Mailing List Archive

>1. I am NOT saying that every fact in Wikipedia must be sourced or removed.
>2. I am saying that every fact in Wikipedia should be SOURCEABLE.
>3. I am not saying that everyone must give their sources whenever they edit.
>4. I am saying that we can encourage people to work on a project to find
>sources for each fact, just like we have encouraged people to fix commas or
>categorize stubs.
>5. I am not saying that people who cannot source should be discouraged from
>editing.
>6. I am saying that we should encourage people to find sources, for their
>own work and for other's work as well.
>7. I am saying that there are many different types of sources, and we should
>find ways of including them. (BTW, in a previous job I worked extensively
>with oral histories, which are a wonderful source of information, even if they
>must always be verified).
>7. Finally, I am saying that high quality is NOT something we can compromise.
>
>
Danny, I understand what you mean - I understood that even before - many
of us will understand this, but many others will not ... and the problem
will not be those who understand, but those who do not understand and
who apply "rules" in a different way. Do not misunderstand my mail - it
shall make people reflect on what might happen.

When you talk about "cite sources" never ever put it into connection to
people editing and adding contents - it must be seen as something
separate - many people are not able to "separate" things themselves they
will combine and make something different out of all this.

Ciao, Sabine





___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, 3 Dec 2005, Sabine Cretella wrote:

> When you talk about "cite sources" never ever put it into connection to
> people editing and adding contents - it must be seen as something separate -
> many people are not able to "separate" things themselves they will combine
> and make something different out of all this.

What does this mean? How can citations be separate from adding content?
Only the person adding a fact actually knows where it came from; other
people can do nothing but guess.

SJ
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 12/3/05, daniwo59@aol.com <daniwo59@aol.com> wrote:
> I want to outline my position here, so that there is no misunderstanding, as
> there seems to be.
>
> 1. I am NOT saying that every fact in Wikipedia must be sourced or removed.
> 2. I am saying that every fact in Wikipedia should be SOURCEABLE.
> 3. I am not saying that everyone must give their sources whenever they edit.
> 4. I am saying that we can encourage people to work on a project to find
> sources for each fact, just like we have encouraged people to fix commas or
> categorize stubs.
> 5. I am not saying that people who cannot source should be discouraged from
> editing.
> 6. I am saying that we should encourage people to find sources, for their
> own work and for other's work as well.
> 7. I am saying that there are many different types of sources, and we should
> find ways of including them. (BTW, in a previous job I worked extensively
> with oral histories, which are a wonderful source of information, even if they
> must always be verified).
> 7. Finally, I am saying that high quality is NOT something we can compromise.
>
> Danny

This seems like a reasonable approach... Actually, strike that, it
seems like what we already should be doing, in theory -- isn't it
already true that every fact must be sourceable? We (myself included)
just aren't so good at enforcing it by catching questionable
statements and trying to source them.

-Kat
[[en:User:Mindspillage]]

--
"There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily
escaped the chronicler's mind." --Douglas Adams
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

>> When you talk about "cite sources" never ever put it into connection
>> to people editing and adding contents - it must be seen as something
>> separate - many people are not able to "separate" things themselves
>> they will combine and make something different out of all this.
>
>
> What does this mean? How can citations be separate from adding content?
> Only the person adding a fact actually knows where it came from; other
> people can do nothing but guess.

No: if I can add things I do - but I must not add anything.

For example: I know loads of stuff because of my job, but I cannot give
you a source at once that confirms it - if I must research for that
source to contribute I simply will not contribute, since I have only a
certain amount of time. Someone else who knows a source that confirms it
can add it - otherwise: well you will need to rely on what I learnt
during the past 40 years ...

