wikipedia sources: managing sources in rapidly evolving global news articles on the english...

7/31/2019 Wikipedia Sources: Managing sources in rapidly evolving global news articles on the English Wikipedia

1/57

WikipediaSources:Onthebooksandontheground2012HeatherFord.Ushahidi 1

WikipediaSources:

ManagingsourcesinrapidlyevolvingglobalnewsarticlesontheEnglishWikipedia

AnUshahidi/SwiftRiverReport

byHeatherFord,Ushahidi/SwiftRiverEthnographer,August,2012

Wikipedia Sources: Managing sources in rapidly evolving global news articles on the English Wikipedia by Heather Ford, Ushahidi is licensed

under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (go here http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-

sa/3.0/deed.en_US for the full license).


2/57

2

WikipediaSources:Onthebooksandontheground2012HeatherFord.Ushahidi

Tableofcontents

1. Introduction 32. Acknowledgements 5

3. Executivesummary 6

4. Preface 13

5. Sourcesonthebooks 15 6. Sourcesontheground:TheCaseofthe2011EgyptianRevolutionWikipediaarticle 22

7. Conclusionsanddesignconsiderations 49

8. Bibliography 57


3/57


Introduction

HowisaWikipediaarticledifferentfromanewsarticleaboutthe2011Egyptianrevolutionatdifferentpointsinthestorysevolution?WhataretherolesofsocialmediaandotherInternetsourcesinrapidlyevolvingarticles?Andwhat,really,isWikipediasworkingperspectiveonsocialmediasources?ThisreporttellsthestoryofWikipediasourcesthroughaseriesofcasestudiesincludingthe2011

EgyptianRevolutionWikipediaarticle,highlightinghowsourceswerechosenandcategorized,whatwerethemostimportantvariables

usedindiscussingsources,andwhatthismightmeanforfuturetool-buildingandotherprojectsrelatedtosources.

Whatdowemeanbysources?MyworkingdefinitionofsourcescomesfromWikipediasdefinitionbutwithoneimportantaddition.

WhileWikipediareferstothecharacteristicsofsourcesintermsofthereferencescitedinarticles(includingcharacteristicsofa)the

articleorbooketc,b)thecreatorandthec)publisherofthework),IaddtheWikipediaeditorasanimportantsourceoftheevolvingarticle.Wikipediaeditors,itturnsout,areimportantarbitersoftruthinrapidlyevolvingarticles,especiallysincefewsecondarysources

areavailabletoprovideanalysis(orsummariesetc)oftheeventssoclosetoitsstart.AndalthoughmanyclaimthatWikipediansplaya

merejanitorialrole,itisclearfromatleasttheexamplesdiscussedinthisreportthatamuchmorefundamentalroleisbeingplayedbyWikipedians,especiallyintheearlystageofanevent.

Whyaresourcesimportant?Sources(boththereferenceandeditorvariety)areimportanttounderstandbecausetheymediatewhat

weread,seeandhearonWikipedia.Wikipediaisbuiltonthethreefoundationalcontentpoliciesofverifiability,nooriginalresearch

andneutralpointofview.Thismeansthat,accordingtopolicy,Wikipediansmayonlyaddinformationthatreflectswhatitcallsreliable

sources.Furthermore,Wikipediansmustaddinformationinawaythatfairlyrepresentsallsignificantviewsofthosesources.Sources

areusedfortwokeyreasons:thefirstistodeterminethenotabilityofanarticlessubject,thesecondistoverifyinformationcontained

withinthearticle.

IfwelookatbroadpatternsintheEnglishWikipediasarticlecontent,wecanseehowarticlestendtorepresenttheworldviewof

Wikipediaeditors(thesourcesthatIaddtothedefinitionprovidedbyWikipedia).MarkGraham,forexample,hasshownhowtheplace

inwhichmosteditorslivecorrespondswiththeplacesthatarerepresentedonWikipedia.HehasfoundthatlargepartsofAfricaremain

invisibleasaresultofthesedifferences(Graham,2011).IfwelookatanotherdiagramcreatedbyGrahamandhiscolleaguesatthe

OxfordInternetInstitute(Graham,Stephens,Hale,&Kono,2012),wecanseehowthesepatternsarebroadlysimilartopatternsinthe

locationsoftheworldsacademicjournals,oneofthekeytypesofknowledgethatWikipediansconsiderreliable.Consequently,the

locationofeditors(asonetypeofWikipediasource)isavariablethatmighthelpreadersunderstandthecompletenessofanarticle.Tryingtomapoutthesevariablesistouchedoninthisreport,butcouldalsobeexpandedinfutureresearch.


4/57

4 WikipediaSources:Onthebooksandontheground2012HeatherFord.Ushahidi

AbovemapfromWikiSpace:PalimpsestsandthePoliticsofExclusionbyMark

GrahaminCriticalPointofView:WikipediaReader,2011

BargraphtotherightentitledThelocationofacademicknowledge

fromGraham,M.,Hale,S.A.andStephens,M.(2011)Geographiesof

theWorldsKnowledge.Ed.Flick,C.M.,London,Convoco!Edition


5/57


Howtodesigntoimprovesourcemanagement?UnderstandinghowWikipediansactuallychoose,verify,replaceanddebatesourcesis

importantfordesigningbettersourcemanagementtools.Butwhatexactlyisabettersourcemanagementtool?Althoughbettercan

meanmanydifferentthingstodifferentindividualsandgroups,IvetakenitheretoreflectWikipediasultimategoalofbecominga

globallyrelevantresource.Inthiscase,sourcemanagementshouldbeimprovedfora)greatereaseofuseandb)greateraccessibility,encouragingdesignpatternsthatincreasethetransparencyofsourceoriginsandothercharacteristicswiththeultimategoalofincreasing

thediversityofsourcesbeingusedintheencyclopaedia.InaccordancewithkeyWikipediaprinciples,Ibelievedesignshouldfocusonthe

abilityofareadertoeasilycheckbacktoseewhethertheinformationinaWikipediaarticlereflectswhatarethesignificantviewsabouta

particularsubject.Makingthecharacteristicsofsourcesimportanttodecision-makingmoretransparentisthereforeanimportantdesign

goalbecausewewantpeopletochooseanduseasourcebecauseitisrelevantratherthanbecauseitwillattracttheleastdebate.

Thereportiscomprisedofthreemainsections:thefirstconsiderswhatWikipediapolicysaysaboutsources,thesecondpresentsfindings

fromagroundedtheorystudyofthe2011EgyptianRevolutionarticle,andthethirdoutlineskeydesignconsiderationsbasedonthese

findings.

Acknowledgements

Idliketothankanumberofindividualsandorganizationswhomadethisresearchpossible.ThankstoHapeedeGrootfromHivosand

JanetHavenfromOSIfortakingachancebyfundingtheirfirstethnographicresearchprojectanddoingsowithanewbieethnographer.

