Hallo, (responses inline) On Wednesday 27 July 2011 11:57 PM, Wjhonson wrote: > For actual quotations from sources, you should quote the source exactly. > Then you will never be using original research.
I don't actually understand what this means. If you look at the articles created: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations#Articles.2F_Discussions_.28in_development.29 you can see exactly how the citations are used. In the articles, each statement that can be attributed to a particular audio interview is cited to that audio interview. Do you mean also using quotes for actual words in the text of the article itself? > You are going the next step and summarizing and interpreting. Don't do that. Actually, no. We are not summarizing or interpreting, merely reporting the content of the cited audio interviews (and the accumulated reports, sometimes conflicting, gathered in the course of several audio interviews) in exactly the same way one would do if the sources were journal articles instead. But if I haven't understood your questions correctly, please elaborate and explain further. Thanks, Achal > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Morton<morton.tho...@googlemail.com> > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List<foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 11:19 am > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge > > > All sources can be cited without falling afoul of "original research" > Original research only covers claims without sources at all, or claims made > from yourself as the source. > Any source, including citing to a video interviews, is never original > research. > > Ideally of course, yes. However it is quite hard to work with primary > ources of this nature (i.e. ones that are not summarising a subject) and > void interpretation (which is at the core of OR). It is perfectly possible > o cite an iron clad reliable source and still end up doing original > esearch :) It's just that the risk is greater with these forms of sources. > > I don't really get by the way, why this is considered revolutionary. > These aren't "oral citations" in the standard sense, these are citations to > a published video. > > eliability depends on a number of factors; for a video it depends on things > ike the identity of the person speaking, the publishing body, etc. > Raw footage of this sort is very much primary sourcing > ith potential reliability problems. > The key thing for reliable sources is the idea of *fact checking or peer > eview*. This is why the very best sorts of sources are those published in > espected scientific journals - because they have been reviewed for > istakes, bias, etc. > Ideally these videos would be published as a primary resource, interested > arties would synthesise material and write papers (or give lectures, or > ublish a book) - secondary sources - which could then be cited by tertiary > ources, such as us :) > Currently you would have to treat these videos with a modicum of care, under > he usual guidelines for primary source material. > Tom > ______________________________________________ > oundation-l mailing list > oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org > nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