Whoever believes without asking in something written ... well ... if I
do a research on a certain topic I do not only believe what is written
in one encyclopaedia (take Brockhaus and Treccani - they sometimes
differ a bit), but I have a look at other sources as well ... so what I
learnt comes out of reading many, many books, letters, questions and
answers, e-mails, websites, notes, whitepapers and whatever - all is
somewhat related and confirmed. I know that I can rely on it - certainly
I am not even able to research again all what I learnt only during the
past 10 years (and I am not willing to do it - it would be like saying
to a professor: when you give lessons you need to show me where you
learnt your lessons and where what you say is confirmed).

Ciao, Sabine





___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, 3 Dec 2005, Kat Walsh wrote:

> This seems like a reasonable approach... Actually, strike that, it
> seems like what we already should be doing, in theory -- isn't it
> already true that every fact must be sourceable? We (myself included)
> just aren't so good at enforcing it by catching questionable
> statements and trying to source them.

I would say yes, this is what we should be doing... but it is only in theory
because it is so laborious to do right atm.

There's no simple visual/textual way to densely-source an article (though there
have been various attempts); serious footnoting is unsupported in software and
non-trivial to hack. And there's not yet a culture of footnoting / citing the
way there is a culture of stub-sorting -- the style guidelines for referencing
exists, but should be more popular.

Finally, there is currently no way to maintain information *about* references,
nor to maintain a single best-citation for each work. Every author has to
figure out the proper full cite for a work, and cannot simply find the other
pages/articles which used the same work.

A layered suggestion:


Step 1 : Strongly promote the current recommended footnote system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes

Step 2 : Strongly encourage the use of proper full cites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles/Generic_citations

Step 3 : Add software features making each of these easier : add localizable
strings for each field-name for cites and footnotes; then add 'footnote' and
'cite' buttons to the edit toolbar; provide "footnote" markup that handles
autonumbering; add a keyboard-shortcut for footnoting; add footnote- and
citation-aware menu options to WP browser plugins.

Step 4 : Work on unifying "References"/ "Citations"/ "Sources"/ "Bibliography"/
"External link[s]"/ "Further reading" style at the end of each article.

Step 5 : Add separate 'references' pages for every article. These pages should
include: the date the article was created; the date of the last non-minor edit;
the list of users, ips, and flagged-bots that have edited the article; a list
of sources and other references that had been added at some point to the
article; even a clear list of metadata about the article
(protection/pov/cleanup/quality- assessment status).

Step 6 : Add a namespace/project to store the best-known information about
every source used on any project, including user comments and trackbacks to
articles referencing each source. (Optionally: seed this project with OpenCat
content.)

Step 6.5: Add a wikitext feature like "{{cite:ISBN 0518274822|pp 12-23}}"
which would subst: in the details of that work in proper citation format.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikicite

SJ
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

This is certainly a step in the right direction.

In a message dated 12/3/2005 10:55:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,
2.718281828@gmail.com writes:

A layered suggestion:


Step 1 : Strongly promote the current recommended footnote system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes

Step 2 : Strongly encourage the use of proper full cites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles/G
eneric_citations

Step 3 : Add software features making each of these easier : add localizable

strings for each field-name for cites and footnotes; then add 'footnote' and
'cite' buttons to the edit toolbar; provide "footnote" markup that handles
autonumbering; add a keyboard-shortcut for footnoting; add footnote- and
citation-aware menu options to WP browser plugins.

Step 4 : Work on unifying "References"/ "Citations"/ "Sources"/
"Bibliography"/
"External link[s]"/ "Further reading" style at the end of each article.

Step 5 : Add separate 'references' pages for every article. These pages
should
include: the date the article was created; the date of the last non-minor
edit;
the list of users, ips, and flagged-bots that have edited the article; a
list
of sources and other references that had been added at some point to the
article; even a clear list of metadata about the article
(protection/pov/cleanup/quality- assessment status).

Step 6 : Add a namespace/project to store the best-known information about
every source used on any project, including user comments and trackbacks to
articles referencing each source. (Optionally: seed this project with
OpenCat
content.)