ThankstotheWikimediaFoundation,inparticularDarioTaraborelliforcontinuallyconnectingmetootherrelevantresearchprojects,

andtoErikMoellerfromdreaminguptheprojectwithformerSwiftRiverdirector,JonGosier,andforenablingmetobasemyselfatthe

WikimediaFoundationofficesinSanFranciscoforthepasteightmonths.ToProfessorJennaBurrellfromtheUCBerkeleySchoolof

Informationforhermentorshipandassistance,andtoWikipedians,includingDrorKamirwhoreviewedinterviewquestions.Thanksalso

toShiladSenandDaveMusicantforentertainingregular,fascinatingdiscussionsaboutsourcesoverthepasteightmonthsorso,to

RachelleAnnechinoforhertremendoushelpeditingthisdocumentandlastbutnotleast,thecourageousWikipedianswhoIinterviewed

throughoutthisresearchandwhosharedtheirperspectiveswithme.


6/57


Executivesummary

Almostayearago,IwashiredbyUshahiditoworkasanethnographicresearcheronaprojecttounderstandhowWikipediansmanaged

sourcesduringbreakingnewsevents.UshahidicaresagreatdealaboutthiskindofworkbecauseofanewprojectcalledSwiftRiverthat

seekstocollectandenablethecollaborativecurationofstreamsofdatafromtherealtimewebaboutaparticularissueorevent.If

anotherHaitiearthquakehappened,forexample,wouldtherebeawayforustofilterouttheirrelevant,themisinformationandbuilda

streamofrelevant,meaningfulandaccuratecontentaboutwhatwashappeningforthosewhoneededit?AndonWikipediasside,could

thesametoolsbeusedtohelpeditorscurateastreamofrelevantsourcesasateamratherthanasindividuals?

Figure 1 Original designs for voting a source up or down in order to determine veracity

Whenwefirststartedthinkingabouttheproblemoffilteringtheweb,wenaturallythoughtofarankingsystemwhichwouldranksources

accordingtotheirreliabilityorveracity.Thealgorithmwouldconsideravarietyofvariablesinvolvedindeterminingaccuracyaswellas

whethersourceshavebeenchosenandvotedupordownbyusersinthepast.Eventuallythealgorithmwouldbeabletosuggestsourcesaccordingtothesubjectathand.Myjobwouldbetodeterminewhatthosevariablesare,i.e.whatwereeditorslookingatwhendeciding

whethertouseasourceornot?

Istartedtheresearchbytalkingtoasmanypeopleaspossible.OriginallyIwasexpectingthatIwouldbeabletoconduct10-20interviews

asthefocusoftheresearch,findingouthowthoseeditorswentaboutmanagingsourcesindividuallyandcollaboratively.Theinitial

interviewsenabledmetohonemyinterviewguide.Oneofmykeyinformantsurgedmetoaskquestionsaboutsourcesnotcitedaswellas


7/57


thosecited,leadingmetooneofthekeyfindingsofthereport:thatthecitationisoftennottheactualsourceofinformationandisoften

providedinordertoappeaseeditorswhomaycomplainaboutsourceslocatedoutsidetheacceptedWesternmediasphere.ButIsoon

realizedthattheeditorswithwhomIspokecamefromsuchawidevarietyofexperience,workareasandsubjectsthatIneededtorestrict

myfocustoaparticulararticleinordertogetacomprehensivepictureofhoweditorswereworking.Ichosethe2011EgyptianrevolutionarticlebecauseIwantedagloballyrelevantbreakingnewseventthatwouldhaveeditorsfromdifferentpartsoftheworldworking

togetheronanissuewithlocalexpertiselocatedinalanguageotherthanEnglish.

UsingKathyCharmazsgroundedtheorymethod,Ichosetofocusoneditingactivity(intheformoftalkpages,edits,statisticsand

interviewswitheditors)fromthe25thofJanuary,2011whenthearticlewasfirstcreated(withinhoursofthefirstprotestsinTahrir

Square),tothe12thofFebruarywhenMubarakresignedandthearticlenamewaschangedfrom'2011Egyptianprotests'to'2011

Egyptianrevolution'.AfterreviewingthebigpictureanalysesofthearticleusingWikipediastatisticsoftopeditors,andlocationsof

anonymouseditorsetc,Istartedworkwithaninitialcodingoftheactionstakingplaceinthetext,askingthequestionWhatishappening

here?

Ithendevelopedamorelimitedcodebookusingthemostfrequent/significantcodesrelatingtoeditoractionandproceededtocompare

differenteventswiththesamecode(lookinguprelevanteditsofthearticleinordertogetthefullstory),andtolookfortacitassumptions

thattheactionsleftout.


8/57


Figure 2 Screenshot of my Evernote desktop showing initial coding

IthenmovedtowritingaseriesofthematicnotesonwhatIwasseeing,tryingtounderstand,throughwriting,whatthecommonactions

mightmean.Ifinallymovedtothereportwriting,bringingtogetherwhatIbelievedwerethemostsalientthemesintoadescriptionand

analysisofwhatwashappeningaccordingtothetwokeyquestionsthatthestudywastryingtoaski.e.HowdoWikipediaeditors,

workingtogether,oftengeographicallydistributedandfarfromwhereaneventistakingplace,piecetogetherwhatishappeningonthe

groundandthenpresentitinareliableway?And:howcouldthisprocessbeimproved?

EthnographymattershasagreatpostbyTriciaWangthattalksabouthowethnographerscontribute(ofteninvisible)valueto

organizationsbyshowingwhatshouldntbebuilt,ratherthannecessarilyimprovingaproductthatalreadyhasahostofassumptions


9/57


builtintoit.AndsoitwaswiththisresearchprojectthatIrealizedearlyonthatarankingsystemconceptualizedthiswaywouldbe

inappropriateforthesinglereasonthatalongwithcharacteristicsfordeterminingwhetherasourceisaccurateornot(suchaswhether

theauthorhasahistoryofpresentingaccuratenewsarticle),thereareanumberofimportantvariablesthatareindependentofthe

sourceitself.OnWikipedia,theseincludevariablessuchasthenumberofsecondarysourcesinthearticle(Wikipediapolicycallsforeditorstouseamajorityofsecondarysources),whetherthearticleisbasedonabreakingnewsstory(inwhichcasethemajorityof

sourcesmighthavetobeprimary,eyewitnesssources),orwhetherthesourceisnotableinthecontextofthearticle(misinformationcan

alsoberelevantifitiswidelyreportedandsignificanttothecourseofeventsasJudithMillersNYTstorieswerefortheIraqWar).

Thismeansthatyoucouldhaveanalgorithmfordetermininghowaccurateasourcehasbeeninthepast,butwhetheryoumakeuseofthe

sourceornotdependsonfactorsrelevanttothecontextofthearticlethathavelittletodowiththereliabilityofthesourceitself.

