When a Primary Source Isn't Good Enough: Wikipedia 333
unixluv writes "Evidently, Wikipedia doesn't believe an author on his own motivations when trying to correct an article on his own book. A Wikipedia administrator claimed they need 'secondary sources.' I'm not sure where you would go to get a secondary source when you are the only author of a work. Thus, in a lengthy blog post for The New Yorker, Roth created his own secondary source. He wrote, 'My novel The Human Stain was described in the entry as "allegedly inspired by the life of the writer Anatole Broyard." ... This alleged allegation is in no way substantiated by fact. The Human Stain was inspired, rather, by an unhappy event in the life of my late friend Melvin Tumin, professor of sociology at Princeton for some thirty years.' The Wikipedia page has now been corrected."
Working as intended (Score:5, Insightful)
Convince someone else first, then convince Wikipedia.
Douches (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't pretend that I understand the internal machinations or politics of WikiPedia, but I have had several edits reverted because someone out there didn't like certain information being revealed. I included proper references for those edits, but when they go against the agenda of someone on the inside, you can't compete.
LK
Credibility over Knowledge (Score:3, Insightful)
This is how Wikipedia is like a failed software project: they value their process more than their goal.
I could go out and make the most amazing, society-altering discovery ever, but I wouldn't be allowed to tell Wikipedia about it, because it would be "original research" and it would require "secondary sources."
If or when Wikipedia dies, this, along with the oft-reviled entrenched fiefdoms, will be the reason.
Primary source (Score:5, Insightful)
The article in the NYT, directly from the author in question, is a primary source. Wikipedia has no problems using primary sources. What Wikipedia isn't is a primary source itself, nor should it be.
IMO, this is exactly how Wikipedia should work, with the exception that the unsupported statements about Anatole Broyard should have been removed when it was pointed out that they were unsupported.
Factoid Aggregator (Score:4, Insightful)
While it sounds dumb on Wikipedia's part, it does make sense when you think about it. WIkipedia is more like a Factoid Aggregator, listing information that can be backed up elsewhere. They don't want to become the sole source of information, because then it isn't backed up and can't be referenced - say, in case someone needs to verify something or restore it after a clumsy edit (looking at edit history isn't good enough since you still need to verify the fact is true).
It may sound weird that some guy's blog is more trustworthy than Wikipedia, but in this instance that does seem to be the case.
Welcome to the 21st century! (Score:3, Insightful)
Back in the 19th century people believed in science. Science is based on the belief that there is a real world out there that has properties anyone can discover. What made this world "real" was that these properties did not depend on anybody's opinion, so you didn't have to give a damn about anybody else's opinion of your research either; you could discover the truth yourself, and be right even if everybody in the world disagreed with you.
In the 21st century we no longer have science. Now we have social science. It's based on the belief that reality is defined by majority opinion. Naturally, one man's opinion is worthless, and only when a consensus is reached can you state that you know anything.
Assuming we accept the direct editing... (Score:4, Insightful)
How would one cite Roth's direct edit on Wikipedia...without citing Wikipedia?
"Personal knowledge of Author, 07 September, 2012"?
This is where the argument of "why can't he just change Wikipedia?" falls apart.
Taking Itself Way Too Seriously: Wikipedia (Score:3, Insightful)
Wikipedia embraces "experts in the community," inflates them far beyond their objective worth when it comes to defending its credibility among legitimate encyclopedias, then goes all "Vonnegut in Back to School" when faced with legitimate experts who normally have little use for their sandbox.
Like I've always said: Want a wonderfully comprehensive summary of the 5th Season of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" or exegesis on some nearly forgotten Geek meme? Wikipedia's the place to go. Anything else? Not if your serious about it.
Re:Primary source (Score:5, Insightful)
Ya, it's not that wikipedia won't accept primary sources, it's that the primary source has to be statically referenceable.
A year from now there's no way to know if edits from some IP address were actually the primary source, someone claiming to be so or the like - but if you have a reference to a static source you can at least point to that and then you can have an argument over whether or not you believe him.
This does raise a longstanding question about static sources in academia - basically in the paper world keeping track of corrections and updates and so on was hard. In the internet era it should be easy, but we still cling to the structure of paper journals a lot of places.