Step 6.5: Add a wikitext feature like "{{cite:ISBN 0518274822|pp 12-23}}"
which would subst: in the details of that work in proper citation format.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikicite




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

SJ wrote:

>> When you talk about "cite sources" never ever put it into connection
>> to people editing and adding contents - it must be seen as something
>> separate - many people are not able to "separate" things themselves
>> they will combine and make something different out of all this.
>
> What does this mean? How can citations be separate from adding content?
> Only the person adding a fact actually knows where it came from; other
> people can do nothing but guess.

Why does it matter where it came from? Except in cases where you're
dealing with a primary source and it's essential to check the original,
the choice of sources is just as subject to editing as the content. If I
add content and cite a pathetically bad source, the source does not need
to stay in the article even if it happens to be right (if it happens to
be wrong and represents a significant point of view might be another
matter). Other people can find other and often better sources even if
they're unable to determine what the initial source was, and if the case
involves a primary source then the information inherently points to
where you need to look.

Many people don't seem to understand this and think there's some kind of
rule that once a source has been used in the writing of an article, it
must be cited or preserved in a References section for all time. Even
normal scholarly practice doesn't require this (else probably most
Wikipedia articles would need to cite other Wikipedia articles as
references), and we in particular should be able to get past such
limited ways of thinking. One of the virtues of our collaborative system
is that there is very little need to try and divine the intent of an
original author, and we needn't be beholden to that person in terms of
choosing sources either.

--Michael Snow
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Michael Snow wrote:

> SJ wrote:
>
>>> When you talk about "cite sources" never ever put it into connection
>>> to people editing and adding contents - it must be seen as something
>>> separate - many people are not able to "separate" things themselves
>>> they will combine and make something different out of all this.
>>
>>
>> What does this mean? How can citations be separate from adding content?
>> Only the person adding a fact actually knows where it came from;
>> other people can do nothing but guess.
>
>
> Why does it matter where it came from? Except in cases where you're
> dealing with a primary source and it's essential to check the
> original, the choice of sources is just as subject to editing as the
> content. If I add content and cite a pathetically bad source, the
> source does not need to stay in the article even if it happens to be
> right (if it happens to be wrong and represents a significant point of
> view might be another matter). Other people can find other and often
> better sources even if they're unable to determine what the initial
> source was, and if the case involves a primary source then the
> information inherently points to where you need to look.
>
> Many people don't seem to understand this and think there's some kind
> of rule that once a source has been used in the writing of an article,
> it must be cited or preserved in a References section for all time.
> Even normal scholarly practice doesn't require this (else probably
> most Wikipedia articles would need to cite other Wikipedia articles as
> references), and we in particular should be able to get past such
> limited ways of thinking. One of the virtues of our collaborative
> system is that there is very little need to try and divine the intent
> of an original author, and we needn't be beholden to that person in
> terms of choosing sources either.

On the contrary, any published books, such as.... Encyclopaedia
Britannica, has every single one of the its facts checked against each
individual source. This is a requirement of the publisher, and of the
company. They don't make their sources public, so we have to trust them,
but because they have checked each fact, it is usually alright to trust
them. We, on the other hand, by default are accepting new information
without any sources.

By listing our sources, we will become more trusted than even
Encyclopaedia Britannica, who, though sourcing all their facts, doesn't
make their sources public.

As for the often-repeated "anyone can fake a source" or "this will put a
false trust in sources".... Please stop and think about how ridiculous
this statement is, for the simple reason that: before you can even check
the validity of a source, you need that source to be listed. You can't
check the validity of unsourced information unless you go out and find
sources for it. Listing sources does that job for you, but the sources
still need to be checked for validity. That is the job of the reader who
wants to know if he can trust our information.

Please, everyone, stop this paranoia. Any scheme that would involve
_visually_ identifying unsourced information would be a SETTING that
users can turn on or off.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Brian wrote:

> On the contrary, any published books, such as.... Encyclopaedia
> Britannica, has every single one of the its facts checked
> against each individual source. This is a requirement of the
> publisher, and of the company.