AnotherkeyfindingrecommendingagainstsourcerankingisthatWikipediasauthorityoriginatesfromitsrequirementthateach

potentiallydisputedphraseisbackedupbyreliablesourcesthatcanbecheckedbyreaders,whereassourcerankingnecessarilyrequires

thatthecalculationbeinvisibleinordertopreventgaming.ItisalreadyasourceofpotentialweaknessthatWikipediacitationsarenot

theoriginalsourceofinformation(sinceeditorsoftenchoosecitationsthatwillbedeemedmoreacceptabletoothereditors)sofurther

hidinghowsourcesarechosenwoulddisruptthisimportantvalue.Ontheotherhand,havingeditorsprovidearationalebehindthe

choiceofparticularsources,aswellasshowingthevarietyofsourcesratherthanthosechosenbecauseofloadingtimeconstraintsmay

beusefulespeciallysincethesediscussionsoftentakeplaceontalkpagesbutarepracticallyinvisiblebecausetheyaredifficulttofind.

Analysingthetalkpagesofthe2011EgyptianrevolutionarticlecasestudyenabledmetounderstandhowWikipediaeditorssetaboutthe

taskofdiscovering,choosing,verifying,summarizing,addinginformationandeditingthearticle.Itbecameclearthroughthestudyof

hundredsoftalkpagesthateditorswere:

a) storing discovered articles either using their own editor domains by putting relevant articles into categories or by alerting other editors to

breaking news on the talk page,


10/57


b) choosing sources by finding at least

two independent sources that

corroborated what was being

reported but then removing some ofthe citations as the page became too

heavy to load,

c) verifying sources by finding sources

to corroborate what was being

reported, by checking what the

summarized sources contained,

and/or by waiting to see whether

other sources corroborated what was

being reported,

d) summarizing by taking screenshots

of videos and inserting captions (for

multimedia) or by choosing the most

important events of each day for a

growing timeline (for text),

e) adding text to the article by choosing

how to reflect the source within the

articles categories and providing citation information, and

f) editing by disputing the way that editors reflected information from various sources and replacing primary sources with secondary

sources over time.

It was important to discover the work process that editors were following because any tool that assisted with source management would have to

accord as closely as possible with the way that editors like to do things on Wikipedia. Since the process is managed by volunteers and since

volunteers decide which tools to use, this becomes really critical to the acceptance of new tools.

Figure 3 Wikipedia editor, audes method for storing relevant articles during the initial days of the Egyptianrevolution


11/57


Figure 4 Work process for sources in breaking news stories

AfterdevelopingatypologyofsourcesandisolatingdifferenttypesofWikipediasourcework,Iidentifiedtwosetsofdesign

considerationsasfollows:

1.Thefirstwouldbetofordesignerstoexperimentwithexposingvariablesthatareimportantfordeterminingtherelevanceand

reliabilityofindividualsourcesaswellasthereliabilityofthearticleasawhole.


12/57


2.Thesecondwouldbetoprovideatrailofdocumentationbyreplicatingtheworkprocessthateditorsfollow(somewhathaphazardlyat

themoment)sothateachsourceisprovidedwithanindependentspaceforexpositionandverification,andsothateditorscancollect

breakingnewssourcescollectively.

Regardingarankingsystemforsources,I'darguethatadescriptiverepositoryofmajormediasourcesfrom

differentcountrieswouldbeincrediblybeneficialbutthata

systemfordeterminingwhichsourcesarerankedhighest

accordingtousagewouldyieldreallylimitedresults(we

know,forexample,thattheBBCisthemostusedsourceon

Wikipediabyahighmargin,butthatdoesn'tnecessarilyhelpeditorsinchoosingasourceforabreakingnewsstory).

Exposingthevariablesusedtodeterminerelevancy(rather

thanaddingthemupininvisibleamountstocomeupwitha

magicalnumber)andshowingtheprogressionofsources

overtimeofferssomeopportunitiesforinnovation.Butthisrequiresdeveloperstothinkoutoftheboxintermsofwhat

sources(beyondstatictexts)looklike,wheresuchsourcesandexpertisearelocatedandhowtrustisgarneredinthe

ageofTwitter.


13/57


Preface

HowdoWikipediaeditors,workingtogether,oftengeographicallydistributedandfarfromwhereaneventistakingplace,piecetogetherwhatishappeningonthegroundandthenpresentitinareliableway?Whatistheroleofsocialmediainthisprocess?

Thesewerethecentralquestionspromptingthisprojecttoanalysethecurrentsystemsthateditorsusetotrackandverifynewssources

onrapidlyevolvingpagesof.enWikipediaandtoinvestigatetheroleofsocialmediainthisprocess.

Meetingintheearlypartof2011,WikipediaVicePresident,ErikMoeller,andJonGosier,then-DirectorofSwiftRiver,anUshahidi

initiative,discussedtheopportunitytocollaborate.Wikipediansneededbetterwaysofanalysingthereliabilityofnewsstoriesand

eyewitnessaccountsfromsocialmediasourcesduringimportantglobalevents,andSwiftRiverneededapartnertotestthenewsoftwarethatweweredevelopingtobuildintelligenceintorealtimenewsstreams.IwasbroughtoninJunelastyeartoresearchwaysthat

Wikipedianswereusingtomanagesocialmediasourcesduringimportantglobalevents.

Theproblemswewereattemptingtotacklewiththisprojectarebroadandcomplex.

1. ThereisnotransparentwayofseeinghoweachWikipediaeditorhascometotheconclusiontoacceptonenewssourceas

crediblewhiledismissingothers.

2. Wikipediaeditorshavelimitedmeansofassessinglocalnotability,especiallyinmediaenvironmentsdissimilarfromthoseinthe

regionwherethemajorityofeditorsarebased.

3. ThereisnowayforWikipedianstocollaborativelytracknewssourceswitheacheditorusingtheirownsystemfortrackingthe

newsduringhighvolumenewsevents.

4. ThereiswidespreadconfusionsurroundingWikipediaspolicyontheuseofsocialmediasources,withmanyeditorssimplifying

whatisactuallyaverynuancedpolicybydecryingtheuseofanycontentencasedinasocialmediawrapper.

IstartedtheprojectthinkingthatIwouldbethroughwiththeresearchinnotime.ButasanyonestudyingWikipediaknows,themassesof

dataavailablefordoingthiskindofresearchmaketheexperiencearichone,butcanmaketheprocessverytimeintensive,especiallysinceIwasdeterminedtogainadeepunderstandingofhowWikipediaeditorsworktoconstructatruthofwhathashappenedusing

specificexamples.