It's just "pedia" now (Score:5, Insightful)
A few months back I saw people having trouble editing the page for a court case. The citation they had provided was the actual court findings as published by the court. There were a couple of Wikipedia moderators that didn't like the topic at hand, so they slapped a big banner saying something to the effect of "Warning: this is all unsubstantiated hokum and will burn down your house if you read it" at the top of the page. They said that the court findings as published by the court were not good enough, that you actually needed an article written about the court case published by a journal instead. They supplied an article published by a journal. This was then also rejected because it was published by a law firm. Kafka would have been rolling his eyes at this point.
People seem to have lost sight of the fact that a wiki is effective because it drastically lowers the barrier to editing. Wikipedia now fetishises process and is about as far away from the spirit in which wikis were conceived as possible. It's not a wiki if bureaucracy makes it impossible to contribute without reading hundreds of pages on process and you have to fight somebody who seemingly devotes all of their time to controlling their favourite subjects.
Re:Back to School (Score:4, Insightful)
Irrelevant. Roth contacted an editor himself, who acknowledged him as the primary source. The editor could make the change, having established to his satisfaction that the person was indeed the author.
Besides, if you're writing a report on The Human Stain, you should be reading The Human Stain, not Wikipedia.
Odd but necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you want George Lucas to go edit the Wiki pages on Star Wars and note that Greedo always shot first? Enforcing a secondary source means he first has to convince some citable source that it's what happened, which provides a check that Wikipedia's crowdsourced model on its own can't.
Re:Douches (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, Neil Gaiman claims he made up a "fact" in American Gods, which Wikipedia put in unreferenced. Another website used Wikipedia as a source for this fact. Wikipedia then referenced the other website. Neil Gaiman thinks it's too funny to spoil, by actually telling anyone what the "fact" was.
Citogenesis in action.
That is kinda the way wikipedia works (Score:3, Insightful)
It relies on things that have been recorded and documented. The benefit of this is that if something is in dispute, you can go to the secondary source and verify it. The primary source may change his mind, or may not be around after a certain time.
This seems the most obvious rationale anyway. There's no particular reason to make an exception here.
Re:Working as intended (Score:4, Insightful)
What fucking Wikipedia corporation? There's a Wikimedia foundation, a non-profit. While this might have been a bit ridiculous, you know that Wikimedia practically just gets enough money to get year by year? This would potentially kill the biggest and widest encyclopaedie out there.
Re:Back to School (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is that people often lie about their own actions and intentions. They lie to themselves, and they lie to other people. This gets even worse when you start seeing someone try to sell something. Something like a book. I'm not saying that THIS author was lying, but there are plenty of authors who would.
If they took Roth as a primary source and allowed his words to be stated as unreferenced facts, they would need to take Whitley Strieber [wikipedia.org] as a primary source when he says he was actually kidnapped by aliens.
It is infinity better for Wikipedia to remain a secondary source reference with links to the primary sources.
Re:Working as intended (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow, what a story (Score:5, Insightful)
The "big deal" is the systemic flaw (although I concede my description of it as a "flaw" could be argued as a "feature" by others) which prevents the actual primary source from being cited as what it is. Wikipedia is a passable experiment in group mechanics - but is itself not credible for anything unless continually fact-checked. And by continually, I mean that one can never be sure of its accuracy, fairness, or completeness on any topic, and since edits are so trivial to make, its accuracy, fairness, and completeness must be virtually thrown out at each edit and reexamined - and by definition, reexamined by persons who are not the primary source.
Rather reminds me of AOL chat rooms at times, honestly.
(A/S/L, anyone?)
Re:Douches (Score:4, Insightful)
Not all helpful people feel like becoming deeply involved in wiki-politics just to make a single edit on a topic they know well, and can cite sources for. Just like people like to donate to charity without actually having to run a fucking charity.
Re:Credibility over Knowledge (Score:5, Insightful)
I could go out and make the most amazing, society-altering discovery ever
Crackpots make "amazing, society-altering discoveries" everyday. Almost none of them are noteworthy. Those that are noteworthy get mentioned in peer reviewed scientific journals, or at least a few newspapers. These are the "secondary sources" you dismiss. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and certainly not a peer reviewed journal.
