The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> General Discussion? What's that all about?

This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:

Akahele.orgWikipedia-WatchWikitruthWP:ANWikiEN-L/Foundation-L (mailing lists) • Citizendium forums

3 Pages V < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Primary vs. Secondary vs. Tertiary sources
SB_Johnny
post Sun 25th September 2011, 10:57pm
Post #21


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 25th September 2011, 6:35pm) *

Golly Batman, this thread looks like something from, uh.........Wikipedia.

Annex, or tarpit?

There's always the even more obscure tarpit of the annex, of course. evilgrin.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Mon 26th September 2011, 1:36am
Post #22


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Mod's note: since it looked like the off-topic brawl was mainly about AGW or AGC or whatever the climate change du jour is, I moved it here.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Detective
post Mon 26th September 2011, 9:18am
Post #23


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu 9th Dec 2010, 11:17am
Member No.: 35,179



QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 24th September 2011, 4:14pm) *

Secondary sources are reviews of a secondary source.

Fair enough, if a bit circular.
QUOTE

Opinion pieces and, say, a professional book review are two very different things. One is some random guy giving an opinion, and the other is (supposedly) a trained academic giving an objective review.

What if it's a guest opinion piece in The Economist by say the head of the World Bank? Is that just some random guy giving an opinion?


QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 25th September 2011, 2:17am) *

I've seen hundreds of Wikipedia articles that used other Wikipedia
articles as citations, as if they were primary.

I'm sure that there's an explicit policy that Wikipedia articles are not RS and can't be cited; if there isn't, there obviously should be, even by Wikilogic.

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 25th September 2011, 10:07pm) *

an assiduous animal-rights activist, generally considered a left-wing alignment

Careful there - if it weren't for Godwin's Law I'd name a well-known right-wing animal-rights supporter.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
communicat
post Mon 26th September 2011, 12:03pm
Post #24


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun 31st Jul 2011, 11:31am
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 26th September 2011, 12:05am) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 25th September 2011, 5:07pm) *

How classic: we have a rabid leftie denying the existence of leftwing cabals, and a rabid rightie denying the existence of rightwing cabals. The rabid leftie also identifies SlimVirgin (an assiduous animal-rights activist, generally considered a left-wing alignment) as a "right wing cabalist".

Hersch is right: it's not about left and right, but about extremism, orthodoxy, and the Wikipedia House Point of View.


Libertarians are not right wing. They are anarchists. No one who believes in legalizing pot, free immigration, etc., is "conservative".



Thekohser:

"And you even edited your post. Are you sure about all of what you said there, Ottava?"

I added in a bit about opinion pieces. smile.gif



Communicat:

"My stated terms of reference were with specific regard to military-political and modern history topics, which as far as I'm concerned are firmly under the control of rightwing cabals. "

LMAO. What? Ahahaha. Roger Davies, Kirill, etc., are all leading the mil hist project and the "military cabal" and are solidly lefty. As are most of the editors like Ed17 who edit in those areas. Just because they write about military doesn't mean they aren't lefty. Our coverage of things like the Iraq War and such things are not pro-Conservative in anyway. Hell, look at the material related to the prison incident.


What crap. Davies and Kirill are certainly not "solidly left" nor are they "leading" the milhist project. They are theoretically supposed to be "project co-ordinators" but in reality they are conspicuously absent from project activities, and this is/has for some time been a source of greivance at the project. Davies, who is also an arbitrator, is notable also for recusing himself from Arbcom proceedings concerning the goings-on at milhist project, which as everyone knows is the most conflict-ridden project at WP. As for that snot-nosed kid Kirill, he's too busy sucking up to his fellow arbitrators in the hope of having a few more barnstars bestowed upon him.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
communicat
post Mon 26th September 2011, 12:12pm
Post #25


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun 31st Jul 2011, 11:31am
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 25th September 2011, 8:53pm) *

This is silly. It has never been a question of "left wing" vs. "right wing." It is a question of orthodoxy. That's what Chip Berlet (Cberlet (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) was all about. There are permissible, establishment-sanctioned forms of right-wingery and left-wingery, and then there are the impermissible varieties which are vigilantly rooted of Wikipedia, and/or denounced, misrepresented and maligned (see, for example, Producerism (T-H-L-K-D).)