14/57


Inordertogainthisunderstanding,Iusedgroundedtheorymethodology(Charmaz,2006)toanalysedataandbuildtheoriesoutofthat

data.MydataconsistedofhundredsofpagesofTalkfromthefirst15daysofthe2011EgyptianRevolutionWikipediaarticle,policy

pages,policydebatesonMetaandonFoundation-l(nowWikimedia-l)mailinglists,aswellasinterviewswitheditorsandWikimediaFoundationstaff.

Ibeganmyanalysiswithaninitialcodingofthesedocuments,drawingoutcommonthemesandactionverbs,andthendevelopeda

focusedcodingrubric.Drawingtogetherexamplesofcommonthemes,Ithenanalysedthedata,writingaseriesofmemosasIbecame

morecomfortablewiththedata.Theresultisaninitialreportonmyfindings,withafocusondesignersanddeveloperswhoare

interestedindevelopingtoolsforsourcemanagement.

Ethnographyisknownforbeinganexpensiveresearchprocess:itisincrediblytimeintensivebecauseitaimsforcomprehensiveness

andthoroughness.Ihopethatthisreportdoesthemethodjustice.Ifthereareanyerrorsorweaknesses,theyaremyown.Imlooking

forwardtohearingtheresponseofWikipediansandUshahidifolkstotheresearchinthecomingweeks,especiallyaswecontinuewith

thesecondphaseoftheUnderstandingSourcesprojectthatconsistsoftoolbuildinganddevelopment.


15/57


A.Sourcesonthebooks

a)WikipediasCorecontentpolicies

Wikipediaspolicyonsocialmediasourcesemergesfromitscoreprinciples

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Core_content_policies) .ThethreecorecontentpoliciesincludeNeutral

PointofView,NooriginalresearchandVerifiability,eachofwhichhaveanimpactonwhichsourcesarechosenandwhichsourcesendureontheencyclopedia.

Neutralpointofview(NPOV)istheprinciplethataskseditorstoproportionallyreflectthecurrent

stateofknowledgeaboutasubjectusingindependentsources,ratherthantostrivetoreflecttheir

versionofwhattheyperceiveasthetruth.

Forexample,ifWikipediawasaroundinGreeceintheearlypartoftheclassicalperiod,itwouldreflectthattheearthwasflat,evenifsomeWikipediansbelievedthattheearthwas,indeed,round.Atthefirstpublicationofsignificantdisputesonthematter,Wikipedians

mightwritethatTheearthisflat.Somehavedisputedthisclaimbecausewithlinkstoreliablesourceswhichmightconsistofacademic

papersandpeerreviewedjournalarticles.Asopiniongraduallytippedtowardsthecurrentunderstanding,Wikipedianswouldhavehad

todecidewhetherreliablesourcescollectivelyindicatedthatthestatementshouldbechangedtoTheearthisround.Sincethedecisionisnotsimplyaquestionofcalculatingthevolumeofreliablesourcesinfavouroragainstbutratherobjectivelyassessingthequalityand

dispersionofnewideas,thiscanbeacomplexprocessofdebateandwranglingasopposingsourcesareinterrogated,argumentsaremade

ontalkpages,editsarerefinedandconsensusisreached,beforetheprocessstartsupagain,iterativelyreflectingthecurrentstateofplay

intherelevantfield.

Nooriginalresearchreferstothepolicyagainstusinginformationforwhichareliablesourcedoesnotexist,orpublishingwhat

Wikipedianscalloriginalthought.Atfirstglance,thisruleseemsfairlyobvious.ButdisputesarisewhenWikipedianssynthesizeexistingsourcesandothersdeclarethatinsummarizing,theyhavecreatedoriginalresearch.

Verifiabilityistheprinciplethatmaterial(especiallyinformationlikelytobechallengedorbeingchallenged)shouldbebackedupby

reliablesources.Verifiabilityisframedasawayofempoweringreaders,makingtransparentthepathbywhichinformationcametoWikipediaandprovidingtheabilityforreaderstobeabletocheckwhetherclaimsonWikipediaarebackedupbyreliablesources.

Verifiabilityisprobablythemostimportantpolicywithregardtosourcechoicebutcanbecomeproblematicwhenthereseemtobe

Corecontentpolicies

Neutralpointsofview

Nooriginalresearch

Verifiability


16/57


equallyreliablesourcesforopposingviewsaboutsimplefactsandwherethereliability(apredominantlysubjectiveterm)ofcertain

sourcesisindispute.

b)Verifiability

Verifiabilityisprobablythemostimportantprincipledefininghowsourcesareused

ontheencyclopedia.

ManyofushaveseenthecitationneededlinkonaWikipediapage.Accordingto

Wikipedia,anyonemayquestionanuncitedclaimbyinsertinga{{Citationneeded}}tag.WikipediafocusesonthisrequirementasawaytokeepWikipediacontent

verifiable,enablinganyusertocheckwhetherwhatisclaimedonWikipediais

accurate.

ThegeekycartoonistRandallMunroe,creatorofxkcd,illustratesthisabilityinthecartoontotheright.xkcddepictssomeoneinacrowdaskingthepoliticianatthe

lecterntoprovideasourceorcitationforwhatheistalkingabout.Hemaybereferringtothefactthatpoliticiansarenotrequiredtoprovidecitationsandperhapsthatthismightbepartoftheproblemofpolitics.

OnWikipedia,however,editorsareheldaccountableforwhattheywrite.Accordingtopolicy,theburdenofevidencelieswiththeeditor

whohasaddedtheinformationandanyeditormayremoveinformationlackinganinlinecitation(WP:BURDEN)

Theprocessofverifiabilitymirrorsoneofthekeyprinciples

ofopensourcesoftware:beingableto lookunderthehoodto

seehowitworks.Inthesamewaythatfreeandopensource

softwaredeclarestheabilityofanyprogrammertobeabletolookatthecodeofaprogram,theWikipediaverifiability

principledeclaresthatordinaryWikipediausersshouldbe

abletocheckwhetherasourceisbeingaccuratelyreflectedonWikipedia.Encyclopedicinformationisnotentirelythesameascomputer

code,though,andthisiswhereproblemsariseonthegroundasweshallseelater.

c)Reliablesources

Figure 5: xkcd cartoon fromhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester.png

Figure 6 Example from Wikipedia page on 'Citation needed' (WP:Citation needed)


17/57


Reliablesourcesmaybepublishedmaterialswithareliablepublicationprocess,authorswhoareregardedasauthoritativeinrelationtothe

subject,orboth.(WP:Reliablesources)

Wikipediarequirescitationsforinformationthatmaybecontested.Butnotanycitationwilldo.Wikipediareliesonwhatitcallsreliable

sources(orRSforshort).Wikipediasourcesareattheheartoftheencyclopediasinceitisbuiltontheclaimthatitdoesntintroduceany

newknowledgebutrathermerelyrepresentswhatexpertsalreadyknow.

