and as you pointed,
> won't be used for referencing a specific assertation in the text. It will
> be, just like images, illustrating the written content, as we do now with
> music samples in musicians biography[1]. I suggest transcribe the interview
> for Wikinews and use it in inline citations, as in {{cite news}}, for i)
> easier checking than by {{cite video}} and ii) facilitate translating.
>
> Castelo
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Dickinson#Singing_style
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



--

-----------------------------------------------------------
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
http://wmnederland.nl/
-----------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oral Citations Sourcing

CasteloBranco
On 25-02-2012 23:02, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> As said, all the great things Oral history can be done - outside of
> Wikipedia.
Yes, it "can be done" but it's not "been made". The information is there
for decades or centuries, and it was never registered outside of
Wikipedia, and now we have interested people, available time and enough
resources to make it happen.

We already did a lot of things that could be made (less efficiently,
indeed) outside Wikipedia. Let's begin with Wikipedia itself. And what
about Wikimedia Commons?

This is knowledge, and our commitment is to freely share the knowledge
with every human being, so change the question from "Why?" to "Why not?".

Castelo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oral Citations Sourcing

Ziko van Dijk-2
Dear Castelo,

We are in danger to repeat ourselves. :-) Short and simply, my statement:
* WP is an encyclopedia, with all what that means;
* the difference between primary sources and secondary sources is of
vital importance (at least in the perspective of most historians).

Kind regards
Ziko


2012/2/26 Castelo <[hidden email]>:

> On 25-02-2012 23:02, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
>>
>> As said, all the great things Oral history can be done - outside of
>> Wikipedia.
>
> Yes, it "can be done" but it's not "been made". The information is there for
> decades or centuries, and it was never registered outside of Wikipedia, and
> now we have interested people, available time and enough resources to make
> it happen.
>
> We already did a lot of things that could be made (less efficiently, indeed)
> outside Wikipedia. Let's begin with Wikipedia itself. And what about
> Wikimedia Commons?
>
> This is knowledge, and our commitment is to freely share the knowledge with
> every human being, so change the question from "Why?" to "Why not?".
>
> Castelo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



--

-----------------------------------------------------------
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
http://wmnederland.nl/
-----------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oral Citations Sourcing

CasteloBranco
On 26-02-2012 11:34, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> Dear Castelo,
>
> We are in danger to repeat ourselves.
Right, friend, let's not say same things again. xD
I'll only add, and not repeat, because i agree with you in what you
pointed below. I just think your list require some adittional items (as
my list can probably be improved, too).
> * WP is an encyclopedia, with all what that means;
* Wikipedia is a very important WMF project, but not the only one.
* WP rules only apply inside WP. The others can create their own rules,
that can differ significantly from the WP ones.
* WN is a news source, with all what that means (which includes original
reports);
* WV is a source for learning resources, as well as for conducting
original research;
> * the difference between primary sources and secondary sources is of
> vital importance (at least in the perspective of most historians).
* With our different projects working together, each one with each kind
of content, it's possible to cover many topics not yet covered,
including the Shandong's crab-catching technique, corporate info and the
Brazilian indigenous traditions. The primary sources can also be used
and secondary sources can be produced by WN and WV, and provided for
referencing Wikipedia as reliable sources, by fitting the criteria for
that.

> Kind regards
> Ziko
Amike kaj samideane,

Castelo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12