Re:Credibility over Knowledge (Score:5, Insightful)
If you had a science altering discovery it would be published in peer reviewed journals and you could use those as references.
Until they are published somewhere reputable, no-one has a good reason to believe science altering claims
Re:Back to School (Score:5, Insightful)
I would go farther and say that the author is not necessarily the end authority on their own work.
If they took Roth as a primary source and allowed his words to be stated as unreferenced facts, they would need to take Whitley Strieber [wikipedia.org] as a primary source when he says he was actually kidnapped by aliens.
Roth was refuting claims made by reviewers of his book that Wikipedia was quoting. Reviewers that wrote reviews that were nothing more than their own opinion's on Roth's works. What secondary sources of the reviews did Wikipedia have? None. Just the reviews themselves. So Wikipedia took the reviewers at their own words on the motivation behind the book (no facts just their own written reviews) but would not accept the author's? That's completely asinine.
As for Strieber if he believes he was abducted by aliens and this was the motivation for his books, who the hell is Wikipedia to say any different? That if anything points to exactly what is wrong with Wikipedia. They have their own agenda. Their own twist on things. Truth be damned.
Re:Credibility over Knowledge (Score:5, Insightful)
Another perfect example is there "no trivial" policy, which is totally retarded.
One man's trivia is another man's junk! I mean, its not like the "trivia" section is taking up wads of disk-space. The WHOLE point about a dynamic non-linear encyclopedia is to link to all SORTS of information in the first place!
Wikipedia is run by a bunch of fucktards who think they can decide is worthy of being "knowledge"
Re:Back to School (Score:3, Insightful)
Original AC here. The entire point is that he didn't do it for symbolic reasons, he did it only for the practical reasons, by the author's own admission. How can I miss the symbolism if there isn't any.
Regardless, the assignment was to explain why he decided to have them go south and I answered that; if I missed the "symbolism" does that mean that everyone that missed the practical aspect of river travel should be similarly docked for not providing a full answer (or a correct one)?
Re:Working as intended (Score:1, Insightful)
Nobody said anything about suing for money. Typical thinking of today, someone wronged you - time to cash in. No, some people just want the mistake fixed and I'm pretty sure the author would have been OK to just have the modification permitted.
Splendid. You don't like what someone says, get a judge to tell 'em to say something different.
Free speach, what's that for?
Re:Working as intended (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody defamed anyone. There were no damages. A fact about the inspiration for a story was in dispute, and it has been corrected.
Let it go.
Re:Back to School (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't mark someone down just because their perfectly valid answer wasn't the answer you were looking for [snopes.com]. Giving the paper a D was punishing the student for the teacher's failure to give clear directions. If the teacher was only going accept an essay on the symbolism of going South on the river as the correct answer, then he should have asked for an essay on the symbolism. We are trying to teach children to be critical thinkers, not psychics.
Re:Douches (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you revert the Edits back into the article with a note: "It is a violation of wikirules to remove properly cited material. If you think it should be removed, goto Talk page and justify your case."
And then you get accused of starting an "edit war", and punish with a week or two of "time out".
Reverting once or twice isn't a problem on Wikipedia. It is the lack of communication and acting as though you are the only person who could possibly be editing that article which gets you into trouble. Sometimes you need to compromise and realize you are writing content jointly with almost all of the rest of humanity (at least those who care about the article in any way). That is the point of the talk pages on Wikipedia, so you can collaborate in the development of the article.
I can understand that you don't want to waste any more of your time fixing what was a casual edit. If the edit gets accepted, be grateful, otherwise don't let it piss you off.
Ran into a similar problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever wondered why there are so many more biographical entries on athletes (even 2nd rate ones) than academics on Wikipedia?
That is because athletes are much more likely to be interviewed and have biographical information published.
Contrast this with finding biographical data on some researchers. Even high profile ones with a long publication record will usually at best have some self-reported biographical data if any (e.g. Facebook). Hence it will be rejected by Wikipedia due to their secondary source policies.
And so the largest Internet encyclopedia operates like your local high-school where all the attention goes to the sport jocks and nobody cares about the nerds.