Asyoucanseefromtheabovecorecontentpolicies,reliablesourcesisthecentralcoginthewheelofWikipediawork.Understanding

howtorecogniseorreachconsensusonwhichsourcesarereliable,howtoaccuratelyreflectreliablesourcesinarticlethatthey

summarize,aswellashowtorecognisewhenonesourcetrumpsanotherinaparticularcircumstanceareallcriticalskillsforsuccessfulWikipedians.IfaWikipediaadministratordoesnotrecognizeanyreliablesourcesina

newly-createdarticle,itcouldbedeletedimmediatelyonthegroundsofnoindication

ofimportancewithoutanydueprocess(CSD),orputupfordeletionbyany

Wikipedianwhoquestionsitsimportancebyvirtueofitslackofsources.A2011study

byGeigerandFordfoundthatNoindicationofimportancewasoverwhelminglythemostfrequentreasonforthespeedydeletionofarticlesandcasestudieslikethe

MissingWikipedians(Ford,2011)indicatethatreliablesourceswasatthecenterofdeletiondebates.

AccordingtotheWikipedia:ReliableSourcespolicy,thewordsourcehasthreerelatedmeaningsallofwhichcanaffectreliability.

ItisacommonmisconceptionthatWikipediadoesnotallowsocialmediasources.Actually,

Wikipediapolicydescribesaroughhierarchy

ofwhatconstitutesreliablesourcesfrom

self-publishedsources,sourcessuchas

personalwebpagesandTweetswhichshouldgenerallynotbeused,tothird-party,

publishedsourceswithareputationforfact-

checkingandaccuracywhichshouldbeused

asoftenaspossible.

Butforeachofthesemedia,thepolicystates

someexceptions.Self-publishedsourcescan

Theword"source"asusedonWikipediahasthreerelatedmeanings:

thepieceofworkitself(thearticle,book),

thecreatorofthework(thewriter,journalist),

andthepublisherofthework(forexample,RandomHouseorCambridgeUniversityPress).

Anyofthethreecanaffectreliability.Reliablesourcesmaybepublishedmaterials

withareliablepublicationprocess,authorswhoareregardedasauthoritativein

relationtothesubject,orboth.FromWikipedia:Reliablesources


18/57


beusedtosupportinformationaboutapersonororganizationbeingdescribedinarticles,andopinionpiecesfromthird-party,published

sourcesmightnotbeusediftheyarenotsubjecttosufficienteditorialoversight.AnarticleaboutPresidentBarackObama,forexample,

mightuseaTweetfromhisverifiedTwitteraccountasanexampleofhisunofficialpositiononaparticularissue.

Mainstreamnewsreportingisgenerallyconsideredtobereliableforstatementsoffact,thougheventhemostreputablereporting

sometimescontainserrors(WP:Identifyingreliablesources)Sometimesnewsreportsareusedtobackupfacts,sometimestheyare

treatedasprimarysourcesandthereforeunreliable.

Althoughpolicytalksaboutdifferenttypesofmedia(e.g.booksandacademicjournals)beingmorereliablethanothers,itcontinually

referstothefactthatthereliabilityofasourcedependsoncontext(WP:Identifyingreliablesources).Extractingvariablesinthepolicyfordeterminingwhetherasourceshouldbeusedornot,Icreatedthefollowinglist:

Variable Rule Exception

Numberofpeopleinvolved themorepeopleengagedincheckingfacts,

analysinglegalissues,andscrutinizingthewriting,themorereliablethepublication

Peer-reviewedscholarlyarticles,completedissertationssincetheyarevettedbythe

scholarlycommunity

claimsofpeerreviewshouldntbetakenasevidence

thatthejournalisrespected,orthatanymeaningfulpeerreviewoccurs

Numberofcitationsin

citationindexes

Anotherwayofconfirmingthatithasbeenvettedandenteredmainstreamacademic

discourse(published)ischeckingthescholarly

citationsithasreceivedincitationsindexes.

Acorollaryisthatjournalsnotincludedinacitationindex,especiallyinfieldswellcoveredbysuch

indexes,shouldbeusedwithcaution,though

whetheritisappropriatetousewilldependonthe

context.

typeofarticle

biographiesoflivingpersonsstrictlyenforced

Contentiousmaterialaboutlivingpersonsthat

isunsourcedorpoorlysourcedwhetherthematerialisnegative,positive,neutral,orjust

questionableshouldberemovedimmediately

andwithoutwaitingfordiscussion


19/57


publishedstatus

Wikipediadistinguishesbetweenself-published

andpublishedbyareputablethirdparty

primary,secondaryor

tertiarysources

Focusisonsecondarysources,althoughprimary

andtertiarysourcesareallowedinsome

circumstances.Primarysourcesshouldbeused

withcare

Articlesshouldrelyonsecondarysources

wheneverpossible.Forexample,areviewarticle,monograph,ortextbookisbetterthanaprimary

researchpaper

Specifictonewsreportingidentityoftheauthor opinionsofspecialistsandrecognizedexperts

aremorelikelytobereliableandtoreflecta

significantviewpoint.Butsourcesthatarenot

authoritativecanbeusedtoreflecttheopinionoftheauthorratherthanasfact.

specificityanddepth scholarlysourcesarebetterthannewsreports.

Articlesthatdealindepthwithspecificstudies

arebetterthangeneralarticles

verified notforpassingonrumorsandgossip

circularsourcing usingsourcesthatuseWikipediaastheirown

source

context whetheraspecificstoryisreliableforaspecific

factorstatementinaWikipediaarticlewillbe

assessedonacasebycasebasis

reputation

Primary,secondaryandtertiarysources


20/57


Onewayofidentifyingwhetherasourceisreliableornotistodeterminetheviewpointofthesource.Wikipediapoliciesvaluessecondary

sourcesmorehighlythanprimaryortertiarysourcesstatingthatarticlesneedtobebasedlargelyonsecondarysources.Secondary

sourcesarethird-partysources,onestepremoved(whetherbytimeorlocationfromanevent),whereasprimarysourcesarefrom

eyewitnessaccountsdirectlyinvolvedinanevent.Primaryandsecondarysourcesoriginatedinhistorystudieswhereprimarysources

wereusedasartifactstounderstandon-the-groundperspectivesfromaparticulartime.Accordingtopolicy,tertiarysourcescanbeused

tosupportbroadsummariesoftopicsespeciallywhensecondarysourcescontradictoneanother.

Thisdivisionofsourcescanbe

complicated,though,sincejournalismcanfallintoeither

thesecondarysourceifit

providesin-depthanalysisbuta

primarysourceifitisopinionor

eyewitnessaccounts.Also,Wikipediacanbeusedasa

tertiarysourceforanarticleoutsideofWikipediaabouta

topicbutitisaprimarysource

inanarticleaboutWikipedia.