This is an interesting statement. What sources do you have for
your description of how the editors of EB work? Has this been
documented in public?


--
Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Lars Aronsson wrote:

>Brian wrote:
>
>
>
>>On the contrary, any published books, such as.... Encyclopaedia
>>Britannica, has every single one of the its facts checked
>>against each individual source. This is a requirement of the
>>publisher, and of the company.
>>
>>
>
>This is an interesting statement. What sources do you have for
>your description of how the editors of EB work? Has this been
>documented in public?
>
Danny originally brought this fact up because he is writing a reference
book as part of a series of books to be published. Every single one of
the statements he made in the book had to have a source. He said it took
several months for every one of his facts to be checked against every
single source. This is how it works in the world of publishing. We have
simply side-stepped this out of laziness, in my opinion.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, 3 Dec 2005, Michael Snow wrote:

> SJ wrote:
>
>>> When you talk about "cite sources" never ever put it into connection to
>>> people editing and adding contents - it must be seen as something separate
>>> - many people are not able to "separate" things themselves they will
>>> combine and make something different out of all this.
>>
>> What does this mean? How can citations be separate from adding content?
>> Only the person adding a fact actually knows where it came from; other
>> people can do nothing but guess.
>
> Why does it matter where it came from? Except in cases where you're dealing
> with a primary source and it's essential to check the original, the choice of
> sources is just as subject to editing as the content. If I add content and

Don't misunderstand me; I mean that the original author can fairly effortlessly
add a line about his/her source; whereas the next reader to come along will
have to do significantly more work to find a relevant source and cite it.

Of course sources need to change, early sources should be replaced by better
ones, etc.

(On the other hand, if weh ave a separate sources page for each article,
it will be easier to cleanly see the history of sourcing -- which will also be
a good thing)


> to try and divine the intent of an original author, and we needn't be
> beholden to that person in terms of choosing sources either.

Yes, not beholden. But when adding content, mentioning your source should be
second nature, for all contributors. We should not try to 'separate' citing
from adding content.

SJ



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Brian wrote:

> Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> SJ wrote:
>>
>>>> When you talk about "cite sources" never ever put it into
>>>> connection to people editing and adding contents - it must be seen
>>>> as something separate - many people are not able to "separate"
>>>> things themselves they will combine and make something different
>>>> out of all this.
>>>
>>> What does this mean? How can citations be separate from adding
>>> content?
>>> Only the person adding a fact actually knows where it came from;
>>> other people can do nothing but guess.
>>
>> Why does it matter where it came from? Except in cases where you're
>> dealing with a primary source and it's essential to check the
>> original, the choice of sources is just as subject to editing as the
>> content. If I add content and cite a pathetically bad source, the
>> source does not need to stay in the article even if it happens to be
>> right (if it happens to be wrong and represents a significant point
>> of view might be another matter). Other people can find other and
>> often better sources even if they're unable to determine what the
>> initial source was, and if the case involves a primary source then
>> the information inherently points to where you need to look.
>>
>> Many people don't seem to understand this and think there's some kind
>> of rule that once a source has been used in the writing of an
>> article, it must be cited or preserved in a References section for
>> all time. Even normal scholarly practice doesn't require this (else
>> probably most Wikipedia articles would need to cite other Wikipedia
>> articles as references), and we in particular should be able to get
>> past such limited ways of thinking. One of the virtues of our
>> collaborative system is that there is very little need to try and
>> divine the intent of an original author, and we needn't be beholden
>> to that person in terms of choosing sources either.
>
> On the contrary, any published books, such as.... Encyclopaedia
> Britannica, has every single one of the its facts checked against each
> individual source. This is a requirement of the publisher, and of the
> company. They don't make their sources public, so we have to trust
> them, but because they have checked each fact, it is usually alright
> to trust them. We, on the other hand, by default are accepting new
> information without any sources.

