Talk:Sean Nelson: Difference between revisions
(explanation) |
Td 0116 0100 (talk | contribs) (thoughts on the example presented here) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Use of my material== | ==Use of my material== | ||
Anticipating new users, I wanted to explain and how my own writing is evolving. You'll note I've cited both the Charlottesville Community Engagement and the Information Charlottesville sources for this. My main output is the newsletter, which comes out several times a week. However, lots of information gets lost in that document. I created Information Charlottesville to serve as an archive for little bits. I also use Information Charlottesville to offer free versions of content that paid subscribers of the newsletter get to look at first. These are technically the same article. I don't know if it's appropriate to list both or not, but I will continue to do so. Any thoughts?--[[User:Seantubbs|Seantubbs]] ([[User talk:Seantubbs|talk]]) 08:40, 14 November 2021 (EST) | Anticipating new users, I wanted to explain and how my own writing is evolving. You'll note I've cited both the Charlottesville Community Engagement and the Information Charlottesville sources for this. My main output is the newsletter, which comes out several times a week. However, lots of information gets lost in that document. I created Information Charlottesville to serve as an archive for little bits. I also use Information Charlottesville to offer free versions of content that paid subscribers of the newsletter get to look at first. These are technically the same article. I don't know if it's appropriate to list both or not, but I will continue to do so. Any thoughts?--[[User:Seantubbs|Seantubbs]] ([[User talk:Seantubbs|talk]]) 08:40, 14 November 2021 (EST) | ||
I’m unqualified to weigh in with anything more than my own two cents. Since Cvillepedia has a smaller (more detailed?) focus and readership than Wikipedia, it may be expedient for Cvillepedia to be a bit more flexible in scenarios that might be flagged on Wikipedia (e.g., “no original research,” “verifiability,” and “self-published sources”). I gather that the present case is an example of a situation where a Cvillepedia user has authored an article, and two of the three sources cited are self-published sources. I think such cases should warrant careful consideration. | |||
Given that the user in question has a long history in the local journalism industry, their self-published sources carry significant weight. In a different scenario, perhaps with a different author or a more controversial article topic, this type of scenario (citing self-published sources) might be perceived as a conflict of interest, or “citation spam” (in the Wikipedia parlance). | |||
The appropriateness of citing the self-published sources might also depend on the content being cited. In this article, it appears that much of the content (as of this writing) could be attributable to the cited VDOT webpage, which I would consider to be a relatively reliable source for this type of information. If the self-published sources were references to additional investigatory work to corroborate the claims presented on the VDOT webpage, or to uncover other facts, then I think those additional sources do add value to the article. | |||
Slight tangent: I occasionally worry about the sources we use as citations on Wikipedia or Cvillepedia becoming un-recoverable (e.g., if the source was a digital-only source that was subsequently bought out or closed down, with no steps taken to provide an authoritative archive of the content). While there’s archive.org, I’m also thinking that it would be nifty if the more frequently-cited digital-only sources had a mechanism to create a limited-run “library edition” hardbound printed book, perhaps on a bi-annual basis, which could perhaps be stored in a number of geographically-dispersed public and private libraries, as a sort of insurance policy against loss of the text. (I'm remembering many hours spent searching for a 40-year old newspaper article on microfilm as a child...) | |||
Like I said, these are just my two cents, and I have only a limited perspective on all things Cvillepedia! | |||
--[[User:Td 0116 0100|Td 0116 0100]] ([[User talk:Td 0116 0100|talk]]) 13:36, 14 November 2021 (EST) | |||
Revision as of 14:36, 14 November 2021
Use of my material
Anticipating new users, I wanted to explain and how my own writing is evolving. You'll note I've cited both the Charlottesville Community Engagement and the Information Charlottesville sources for this. My main output is the newsletter, which comes out several times a week. However, lots of information gets lost in that document. I created Information Charlottesville to serve as an archive for little bits. I also use Information Charlottesville to offer free versions of content that paid subscribers of the newsletter get to look at first. These are technically the same article. I don't know if it's appropriate to list both or not, but I will continue to do so. Any thoughts?--Seantubbs (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2021 (EST)
I’m unqualified to weigh in with anything more than my own two cents. Since Cvillepedia has a smaller (more detailed?) focus and readership than Wikipedia, it may be expedient for Cvillepedia to be a bit more flexible in scenarios that might be flagged on Wikipedia (e.g., “no original research,” “verifiability,” and “self-published sources”). I gather that the present case is an example of a situation where a Cvillepedia user has authored an article, and two of the three sources cited are self-published sources. I think such cases should warrant careful consideration.
Given that the user in question has a long history in the local journalism industry, their self-published sources carry significant weight. In a different scenario, perhaps with a different author or a more controversial article topic, this type of scenario (citing self-published sources) might be perceived as a conflict of interest, or “citation spam” (in the Wikipedia parlance).
The appropriateness of citing the self-published sources might also depend on the content being cited. In this article, it appears that much of the content (as of this writing) could be attributable to the cited VDOT webpage, which I would consider to be a relatively reliable source for this type of information. If the self-published sources were references to additional investigatory work to corroborate the claims presented on the VDOT webpage, or to uncover other facts, then I think those additional sources do add value to the article.
Slight tangent: I occasionally worry about the sources we use as citations on Wikipedia or Cvillepedia becoming un-recoverable (e.g., if the source was a digital-only source that was subsequently bought out or closed down, with no steps taken to provide an authoritative archive of the content). While there’s archive.org, I’m also thinking that it would be nifty if the more frequently-cited digital-only sources had a mechanism to create a limited-run “library edition” hardbound printed book, perhaps on a bi-annual basis, which could perhaps be stored in a number of geographically-dispersed public and private libraries, as a sort of insurance policy against loss of the text. (I'm remembering many hours spent searching for a 40-year old newspaper article on microfilm as a child...)
Like I said, these are just my two cents, and I have only a limited perspective on all things Cvillepedia! --Td 0116 0100 (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2021 (EST)