Itseemsthatthereisresistance

amongmanyWikipediansto

everusingprimarysources,but

astheauthorsofthisessay

write,"Primary"isnotanother

waytospell"bad"):

Primarysourcesmayonlybe

usedonWikipediatomake

straightforward,descriptivestatementsthatanyeducatedpersonwithaccesstothesourcebutwithoutspecialistknowledge

willbeabletoverifyaredirectlysupportedbythesource.Thispersondoesnothavetobeabletodeterminethatthematerialin


21/57


thearticleorintheprimarysourceisTrue.Thegoalisonlythatthepersoncouldcomparetheprimarysourcewiththematerial

intheWikipediaarticle,andagreethattheprimarysourceactually,directlysaysjustwhatwe'resayingitdoes.(Wikipedia:

Identifyingandusingprimaryandsecondarysources)

Itisthereforethecontextoftheinformationthatdetermineswhetherasourceisreliableornot,afeaturethatbecomesimportantwhen

consideringdesignoptions.


22/57


B.Sourcesontheground:thecaseofthe2011Egyptianrevolutionarticle

Background

Inordertounderstandhowsourcesarebeingmanagedinrapidlyevolvingarticles,Ianalysedthe2011EgyptianrevolutionWikipedia

articleontheEnglishWikipedia.Studyingtalkpages,editsandothersdocuments,Ipiecedtogetherconversations,versionsanddebates

fromthe25thofJanuarywhenthearticlewasfirstcreated(withinhoursofthefirstprotestsinTahrirSquare),tothe12 thofFebruary

whenMubarakresignedandthearticlenamewaschangedfrom2011Egyptianproteststo2011Egyptianrevolution.Inthese18days,editorsfromtheUnitedStates,Egypt,WesternEurope,theMiddleEastandelsewhereworkedtogethertobuildanaccurateaccountofthe

historiceventstakingplaceinEgyptastheyhappened.Becauseeventswereunfoldingrapidly,fewsecondarysourceswereavailabletoanalysethesignificanceofparticularevents,ortoreflect

onwhicheventsweremostsignificant.Themajorityofsourceswereprimarysourcenewsaccountsbyjournalistsorcitizenjournalistsin

thefield,orelsesummarizedreportsfromprimaryaccounts.BecauseWikipediansmustreflectonlywhatreliablesources(preferably

secondarysources)aresayingaboutaparticularsubject,thechallengebecameaboutkeepingtrackoftherapidlyevolvingnewscycleanddoingsoaccuratelyinoneofthemostreportedglobaleventsintheEnglishmediainrecentyears.

a)Whatmotivatedparticipation?

ThePEJ(PewResearchCentersProjectforExcellenceinJournalism)NewsCoverageIndexindicatedthatcoverageoftheEgyptianunrest

duringthe31Januaryto6Februaryregisteredasthebiggestinternationalstoryinthepastfouryearssurpassinganycoverageofthe

Iraqwar,theHaitiearthquakeandtheconflictinAfghanistan(Jurkowitz,2011).Thestorywascompellingforjournalistsforanumberof

reasonsthatJurkowitzattemptstoexplain:

Onemajorreasonisthenumberofcamerasandjournalists(includingnetworkanchors)inthecountrytransmittingsuchriveting

scenesaslastweeksvideoofmenoncamelsattackingcrowdsofprotestorsinCairo.AnotheristhehighstakesfortheU.S.inone

oftheworldsmostvolatileregionsasittriestobalanceastrategicalliancewithPresidentHosniMubarakandsupportofpro-

democracyprotestors.AthirdfactormaybeuncertaintywillMubarakresignandwhowillgovernafterhim?Andsomeoflast


23/57


weekscoveragewasdrivenbythefactthatthemediathemselvesbecamepartofthestorywithjournalistsbeingharassed,

attackedanddetainedamidthechaos.

Wikipediaeditingspikesgenerallytendtoparallelmediacoverage,butthereweretwoadditionalmotivationsreflectedininterviewsand

talkpagesthatwereparticulartotheWikipediacommunity.ThefirstwastheunprecedentedshutdownoftheInternetbytheEgyptian

government,incitingWikipediaeditorswhousetheInternetandoftentakepartinactivitiestosafeguarditsfreedoms.Inthesameway

thathavingjournalistsattackedmadethestorymorecompellingforthemedia,thefactthatthelifebloodofWikipedia,theInternet,was

underattack,madethisamorecompellingstoryforWikipedians.Secondly,someofthekeyeditorswhohadfriendsandfamilyinEgypt

orwhohadspenttimeinEgyptsaidthateditingthearticlewasawayofbeinginvolvedinthishistoricoccasionandofrepresentingthe

protestersstories.AccordingtotheWikipediaeditorwhooriginallystartedthepage,TheEgyptianLiberal:

IthinkIowethepeoplewhoareprotestingandthosewhohavepassedawaytotelltheirstoryfromaNPOV.IamnotnorcanIbe

inEgyptduemyuniversitysothatmywayofstandinguptoMubarakandtellhimIshallnotbesilencedandIshalltelltheworld

whathappened.(2011EgyptianRevolution:Talkpage)

Theneedtobeinvolvedinthehistoricretellingofeventsmotivatedhundredsofeditorstoparticipateintheeditingofthepage,witha

feweditorsworkingnightanddaytomanagetheoveralldirectionofthearticleanditsforksaseventsevolved.WhenMubarakfinallyresignedonthe12thofFebruary,2011,scoresofeditorsattemptedtochangethenameofthearticlefromproteststorevolutionbefore

consensushadbeenreachedontheTalkpage.Accordingtooneofthetopeditorsofthepage,User:Aude,thiswasbecauseSomeone

alwayswantstobethefirsttodothat(changethename).(Interview,4May,2012)Havingonesusernamepermanentlyattachedtothe

editthatchangedthenametorevolutionseemedtobeasignificantincentiveforediting,evenbeforegeneralconsensushadbeenreached.

b)Whoeditedthepage?

Hundredsofeditorsmadeeditstothe2011EgyptianRevolutionarticle,especiallyinthefirstdaysoftheprotests.Althoughweareunabletoseewherealleditsoriginated,wecanfindoutwhereanonymoususerswereeditingfromsincetheirIPaddressesarepublic.Looking

upthearticleonWikiTrip(http://sonetlab.fbk.eu/wikitrip/#|en|2011_Egyptian_Revolutionshowingthatthetopeditors),anapplication

createdbyPaoloMassaandothers,wecanseethatthemajorityofuserscomefromtheUnitedStates,withsignificanteditsoriginating

fromPoland1,Egypt,theUnitedKingdomandCanada.Wecanalsoseethatonly0.05%of(anonymous)editorsofthepageindicatedthat

1ProbablyfromthesingleuserfromPolandusinganIPaddresswhomadesignificanteditsbeforehewasbanned


24/57


theywerefemaleandthatthemajorityofeditstookplacefromlateJanuary(thestartoftherevolutionwasJanuary25)toearlyFebruary.