Perhaps I wasn't quite clear. I was addressing the separability of
citations from content, but I wasn't suggesting removing source
citations unless you're replacing them with better sources.

--Michael Snow
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Brian wrote:

> Lars Aronsson wrote:
>
>> Brian wrote:
>>
>>> On the contrary, any published books, such as.... Encyclopaedia
>>> Britannica, has every single one of the its facts checked against
>>> each individual source. This is a requirement of the publisher, and
>>> of the company.
>>
>> This is an interesting statement. What sources do you have for your
>> description of how the editors of EB work? Has this been documented
>> in public?
>
> Danny originally brought this fact up because he is writing a
> reference book as part of a series of books to be published. Every
> single one of the statements he made in the book had to have a source.
> He said it took several months for every one of his facts to be
> checked against every single source. This is how it works in the world
> of publishing. We have simply side-stepped this out of laziness, in my
> opinion.

It's great that you trust Danny, but some would think that using another
Wikipedian as a reference source is not a good idea. Now we just need
to bug Danny about his source for the specific question that was asked.
Good references need to be traceable.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

SJ wrote:

> On Sat, 3 Dec 2005, Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> SJ wrote:
>>
>>>> When you talk about "cite sources" never ever put it into
>>>> connection to people editing and adding contents - it must be seen
>>>> as something separate - many people are not able to "separate"
>>>> things themselves they will combine and make something different
>>>> out of all this.
>>>
>>> What does this mean? How can citations be separate from adding
>>> content?
>>> Only the person adding a fact actually knows where it came from;
>>> other people can do nothing but guess.
>>
>> Why does it matter where it came from? Except in cases where you're
>> dealing with a primary source and it's essential to check the
>> original, the choice of sources is just as subject to editing as the
>> content. If I add content and
>
> Don't misunderstand me; I mean that the original author can fairly
> effortlessly add a line about his/her source; whereas the next reader
> to come along will have to do significantly more work to find a
> relevant source and cite it.
>
> Of course sources need to change, early sources should be replaced by
> better ones, etc.

Right, I understand that wasn't precisely what you meant, but I was
arguing against possible implications of the way you approached it. The
reason I did that (and "misunderstood" you in the process) is because
many people, unlike you, misunderstand the use of sources. I've seen too
many occasions where somebody objected to getting rid of a poor-quality
source because some past author had used it, even if the article could
be supported just as well from other and better sources.

So my comments were directed at those people generally, perhaps to
little effect since most people on this list know better. Your message
just gave me an opportunity to vent.

--Michael Snow
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

The NY Times picked up the Seigenthaler story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04seelye.html

The following statement stroke me as interesting:

"On an electronic mailing list for them, J. Stephen Bolhafner, a news
researcher at The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, wrote, "The best defense
of the Wikipedia, frankly, is to point out how much bad information
is available from supposedly reliable sources."

I think this doesn't invalidate the use or importance of citing
sources and steadily improving quality, but just emphasizes how
Wikipedia needs to get users to think for themselves. That may be
obvious for everyone here but maybe not for the rest of the world.

Overall, the article is reasonably friendly, IMO.

Dirk

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Brian wrote:

> > > On the contrary, any published books, such as.... Encyclopaedia
> > > Britannica, has every single one of the its facts checked against each
> > > individual source. This is a requirement of the publisher, and of the
> > > company.
> >
> > This is an interesting statement. What sources do you have for your
> > description of how the editors of EB work? Has this been documented in
> > public?
> >
>
> Danny originally brought this fact up because he is writing a
> reference book as part of a series of books to be published.
> Every single one of the statements he made in the book had to
> have a source. He said it took several months for every one of
> his facts to be checked against every single source. This is how
> it works in the world of publishing. We have simply side-stepped
> this out of laziness, in my opinion.

So is Danny working for Encyclopaedia Britannica? And did they
require *him* to source every sentence because they didn't trust
*him* or do you know (from where?) that they require the same of
every author?