Re:Your are missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh you poor oversocialized shmuck... The best method we have for judging whose truth is the right one is observation and logic. Consensus is irrelevant to reality, and asking a hundred scientists to effectively guess at the right answer is no different than having you making the guess yourself. Conclusions not based on physical evidence are invalid regardless of how numerous they may be. To know that a theory is correct, all you need is to verify that it's predictions are consistent with observation. If you want to prove the world is not flat, walk around it.
Yes, there is, but determining the validity of your evidence and the nature of it not fitting is an entirely separate task from using it to verify your theories. Yes, you need to be careful in your experimentation to ensure you are seeing what you are seeing. That is true of all endeavours you may choose to undertake. The evidence that "doesn't fit" may invalidate your theory or it may be due to another unrelated factor. To know which is which you only need to apply the laws of logic. If you walk around the world in 40 days, you should first check your compass.
Yes, science really is something anyone can do. There is nothing inherently difficult in assessing scientific evidence. If you understand how to think logically, you can do science. An expert merely knows many more factors that may influence an experiment in his field. A layman walking around the world might not know that the magnetic pole is displaced from the rotational one, but that will not prevent him from demonstrating that the world is round. He will, in fact discover this and other relevant facts as he does science his way. The only difference between what he can do and what an expert can do is that an expert can do it faster by not having to learn so many things for himself.
Common sense is never dependable, whether in the amateur or an expert. Science is not about making "sound judgements" or using common sense (although these can sometimes help your conclusions come faster). It is about applying logic to observation of reality. You don't pass judgement on what is right - reality passes judgement on what is right. You only need to be able to recognize when this happens.
And you are still falling into the error of believing that truth needs to be communicated to be true. Once truth is found, you by definition know that you have found it. Whether you can communicate it is irrelevant to science. Reality doesn't care if you are the only one who knows the truth. A truth does not change based on how many people know it, how many people disagree with it, or how many people hate you for knowing it. People are simply irrelevant here. The truth is in your mind, and that's all that matters.
Yes, it does work exactly
Re:Douches (Score:5, Insightful)
At one college and one university that I attended, I was told outright by several professors that Wikipedia won't be accepted as a source.
And I was told in high school, well before Wikipedia existed, that any encyclopedia was unacceptable as a source. The message was, "Read the encyclopedia article to get an overview of the subject if you want. Then go out and find actual citable sources for your paper. If you cite the encyclopedia, you'll fail." It's a whole lot easier to do this in the modern world, since Wikipedia links to sources, and there's always Google (especially Google Scholar, if you're looking for sources of academic quality) for a broader view, so there's really no excuse.
No trivia *sections* (Score:4, Insightful)
With trivia sections, you get articles with a small main body followed by a very long list of unrelated facts under Trivia because it's easier to add one line to the existing list than to integrate it into the article. That's just a bad way to organize an article.
The content in the trivia sections is usually fine, you just need to find a way to include it in the main body of the article so that it reads like an encyclopedia entry should.
Re:Working as intended (Score:4, Insightful)
What you are complaining about here is just one other fellow editor being a prick.
No offense, but the editor is in the right. A person is not a source by Wikipedia standards nor should they be. How do you link to a person? Where's the more or less permanent reference to that person's claims? The problem was solved by the author writing something down in a reliable place and hence, creating a source.
Re:Working as intended (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly blogs from some random schmo spouting stuff off the top of his head is not considered reliable.
Unless you're Wikipedia, in which case they're considered more reliable than the primary source. I've run into the same thing, according to Wikipedia I created X when in fact I created Y. Tried to get it fixed and they said I wasn't a reliable enough source on my own fscking work!. Eventually got a friend to mention it in passing in his blog (which has nothing to do with my work) and that was good enough for Wikipedia. Their "no original research" policy has been completely braindamaged ever since it was first created, and it's not getting any better over time.
Editors can be complete ass-ignoramuses (Score:2, Insightful)
I've seen an editor who repeatedly deleted a comment, even after a photo depicting situation described in said comment was referenced. From the editors comments, it seemed clear that he was truly reveling in his power to piss people off.