Althoughhundredsofeditorsmadeeditstothemainarticle,onlyahandfulofeditorsstuckwiththepageforextendedperiodsoftime.

Theseeditorswereessentialforsteeringtheoveralldirectionofthepage,sincethemajorityofeditorstendedtofocusonspecificdetailswithoutrecognizingfactorslikearticlesizeandlengththatplacedlimitsonthelevelofdetailthatcouldbeaccommodatedinthemainarticle.TheseeditorsalsodecidedwhenandwheretoforkthearticleandweighedinontheTalkpagewhendisputesarose.

TheEgyptianLiberal,theuserwhostartedthearticle,wasthemostprolificeditorbyasignificantmajority.Thisuserplayedacriticalrole

inthegrowthanddevelopmentofthearticleinboththeEnglishandArabicversions.FromhisdiscussionsontheTalkpage,itappears

thatheisanEgyptianlivingoutsidethecountryandwhilehestronglysupportedtherevolutionaries,heattemptedtoretainhisneutral

pointofviewandaskotherstoeditsectionswhenhefeltthathisviewwascompromised(seeanalternativeperspectivebyKamir,2011).


25/57


Respondingto

requestsforan

interview,hewrote

thathedoesnotdo

interviews,

preferringtoretain

hisanonymityon

theWikipedia

platform.

Othertopeditorsofthearticle,suchas

User:Lihaas,Ocaasi

andWipsenadeleft

thepagesoonafter

Mubarakresignedandthearticles

namechanged,whileanonymous

user:94.246.150.68

(aPolishIPaddress)

wasbannedduringhistenureonthe

article.

c)Howthepageevolved

Thefirstarticle(originallycalled2011Egyptianprotests)soonforkedtoprovidemoredetailedinformationaboutwhathappenedon

eachofthefirstdaysoftheprotests,responsestotherevolutionbydifferentcountries,andlater,whathappenedundertheruleofthe

armedforcesandthesubsequentelections.


26/57


Newarticlesbranchingoutfromtheoriginal

Branchingoutisdefinedhereasarticlesthatstartedlifeaspartofthe2011Egyptianrevolutionarticlebutwerelaterstartedastheir

ownpage.Thesepagesinclude:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_2011_Egyptian_revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2011_Egyptian_revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2011_Egyptian_revolution_under_Hosni_Mubarak%27s_rule

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2011_Egyptian_revolution_under_Supreme_Council_of_the_Armed_Forces

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_responses_to_the_Egyptian_Revolution_of_2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_constitutional_review_committee_of_2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trials_and_judicial_hearings_following_the_2011_Egyptian_revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_constitutional_referendum,_2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_presidential_election,_2011

Newarticlesrelatedtotherevolutionthatweresignificantlyimproved

Idefinenewarticleshereasarticlesthatarerelatedtothe2011Egyptianrevolutionpageandthat,althoughtheirsubjectswere

mentionedinthearticle,werentnecessarilysignificantsectionsoftheoriginalbutwerestartedbecausethearticlewasgettingtoobig

and/orbecausethesubjectwassignificantenoughtowarrantitsownpage.Theseinclude:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood_in_Egypt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_are_all_Khaled_Said

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wael_Ghonim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asmaa_Mahfouz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharif_Abdel_Kouddous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_Youth_of_the_Revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Socialists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghad_El-Thawra_Party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignity_Party_(Egypt)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essam_Sharaf


27/57


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hossam_el-Hamalawy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Wasat_Party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Israeli_embassy_attack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maspero_demonstrations

c)Whatwerethemainchallengesfacedbyeditorswithregardtosources?

Editorsfacedfourkeychallengesastheyattemptedtoedittherapidlyevolvingarticle:

1. Collectivelykeepingtrackofthenewscycleusingavailabletools;

2. Decidingwhichphotographsandvideotousewithpolicythatwasdesignedfortextratherthanmultimedia;

3. Decidingwhethertouseprimaryorsecondarysources;

4. Citingonlinesources

1.Collectivelykeepingtrackofthenewscycleusingavailabletools

Editorsoftenseparatedthetasksofeditinganarticleandsearchingfornews.Editstothearticlewereperformedafternewssearchandconsumptionfortworeasons:eitherbecausetheeditordidnthavethetime/inclinationtoeditthepagewhiletheywereconsumingnews,

and/orbecausetheywerewaitingforothersourcestoverifytheinformationcontainedinasinglesource.Themechanismusedbyeditors

tosolvethisproblemwastoattachthenewsarticlewithanoteonthetalkpageasakindofheadsupforothers.Thenotefunctionedas:

a) awaytoalertothereditorstorecently-releasedinformationrelevanttothearticle(importantespeciallysinceeditorswere

workingindifferenttimezonesandthetalkpagewouldbeoneofthefirstplacesacollaboratingeditorwouldgowhentheywoke

uporstartingediting);

b) arequestforotherstoaddthesourcetothearticleforthemiftheydidnthavethetimeortheaccessprivileges,forexample,iftheywereeditingasananonymousIPduringtheperiodswhenthepagewassemi-protected(someeditorssawthediscoveryof

sourcesandpostingtoTalkastheirsingletaskratherthanediting);

c) aplacetoholdsourceswhiletheywerewaitingforothersourcesorwereunsureastotherelevanceofthearticleforinclusion

andwereaskingforopinionsofothereditors;

d) awaytoaskothereditorstofindreferencesforunsourcedorincorrectlysourcedinformationonthearticle.


28/57


Intheexampletotheleft,SilverSerenCalertseditorsto

thereleaseofanewarticlebyReuters.Hesummarizes

thearticlesrelevancetothearticle,highlightingthe

referencetothearmysallegiancetotheprotestersand

thedemandsbytheUSforMubaraktoendthe

EmergencyLaw.Twentyminuteslater,SilverSerenCadds

anotherreference,thistimetoaGuardianreportona

protestbeingplannedforthenextday.Lihaasresponds

withthankstoSilverserenC,addingacheckmarkthathehasDonetheedit.Inthiscase,headdsaphraseto

reiteratethearmyspledgenottouseforceagainst

citizens(ashighlightedbelow)butdoesnotspecifyon

theTalkpageexactlywhichedithasbeendone.

Lookingattheactualeditsonthepage,weseeLihaass

addition,shadedinbluebelow,aswellastheeditsummarythatrefersbacktotheTalkpage.

Revision as of 23:10, 31 January, 2011 by Lihaas:

The top Egyptian generals, led by Tantawi, held back

the military,{{Citeweb|url=http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/nation-

locked-in-a-deadly-stalemate/story-fn6ck51p-

1225997761161|title=Nation locked in a deadly

stalemate}} as the army as a whole again

pledged not to use force on the citizens of Egypt

and said they had a legitimate cause for their

rioting.http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/

31/idINIndia-54544320110131

Edit summary: (ref from talk --> tv sources WILL

come..)