You are right now arguing that it is necessary to source every
fact, and then you are doing sweeping generalizations like this?!
I'm not trusting your insight into the editorial principles of
Encyclopaedia Britannica or indeed any other (printed)
encyclopedia and thus I'm asking you to provide some sources.


--
Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hi,

I can just provide my personal history here. I appear in the credits of
several popular reference works as everything from contributor to assistant
editor-in-chief (a horrible title, I might add, but then again, so was the book).
I have worked on these books for Simon and Shuster, Facts on File, Macmillan
(before it was gobbled up by Simon and Shuster), Reader's Digest, Henry Holt,
and Continuum. In each book, the facts were checked as Brian describes. In
fact, I remember one senior editor at Simon and Shuster boasting about how
they would pay grad students a certain amount of money for every mistake they
found. They were eager to find errors. I now have a manuscript of a book that I
wrote for Marshall Cavendish sitting on my desk. Every sentence was numbered
and checked. I have been asked to help source the material. I will be happy
to provide the email exchange.

Mind you, I am not suggesting that we go to these extremes. I do think it is
important, however, that people understand the lengths that publishers of
reference works go to in order to ensure the quality of their products. Of
course, some publishers are more meticulous than others. And despite all the
efforts, mistakes always managed to slip in anyway.

I am not about to say that because they do it, so should we. On the other
hand, I will state my personal belief that with 850,000 articles already in the
English Wikipedia, we should pay even more attention to quality than usual.

Danny

In a message dated 12/4/2005 12:40:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
lars@aronsson.se writes:

You are right now arguing that it is necessary to source every
fact, and then you are doing sweeping generalizations like this?!
I'm not trusting your insight into the editorial principles of
Encyclopaedia Britannica or indeed any other (printed)
encyclopedia and thus I'm asking you to provide some sources.





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I can just provide my personal history here. I appear in the credits of
> several popular reference works as everything from contributor to assistant
> editor-in-chief (a horrible title, I might add, but then again, so was the book).
> I have worked on these books for Simon and Shuster, Facts on File, Macmillan
> (before it was gobbled up by Simon and Shuster), Reader's Digest, Henry Holt,
> and Continuum. In each book, the facts were checked as Brian describes. In
> fact, I remember one senior editor at Simon and Shuster boasting about how
> they would pay grad students a certain amount of money for every mistake they
> found. They were eager to find errors. I now have a manuscript of a book that I
> wrote for Marshall Cavendish sitting on my desk. Every sentence was numbered
> and checked. I have been asked to help source the material. I will be happy
> to provide the email exchange.

I must add my similar experience there. I wrote several reports and
studies for institutions and academic fora, I always have to add the
maximum of elements to source it, and it's rarely enough.

I would enjoy using Wikipedia for my studies, but it's not possible as
of today. I would love if it could evolve the right way.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Brian wrote:

> Danny originally brought this fact up because he is writing a
> reference book as part of a series of books to be published. Every
> single one of the statements he made in the book had to have a source.
> He said it took several months for every one of his facts to be
> checked against every single source. This is how it works in the world
> of publishing. We have simply side-stepped this out of laziness, in my
> opinion.

This may happen with some higher-profile and better-funded works, but
I'm also an academic, and I'm quite certain that this isn't normal
practice. I know for a fact that MIT Press does not hire CS and
Engineering experts to meticulously review every line of the books they
publish, for example, and even with textbooks quality-control is often
directed primarily by the author (this is part of why there are *always*
lengthy lists of errata discovered within a week of a new textbook's
release). Even journal peer-review is often much more spot-checking
than one might think, with the exception of a few very high-profile (and
well-funded) journals like _Nature_ and _Science_.