There's an interesting take on the question of orthodoxy at http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/08...a-is-the-enemy/ where the (conservative) author speaks of "institutional bias in favor of the right-left red-blue narrative that has, up until now, dominated American politics, and in which so much of the news industry is heavily invested. This narrative doesn’t allow for any significant deviations ... all must submit to its tyranny, in spite of its archaic and increasingly obstructionist character." IMO this applies not just to the news industry but also and especially to the WP industry (and also apparently to some intellectually challenged commentators here).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
communicat
post Mon 26th September 2011, 12:54pm
Post #26


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun 31st Jul 2011, 11:31am
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 25th September 2011, 11:07pm) *

How classic: we have a rabid leftie denying the existence of leftwing cabals, and a rabid rightie denying the existence of rightwing cabals. The rabid leftie also identifies SlimVirgin (an assiduous animal-rights activist, generally considered a left-wing alignment) as a "right wing cabalist".

Hersch is right: it's not about left and right, but about extremism, orthodoxy, and the Wikipedia House Point of View.


You silly, silly sod. Before your confusion rubs off on others: Slimvirgin was almost certainly not an individual but rather a cabal hiding behind Linda Mack's identity. To quote the definitive work on the Slimvirgin episode:

She was "an administrator with inhuman capacity for work. Over the past year, she edited nearly 35,000 articles (about 100 every day, without holidays and weekends). The same SlimVirgin also holds a record of continuous editorial work lasting 26 hours, with the longest break in editing not exceeding 40 minutes. These statistics from Wikipedia's editing records suggests either a supernatural ability, or more likely that SlimVirgin is a convenient smoke screen for an entire team of specialists editing Wikipedia articles on behalf of intelligence services."

See http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/russmag.html

This post has been edited by communicat: Mon 26th September 2011, 6:16pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
communicat
post Mon 26th September 2011, 1:26pm
Post #27


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun 31st Jul 2011, 11:31am
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Speaking of primary sources: what accounts for the ongoing and very conspicuous absence of Wikipleaks reliably sourced material at military history topics? Thousands of primary sources now available as a result of the commendable Wikileaks phenomenon, but you won't find one Wikileaks reference at the military history project.

I suggest this bias through omission is essentially because that project continues to be degraded easily by intellectual frauds and by a radical rightwing cabal that forms a power elite whose task it is to censor politically charged topics, insert disinformation and remove "embarrasing" information and/or views that diverge significantly from the conservative mainstream narrative. Anyone who goes against the entrenched structures of this ruling elite will, at best, have to undergo extreme frustration and unpleasantness or, at worst, find themselves banned and blacklisted. At the same time, astute NPOV editors who dislike the obvious, radical, rightwing bias seem to lack the integrity of showing any spirited resistance to the actions and omissions of the ruling elite. Which evidences a combination of coercion and consent. Pathetic.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Mon 26th September 2011, 2:16pm
Post #28


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Detective @ Mon 26th September 2011, 5:18am) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 24th September 2011, 4:14pm) *

Secondary sources are reviews of a secondary source.

Fair enough, if a bit circular.


Perhaps. I think my point was to say that primary means original, secondary means review, and tertiary means summary of reviews. So it is more of the action than anything else.

QUOTE

QUOTE

Opinion pieces and, say, a professional book review are two very different things. One is some random guy giving an opinion, and the other is (supposedly) a trained academic giving an objective review.

What if it's a guest opinion piece in The Economist by say the head of the World Bank? Is that just some random guy giving an opinion?


The head of the World Bank can give opinion. They can also give informed testimony. Normally, when such experts write an editorial piece, we say who they are and quote them. If you look at literature pages that I write about, you will see summary of critical analysis and then a section for subjective responses with quotes - the quotes are from opinion scattered throughout criticism that are subjective statements. We should do that any time someone is giving an opinion or what cannot be seen as mere expert analysis (i.e. description of feelings, response, etc, that are subjective and not a discussion of facts).

If the World Bank head said that they are worried about the economy, that should be quoted as opinion, whereas they are saying that in the third quarter such rates are going in such direction, then that could be cited as fact. Does that make sense?



Communicat

QUOTE
Davies and Kirill are certainly not "solidly left" nor are they "leading" the milhist project... they are conspicuously absent from project activities


Then I have to say you don't know what you are talking about on either count. I was heavily involved in GAN and FAC review of Milhist articles and their presence was well felt as with the pressure they put on things. That is especially true when their editing competitions are happening.

QUOTE
To quote the definitive work on the Slimvirgin episod


Okay, now I'm confident that we are being trolled.

This post has been edited by Ottava: Mon 26th September 2011, 2:19pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A Horse With No Name
post Mon 26th September 2011, 3:57pm
Post #29


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined: Mon 26th Jan 2009, 1:54pm
Member No.: 9,985



QUOTE(communicat @ Mon 26th September 2011, 8:54am) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 25th September 2011, 11:07pm) *

How classic: we have a rabid leftie denying the existence of leftwing cabals, and a rabid rightie denying the existence of rightwing cabals. The rabid leftie also identifies SlimVirgin (an assiduous animal-rights activist, generally considered a left-wing alignment) as a "right wing cabalist".

