554:
policy as helpfully included in this article), is that usually the only way to contradict even basic statistical information about the subject will require primary documentary material to back up the claim, which is not permitted by
Knowledge (XXG). Where factually incorrect information is passed along by a reliable media source (because no one fact checks anymore), supplied by the subject, it can then be included in the page as correct and can't be challenged because of WP:PRIMARY. It would be helpful if there was a non-public dispute resolution mechanism for BLP errors that require primary documentation to correct so that privacy can be maintained.
386:
which contain original research or novel theories--are often called "primary sources" by scientists. Using the historical terminology (which on the whole, I like better, even though I come from a science background), science papers would also be secondary sources, and raw data sources such as lab notebooks, simulation reports, and such would be primary sources. Unlike history, where primary sources are original artifacts which exist apart from research (excluding interviews with living subjects), science primary sources are almost always the raw product of scientific inquiry (exceptions in science might be fossils and such). The
414:
stretching the truth, or otherwise attempting to deceive the public. Sources which don't meet all of a, b, and c should have no business being here. Those which meet a,b, and c but fail d, e, and/or f; ought to be used with caution (and probably should be explicitly attributed to the source, rather than presented as a factual state of affairs). Note that biased sources themselves aren't problematic--including extremist websites--however, they should be attributed properly, and the allowance of individual biased sources doesn't repeal
32:
91:
63:
155:
77:
553:
Disclosure: I am largely interested in a single article on Wiki about which I have too much knowledge, so you may discount my question/comment accordingly. The flaw I see in allowing for self-published source provided they are describing the source themselves (in accordance with the
Knowledge (XXG)
385:
is largely taken from historiography--a discipline which has spent a lot of time examining the issue of sourcing. Many in the sciences use a different (and less formal) set of definitions--what would be called secondary sources in history--papers in a journal, or book-length treatments of a subject
312:
Clearly academic sources are very good things - on topics where we have the luxury of their presence, we should use them. It seems neither feasible nor the will of the community to rely wholly on them, and many encyclopedic topics do not support reliance on them as the only source of information.
497:
Why is a *non-self-published* source any more reliable than a self-published source? The reasoning behind this makes some sense if your personal website is about a physics theory, since you can say anything on your web site, but a physics journal will fact-check it won't accept it unless you're
413:
would then require additional things, such as d) authority--the source has the necessary knowledge or training to support the claim, and e) impartiality--the source is free from influences which would bias its conclusions or reports, and f) trustworthiness--the source is unlikely to be lying,
332:, and so on. The essense of Knowledge (XXG) is that it covers popular culture much better and much wider (and hopefully, eventually without the excess fancruft) than any other similar source in the world. Plus, in looking at that article, it seems to take an out of universe perspective. —
498:
doing real physics. But it makes little sense for non-academic publishing. Does anyone honestly think that major mass-market book publishers fact-check their books the way scientific journals do? (You've touched on this, but it extends to more than just popular culture.)
533:
Incidentally, I agree with your definition of fact=true. Some regard 'fact' as 'a proposition that may or may not be true'. Perhaps there are sarcastic quotation marks in vocal speech that are omitted from written speech. "I disagree with your 'facts' ! "
513:, making it easy for one user to delete large portions of material from the article. Some of the critics have published on dead trees, but the dead tree material is less up to date and harder to quote (since one generally has to buy the book).
246:
It's an embarassment because encyclopedias are supposed to report on the real world. Bablyon 5 is a television show in the real world, so we should have an article on it. But we shouldn't have articles on things (characters, places, foods)
394:
to be duplicated as a primary means of verification; not examination of raw data. A scientist's raw work products generally aren't investigated by outsiders unless there is an inquiry into his/her conduct. This dichotomy ought to be
408:
source would be that a) we know where it came from; b) it is reasonably assured to be genuine (not forged), and that c) that the source demonstrates some minimum level of relevance--there's a reason why the world should care.
