3 ms·

How do we know you're not just making stuff up? If you've got a good answer to that question I'm sure they'd love to hear it and to update their policy. For w

How do we know you're not just making stuff up? If you've got a good answer to that question I'm sure they'd love to hear it and to update their policy. For what it's worth, you can write the information you know in a blog that can be linked back to you personally, and that's an acceptable source to cite.

akolbe 4y ago
Well, blogs generally aren't acceptable sources to cite in Wikipedia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Blog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Blog Press sources do often have minor or major inaccuracies which can then get perpetuated in Wikipedia. "What people outside do not appreciate is that a newspaper is like a soufflé, prepared in a hurry for immediate consumption. This of course is why whenever you read a newspaper account of some event of which you have personal knowledge it is nearly always inadequate or inaccurate. Journalists are as aware as anyone of this defect; it is simply that if the information is to reach as many readers as possible, something less than perfection has often to be accepted." —David E. H. Jones, in New Scientist, Vol. 26 Wikipedians, for that matter, are aware of this defect too (or ought to be), because a great many press articles about Wikipedia contain absolute clangers.
- flaviut 4y ago
  Interesting--looks like I came across an older policy document. But in this case, it sounds like the author is an established and published expert on this topic, so their blog would be acceptable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Acceptable_use_of_self-published_works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_usin... > The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, except for exceptional claims.[4] Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.[5]
  - akolbe 4y ago
    Well, on the same page (which is an essay, not a policy) you have: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about any living people, except for claims by the author about themself. This holds even if the author of the source is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." That limits things quite severely. The relevant policy is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_livin... (Just to explain: in Wikipedia, "policies" are "widely accepted standards that all editors should normally follow"; a "guideline" is "a generally accepted set of best practices that editors should follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", and an "essay" can be just one editor's opinion; it is "not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.")
    - sidewndr46 4y ago
      Wouldn't this make something published in Playboy an acceptable source, but someone's YouTube video of an actual event unacceptable?
    - flaviut 4y ago
      I see, thank you for pointing out the classifications of policy-like writings. I still disagree in the narrow bounds of this conversation, which is articles about technical topics. The prohibition there seems to be on accepting someone's claims about themselves, which is different from an expert on a subject making specific fact-based claims in their field.

akolbe 4y ago

Well, blogs generally aren't acceptable sources to cite in Wikipedia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Blog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Blog Press sources do often have minor or major inaccuracies which can then get perpetuated in Wikipedia. "What people outside do not appreciate is that a newspaper is like a soufflé, prepared in a hurry for immediate consumption. This of course is why whenever you read a newspaper account of some event of which you have personal knowledge it is nearly always inadequate or inaccurate. Journalists are as aware as anyone of this defect; it is simply that if the information is to reach as many readers as possible, something less than perfection has often to be accepted." —David E. H. Jones, in New Scientist, Vol. 26 Wikipedians, for that matter, are aware of this defect too (or ought to be), because a great many press articles about Wikipedia contain absolute clangers.

flaviut 4y ago
Interesting--looks like I came across an older policy document. But in this case, it sounds like the author is an established and published expert on this topic, so their blog would be acceptable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Acceptable_use_of_self-published_works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_usin... > The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, except for exceptional claims.[4] Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.[5]
- akolbe 4y ago
  Well, on the same page (which is an essay, not a policy) you have: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about any living people, except for claims by the author about themself. This holds even if the author of the source is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." That limits things quite severely. The relevant policy is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_livin... (Just to explain: in Wikipedia, "policies" are "widely accepted standards that all editors should normally follow"; a "guideline" is "a generally accepted set of best practices that editors should follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", and an "essay" can be just one editor's opinion; it is "not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.")
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    Wouldn't this make something published in Playboy an acceptable source, but someone's YouTube video of an actual event unacceptable?
  - flaviut 4y ago
    I see, thank you for pointing out the classifications of policy-like writings. I still disagree in the narrow bounds of this conversation, which is articles about technical topics. The prohibition there seems to be on accepting someone's claims about themselves, which is different from an expert on a subject making specific fact-based claims in their field.