-Mark

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 12/4/05, daniwo59@aol.com <daniwo59@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I can just provide my personal history here. I appear in the credits of
> several popular reference works as everything from contributor to assistant
> editor-in-chief (a horrible title, I might add, but then again, so was the book).
> I have worked on these books for Simon and Shuster, Facts on File, Macmillan
> (before it was gobbled up by Simon and Shuster), Reader's Digest, Henry Holt,
> and Continuum. In each book, the facts were checked as Brian describes. In
> fact, I remember one senior editor at Simon and Shuster boasting about how
> they would pay grad students a certain amount of money for every mistake they
> found. They were eager to find errors. I now have a manuscript of a book that I
> wrote for Marshall Cavendish sitting on my desk. Every sentence was numbered
> and checked. I have been asked to help source the material. I will be happy
> to provide the email exchange.
>
> Mind you, I am not suggesting that we go to these extremes. I do think it is
> important, however, that people understand the lengths that publishers of
> reference works go to in order to ensure the quality of their products. Of
> course, some publishers are more meticulous than others. And despite all the
> efforts, mistakes always managed to slip in anyway.
>
> I am not about to say that because they do it, so should we. On the other
> hand, I will state my personal belief that with 850,000 articles already in the
> English Wikipedia, we should pay even more attention to quality than usual.
>
> Danny

Is the normal process to number every sentence and then check them one
by one? Who is normally in charge of matching the sentences to the
sources, the author or the fact checker(s)? Are the sources
documented, and if so in what way? Do multiple people fact check the
same sentences?

Maybe we shouldn't do this, and even if we should there are probably
more efficient ways to do it using a wiki, and there are other
problems which would make our processes less efficient (it's gotta be
harder to fact check a constantly changing work, especially one with
such a multitude of different authors). But some more insight into
*how* all of this fact checking is accomplished would be helpful.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

daniwo59@aol.com wrote:

>I want to outline my position here, so that there is no misunderstanding, as
>there seems to be.
>
>1. I am NOT saying that every fact in Wikipedia must be sourced or removed.
>2. I am saying that every fact in Wikipedia should be SOURCEABLE.
>3. I am not saying that everyone must give their sources whenever they edit.
>4. I am saying that we can encourage people to work on a project to find
>sources for each fact, just like we have encouraged people to fix commas or
>categorize stubs.
>5. I am not saying that people who cannot source should be discouraged from
>editing.
>6. I am saying that we should encourage people to find sources, for their
>own work and for other's work as well.
>7. I am saying that there are many different types of sources, and we should
>find ways of including them. (BTW, in a previous job I worked extensively
>with oral histories, which are a wonderful source of information, even if they
>must always be verified).
>7. Finally, I am saying that high quality is NOT something we can compromise.
>
>
That's a very nice bulleted summary of exactly what our policy on
sources should be, IMO. =]

-Mark

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 12/9/05, Delirium <delirium@hackish.org> wrote:
> daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
>
> >I want to outline my position here, so that there is no misunderstanding, as
> >there seems to be.
> >
> >1. I am NOT saying that every fact in Wikipedia must be sourced or removed.
> >2. I am saying that every fact in Wikipedia should be SOURCEABLE.
> >3. I am not saying that everyone must give their sources whenever they edit.
> >4. I am saying that we can encourage people to work on a project to find
> >sources for each fact, just like we have encouraged people to fix commas or
> >categorize stubs.
> >5. I am not saying that people who cannot source should be discouraged from
> >editing.
> >6. I am saying that we should encourage people to find sources, for their
> >own work and for other's work as well.
> >7. I am saying that there are many different types of sources, and we should
> >find ways of including them. (BTW, in a previous job I worked extensively
> >with oral histories, which are a wonderful source of information, even if they
> >must always be verified).
> >7. Finally, I am saying that high quality is NOT something we can compromise.
> >
> >
> That's a very nice bulleted summary of exactly what our policy on
> sources should be, IMO. =]
>
> -Mark

Wouldn't it be fair to say that it's a nice bulleted summary of
exactly what our policy on sources actually is?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l