294:
on the subject--he shouldn't have the last word in criticial analysis of the show--but his Usenet postings on this subject, given the circumstances, don't strike me as unacceptable sources. As to the issue of whether or not
509:. We have a movie whose political content has been criticized on a small number of well-known web sites. Because these are web sites and thus self-published, they are automatically prohibited by a literal reading of
206:
is an embarassment to
Knowledge (XXG). It shouldn't be an encyclopedia article at all, let alone a featured article, and the fact that it is both is a perfect example of everything that's wrong with Knowledge (XXG).
506:
195:
168:
577:
135:
198:
Erik Möller was talking about attracting more experts to
Knowledge (XXG) -- but without a bias towards academic sources we can forget about any attempt to attract experts here. Using
290:, should be considered authentic (JMS vouches for them in a medium he has control over). Obviously, JMS is a reliable source on matters related to Babylon 5. He may not be
251:
it. And even as an article on a fictional substance, it relies on unreliable sources like Usenet postings. Frankly, if something can't be verified from reliable,
587:
531:
to illustrate it. Maybe 'matter of definition' would be more accurate than 'fact'. I think 'dwarf planets' and 'major planets' are all 'planets' - silly me !
357:
First, thanks to Phil for writing the essay (I just mixed it in with the text it was intended to annotate). I don't agree with it all; but I do think that
98:
145:
582:
221:
was promoted to FAC status for April Fools. Whether
Knowledge (XXG) should honor April Fools Day or not is a question outside the scope of
535:
107:
328:
an embarrassment to
Knowledge (XXG)? It shows the potential and range of the project, features citations from the most reliable sources
194:
doesn't "suffer from a bias towards academic sources" -- it quite correctly encourages their use above non-academic sources. Today in
17:
282:
postings should not be used as sources--they are easily forged, if for no other reason. However, the collective Usenet writings of
401:
68:
43:
76:
373:
111:
299:
belongs here; we may have to disagree somewhat on that; that issue is irrelevant to the topic of this page anyway. --
502:
164:
372:
A lot of this springs from the authority-vs-NPOV debate that persists on
Knowledge (XXG), and is often cited for
539:
460:
49:
255:(or equally credible and well respected) sources, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. (And incidentally,
283:
559:
555:
482:
450:
423:
342:
300:
238:
103:
314:
563:
543:
517:
484:
454:
426:
346:
317:
303:
267:
241:
211:
514:
445:
387:
337:
415:
467:
230:
479:
106:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
510:
475:
410:
382:
358:
222:
191:
442:
334:
471:
571:
436:
Very well said, Phil; glad to see you have the insight to understand how the concept
233:
paper; and the article is correct in its portrayl of something from the fictional
365:
is that the result of this process will be better guidelines for editors here.
154:
90:
62:
264:
234:
208:
528:
296:
381:
A further note on primary vs secondary sources. The definition used in
196:
Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost/2006-10-09/Eloquence interview
507:
Knowledge (XXG):Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-05 Bowling for
Columbine
279:
325:
256:
226:
218:
203:
199:
102:, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of
25:
153:
263:, but didn't appear on the Main Page until April Fool's.)
287:
225:. But--other than the subject matter is trivial, why is
260:
494:
I see a bigger problem with the self-publication ban.
404:--ought to be developed. The minimum criteria for an
278:
My error on the promotion. I agree that, in general,
259:
wasn't promoted to FAC status for April Fools: it was
578:
Low-impact WikiProject
Knowledge (XXG) essays pages
202:to argue your point isn't helping anything either.
42:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
8:
190:to be biased in favor of academic sources.
171:on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.
57:
588:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages
400:Perhaps a superset of reliable sources--
126:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages
59:
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Reliable sources
7:
501:Yes, I ran across this myself. See
31:
29:
48:It is of interest to the following
402:Knowledge (XXG):Acceptable sources
120:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Essays
110:. For a listing of essays see the
99:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays
24:
549:Unreliable Self-Published on Self
96:This page is within the scope of
89:
75:
61:
30:
583:NA-Class Knowledge (XXG) essays
368:Some specific thoughts I have:
261:promoted the previous September
186:It seems to me an encyclopedia
544:05:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
1:
564:17:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
518:16:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
485:05:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
478:ditched. All views welcome.