Hersch is right: it's not about left and right, but about extremism, orthodoxy, and the Wikipedia House Point of View.


You silly, silly man.


Kelly Martin is a man? blink.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
communicat
post Mon 26th September 2011, 4:10pm
Post #30


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun 31st Jul 2011, 11:31am
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE
I was heavily involved in GAN and FAC review of Milhist articles

Thank you. Now I know why those articles are such a shambles. I wouldn't brag about it if I was you.

This post has been edited by communicat: Mon 26th September 2011, 4:12pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gomi
post Mon 26th September 2011, 6:35pm
Post #31


Member
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined: Fri 17th Nov 2006, 6:38pm
Member No.: 565



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 25th September 2011, 2:07pm) *
How classic: we have a rabid leftie denying the existence of leftwing cabals, and a rabid rightie denying the existence of rightwing cabals. The rabid leftie also identifies SlimVirgin (an assiduous animal-rights activist, generally considered a left-wing alignment) as a "right wing cabalist".

Hersch is right: it's not about left and right, but about extremism, orthodoxy, and the Wikipedia House Point of View.


It is important to point out a circularity here, however. The Wikipedia House POV™ is established by powerful partisans on any given topic. They write what they want into an article, and if pressed find someone who said it somewhere, and anoint that somewhere as a Reliable Source. Often they ally with one another to then enforce a POV outside of their own domain. Thus is the Wikipedia House POV established.

So, from Slim, we get the Leaderless Resistance (T-H-L-K-D) sourcing such things as the ELF News, a blog called "Exit Stage Right" (labelled ESR by Slim), "PublicGood.org" and "FirstMonday.org". In the article on the Animal Liberation Front (T-H-L-K-D), we have facts sourced to Ingrid Newkirk (T-H-L-K-D), the head of PETA (T-H-L-K-D), and that article cites a gag blog called Kotaku.com, as well as David Shankbone writing in Wikinews!

Moving to Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) , he is happy to cite things to CAMERA, but argues against the Electronic Intifada, while his pro-Palestinian opponents (like Nableezy (T-C-L-K-R-D) argue the opposite. His acolyte, IronDuke (T-C-L-K-R-D) , is happy to cite historical facts about the lynching of Leo Frank (T-H-L-K-D) to a defunct website "LeoFrankLycnhers.com", and to a film review on The Jewish Daily Forward.

People use citations to the most partisan of opinion pieces, to the most outlandish of tabloids, and to the most dubious of websites, but if they are defended by an experienced Wiki-power-broker, the likelihood is that they will stay.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Mon 26th September 2011, 7:16pm
Post #32


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(lilburne @ Mon 26th September 2011, 2:55pm) *

Most of WP is written by people that know nothing about the subject area they are writing about, but happen to have a got a couple of books out of the library, that is what gives it its delicious charm.


Lil, in terms of scholarly effort, you know damn well that most of Wikipedia isn't even that good.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Mon 26th September 2011, 7:21pm
Post #33


Chameleon
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am
Member No.: 21,803

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 26th September 2011, 8:16pm) *

QUOTE(lilburne @ Mon 26th September 2011, 2:55pm) *

Most of WP is written by people that know nothing about the subject area they are writing about, but happen to have a got a couple of books out of the library, that is what gives it its delicious charm.


Lil, in terms of scholarly effort, you know damn well that most of Wikipedia isn't even that good.


What can I say? Sometimes you have to sugar coat the pill.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Thu 29th September 2011, 8:20pm
Post #34


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(communicat @ Mon 26th September 2011, 5:54am) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 25th September 2011, 11:07pm) *

How classic: we have a rabid leftie denying the existence of leftwing cabals, and a rabid rightie denying the existence of rightwing cabals. The rabid leftie also identifies SlimVirgin (an assiduous animal-rights activist, generally considered a left-wing alignment) as a "right wing cabalist".

Hersch is right: it's not about left and right, but about extremism, orthodoxy, and the Wikipedia House Point of View.


You silly, silly sod. Before your confusion rubs off on others: Slimvirgin was almost certainly not an individual but rather a cabal hiding behind Linda Mack's identity. To quote the definitive work on the Slimvirgin episode:

She was "an administrator with inhuman capacity for work. Over the past year, she edited nearly 35,000 articles (about 100 every day, without holidays and weekends). The same SlimVirgin also holds a record of continuous editorial work lasting 26 hours, with the longest break in editing not exceeding 40 minutes. These statistics from Wikipedia's editing records suggests either a supernatural ability, or more likely that SlimVirgin is a convenient smoke screen for an entire team of specialists editing Wikipedia articles on behalf of intelligence services."