455:04:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
427:19:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
347:04:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
318:23:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
304:19:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
268:19:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
242:18:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
212:18:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
140:This page has been rated as
527:Good job you didn't choose
461:Knowledge (XXG):Attribution
361:needs some revisiting. My
123:Template:WikiProject Essays
604:
503:Talk:Bowling for Columbine
353:My thoughts on all of this
161:
139:
84:
56:
217:It should be noted that
330:possible for the topic
165:automatically assessed
158:
146:project's impact scale
104:Knowledge (XXG) essays
163:The above rating was
157:
432:Pop culture section
286:, when archived on
229:an embarassment?
159:
44:content assessment
474:be combined, and
388:scientific method
184:
183:
180:
179:
176:
175:
172:
595:
523:Mars is a planet
466:A proposal that
448:
340:
162:
128:
127:
124:
121:
118:
93:
86:
85:
80:
79:
78:
73:
65:
58:
35:
34:
33:
26:
603:
602:
598:
597:
596:
594:
593:
592:
568:
567:
551:
525:
492:
464:
446:
434:
374:experts leaving
355:
338:
125:
122:
119:
116:
115:
112:essay directory
74:
71:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
601:
599:
591:
590:
585:
580:
570:
569:
550:
547:
536:195.137.93.171
532:
524:
521:
491:
488:
463:
458:
433:
430:
424:EngineerScotty
420:
419:
397:
396:
378:
377:
354:
351:
350:
349:
321:
320:
309:
308:
307:
306:
301:EngineerScotty
273:
272:
271:
270:
239:EngineerScotty
182:
181:
178:
177:
174:
173:
160:
150:
149:
138:
132:
131:
129:
94:
82:
81:
66:
54:
53:
47:
36:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
600:
589:
586:
584:
581:
579:
576:
575:
573:
566:
565:
561:
557:
548:
546:
545:
541:
537:
530:
522:
520:
519:
516:
512:
508:
504:
499:
495:
490:Fact-checking
489:
487:
486:
483:
481:
477:
473:
469:
462:
459:
457:
456:
453:
452:
449:
444:
440:must work. —
439:
431:
429:
428:
425:
417:
412:
407:
403:
399:
398:
393:
389:
384:
380:
379:
375:
371:
370:
369:
366:
364:
360:
352:
348:
345:
344:
341:
336:
331:
327:
323:
322:
319:
316:
315:Phil Sandifer
311:
310:
305:
302:
298:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
276:
275:
274:
269:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
245:
244:
243:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
215:
214:
213:
210:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
170:
166:
156:
152:
151:
147:
143:
137:
134:
133:
130:
113:
109:
105:
101:
100:
95:
92:
88:
87:
83:
70:
67:
64:
60:
55:
51:
45:
41:
37:
28:
27:
19:
552:
526:
515:Ken Arromdee
500:
496:
493:
465:
441:
437:
435:
421:
405:
391:
367:
362:
356:
333:
329:
291:
288:his web site
252:
248:
237:universe. --
187:
185:
141:
97:
50:WikiProjects
40:project page
39:
556:Jacobssteph
392:experiments
572:Categories
480:SlimVirgin
406:acceptable
395:addressed.
390:calls for
142:Low-impact
108:discussion
72:Low‑impact
235:Babylon 5
297:fancruft
253:academic
443:Deckill
416:WP:NPOV
335:Deckill
324:How is
292:neutral
144:on the
468:WP:NOR
438:really
280:Usenet
231:WP:NOT
167:using
117:Essays
69:Essays
46:scale.
529:Pluto
511:WP:RS
476:WP:RS
411:WP:RS
383:WP:RS
359:WP:RS
223:WP:RS
192:WP:RS
38:This
16:<
560:talk
540:talk
505:and
472:WP:V
470:and
363:hope
326:Spoo
265:Angr
257:Spoo
249:from
227:Spoo
219:Spoo
209:Angr
204:Spoo
200:Spoo
169:data
284:JMS
188:has
136:Low
574::
562:)
542:)
534:--
422:--
558:(
538:(
451:r
447:e
418:.
376:.
343:r
339:e
148:.
114:.
52::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