See http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/russmag.html

Unconvincing. If we decided that every person who'd ever worked on a project for 26 hours straight with no more than 40 minutes rest, was actually a cabal of people, we'd have to make that deduction about everybody who's graduated college or worked at a profession. And add all farmers and self-employed people who make their own living, too. Certainly I'd done that before age 21, and many, many, many times since. Probably including a few times for free, on some project on the web (what the hell-- if you have never been passionate enough about some avocation to ever work on it for 26 hours straight, then I'm sorry for you).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Wed 5th October 2011, 2:44pm
Post #35


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Another dimension of this controversy is unfolding here, at the RS board, where they are arguing over whether to ban the Daily Mail as a source because the DM published egregiously phony crap. The problem is, if they set the publishing of EPC as a standard for invalidating the source generally, then they must rule out most newspapers in order to be consistent. It's quite a conundrum.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Wed 5th October 2011, 3:13pm
Post #36


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 5th October 2011, 10:44am) *

Another dimension of this controversy is unfolding here, at the RS board, where they are arguing over whether to ban the Daily Mail as a source because the DM published egregiously phony crap. The problem is, if they set the publishing of EPC as a standard for invalidating the source generally, then they must rule out most newspapers in order to be consistent. It's quite a conundrum.



If that is true, shouldn't they ban the New York Times for having multiple frauds write stories for them (and even winning Pulitzers for those fake stories)?


By the way, the Mail only posted up the wrong article, and it is common for papers to prep multiple possibilities on such matters. Remember Dewey winning? That isn't publishing "fake stories", that is an editorial mistake which do have retractions and the rest.

This post has been edited by Ottava: Wed 5th October 2011, 3:14pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Detective
post Wed 5th October 2011, 3:15pm
Post #37


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu 9th Dec 2010, 11:17am
Member No.: 35,179



QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 5th October 2011, 3:44pm) *

Another dimension of this controversy is unfolding here, at the RS board, where they are arguing over whether to ban the Daily Mail as a source because the DM published egregiously phony crap. The problem is, if they set the publishing of EPC as a standard for invalidating the source generally, then they must rule out most newspapers in order to be consistent. It's quite a conundrum.

You might as well ban all books published by say HarperCollins because some stuff they publish is rubbish.

QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 5th October 2011, 4:13pm) *

If that is true, shouldn't they ban the New York Times for having multiple frauds write stories for them (and even winning Pulitzers for those fake stories)?

I thought that in Ottava land all winners of Pulitzers were infallible sources.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th January 2011, 11:03pm) *

2. I have hundreds of articles and they aren't sourced to my friends. Look at some examples - Walter Jackson Bate, Pulitzer prize winning biographer.



This post has been edited by Detective: Wed 5th October 2011, 3:18pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Wed 5th October 2011, 4:53pm
Post #38


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Detective @ Wed 5th October 2011, 11:15am) *


I thought that in Ottava land all winners of Pulitzers were infallible sources.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th January 2011, 11:03pm) *

2. I have hundreds of articles and they aren't sourced to my friends. Look at some examples - Walter Jackson Bate, Pulitzer prize winning biographer.



That is a little silly. I never said all Pulitzer prize winners were the same nor infallible. I pointed out that a source used, Walter Jackson Bate, won a Pulitzer for the biography that was used - a rare feat for an academic work about a poet from 200 years ago. There aren't many works in literary criticism that receive the Pulitzer. Mind you, Walter Jackson Bate won two - one for his bio on John Keats and one for his bio on Samuel Johnson.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Wed 5th October 2011, 5:06pm
Post #39


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 5th October 2011, 7:44am) *

Another dimension of this controversy is unfolding here, at the RS board, where they are arguing over whether to ban the Daily Mail as a source because the DM published egregiously phony crap. The problem is, if they set the publishing of EPC as a standard for invalidating the source generally, then they must rule out most newspapers in order to be consistent. It's quite a conundrum.

They SHOULD rule out most newspapers. It is only due to the "newspaper worship" of SlimVirgin that WP:RS looks like what it does today. And she, of course, is several fries short of a Happy Meal.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
communicat
post Wed 5th October 2011, 8:10pm
Post #40


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun 31st Jul 2011, 11:31am
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 5th October 2011, 4:44pm) *

Another dimension of this controversy is unfolding here, at the RS board, where they are arguing over whether to ban the Daily Mail as a source because the DM published egregiously phony crap. The problem is, if they set the publishing of EPC as a standard for invalidating the source generally, then they must rule out most newspapers in order to be consistent. It's quite a conundrum.

If they set the publishing of EPC as a standard for invalidating the source generally, then they must rule much of themselves out.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th 8 14, 7:15am