Othereditorsemployedtheiruserpagestokeeptrackofthelatestnewsandcategorize

articlesforlaterediting.User:Aude

Keeping track

AsectionoflinksfromAudesEgyptpagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aude/Egypt

Example of news alert with just-released important information:


29/57


employedoneofheruserpagestopastecitationsforrelevantarticles,photographs,videosetcrelatedtothearticleastheyhappened.In

aninterview,shesaidthatdidthisbecauseshewouldbereadingthenews,ratherthanediting,andwantedaquickwaytostorerelevant

articlesforlaterediting.InthefiguretotherightisasectionofthepagecontaininglinksrelatedtotheEgyptianarmythatshewasstoring

duringthefirsttwoweeksoftheprotests.

2.Decidingwhichphotographsandvideotouse

Criteriaforreliablesourcesdidntworkverywellforimagesandvideo,andeditorshadtodevelopahighlysophisticatedunderstanding

ofbiasasrelatedtotheplacing,representationandchoiceofimageandvideosinthearticle.

Videoandimagesourcesaredifferentfromtext-basedsourcesforanumberofreasons.Thefirstisthattheyneedtoberepresentedin

whole,ratherthananexcerptandthepoliciesandlawsaroundusingvideoandimagesourcesasreferencesarenotaswelldefinedas

textualexcerpts.Imagesandvideoaremoreoftensourcedfromsocialmediaorunaffiliatedindividualsratherthanfromtraditionally

publishedreliablesources.Thisisbecause,unliketext,videoandimagesmustbelicensedunderaCreativeCommonsAttributionShare-

Alikelicenseinordertobeusedonthepage.Wikipediaspolicyonmultimediaseekstoensurethatcopiescanbefreelyandlegallymadeofthearticlesandthatothersmayrepublishthem.Butifimagesormultimediacontainnolicense,eveniftheyaremeantforrepublication

(suchastherawvideofootagefromprotestersuploadedtoYouTube)WikipediaeditorsmusttrytocontacttheauthorsandaskiftheymightlicensetheworkunderCC.Thiscanbeatime-consuming(sometimesimpossible)task,whichiswhyrepositorieslikeFlickr(that

explicitlyaskuploadersiftheywanttolicensetheircontentunderCC)aremorepopular.

Inthecaseofthe2011EgyptianRevolutionarticle,User:AudewasintouchwithAlJazeerahwhoagreedtolicensetheirimagesandvideounderafreerCClicensethantheirdefaultsothatcontentcouldbeintegratedintothearticle.ShesaidthatAlJazeerahwasreceptiveof

theirrequestsandactedquicklytofreeupthephotographicandvideocontentusefultoWikipedia.

Buteditorsstillneededtochoosefromthemultitudeofphotographsandvideo.Particularchallenges

relatingtoimagesandvideoweredecidinghowtopresentpoliticalcartoonsandvideosfromaneutralpointofview.

a)PresentingvideowithNPOV

AnAlJazeeraEnglishvideo(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Al_jazeera_2011_egypt_protests.ogv)was

embeddedinthearticlenexttothe28thofJanuarysectionofthetimeline(seescreenshottotheleft

capturedfromthe06:46UTC29Januaryversionofthearticle).Thevideoshowslivefootageand


30/57


commentaryfromAlJazeerajournalistswhoweretryingtoavoidteargastobringtheimagestoviewers.Thevideoshowsimagesof

protestersgatheringoutsidetheHiltonHotelindowntownCairo,thenteargasbeingthrownatthemtodispersethemwhileAlJazeera

journalistsrelatewhatishappeningfromanearbybuilding.

Onthe29thofJanuary,User:PeterGWernercomplainstoeditorsaboutthevideowithspecificreferencetoitsbeingembeddedinthe

article,ratherthanbeingusedasanarticlereference(i.e.externallylinked).HenotesthatthisraisesallkindsofNPOVissues(2011

EgyptianRevolutionTalkpage:06:49,29January2011UTC).Ocaasidefendsthevideowritingthatitismerelydescriptiveoflocal

surroundingsandeventsandnoteditorializingatallandclaimsthatAlJazeeraEnglishisdeadcenterpolitically(relativetotheNew

YorkTimesandtheEgyptiangovernment)(2011EgyptianRevolutionTalkpage:09:04,29January2011UTC).User:James(TC)writes

thatItisquiteclearwhoisspeaking(notus,them)(09:32)andUser:GeniwritesthelastnoteintheconversationdeclaringthatItstheonlyvideocoveragewehaveofeventsandthatitsunderafreelicensesoyoucaneditthesound/chopupthevisualifyouwant

(17:15).

NoneoftheseresponsesreallygettotheheartofWernerscomplaint,however.Itseemsthatthemajorityofeditorsfeelthatthevideo

merelyrepresentsthefactsofthesituation(asOcaasiwrites:itismerelydescriptive)butmediascholarswouldnotethatcameraangles,commentaryandavarietyofchoicesmadebythejournalistsmeanthatnoimageorvideoismerelydescriptive.Inthiscase,the

perspectiveofthecameraisontheprotestersratherthanthe(unseen)forcesthrowingteargascanisters.Additionally,werehearingfromthejournalistswhoareportrayedasvictimsoftheteargas,thuselicitingsympathyfromtheviewer,andalthoughmostofthe

commentarymerelyrelateswhatishappeningintheimagesandprovidingcontextastowheretheimagesarebeingcaptured,the

narratingjournalistinvitesviewerstoempathizewiththeprotestersratherthanthegovernment:

AsyoucanimaginetheteargasismakingitverydifficultforustoseeYoucanimaginewhatit'slikefortheprotestersImean,

weareseveraldozenfeetabovethestreetlevelfromourstudioyoucanseethesepicturesandnowthatareahaskindofbeen

dispersedasaresultoftheteargas.Youcanseesomeofthepeopleatthehoteltryingtorun...

OcaasiscommentsrepresentacommonmisrepresentationofthereliabilityofsourceswithhiscommentthatAlJazeeraEnglishisdeadcenterpolitically,probablybecausehefeelsheneedstodefendagainstageneralbiasagainstAlJazeerabymanyeditors.Butindoingso,

heignoresWernerscomplaint:WernerisntcomplainingthatAlJazeeraisbiased,hescomplainingthattheplacingofthereference

insidethearticle,almostasastatementinthesamevoiceasthetextofthearticle,isPOV.

James(TC)doesrespondtothisparticularcomplaint,sayingthatitisquiteclearwhoisspeaking(notus,them)especiallysincethe

captiononthevideodoesmakeitclearwhoseperspectiveisbeingshowcased.Ontheotherhand,therearenofurthersourcesusedinthe

textofthearticletoverifywhatispicturedinthisvideoasoccurringaroundtheHiltonHotelonthe28th.


31/57


UnderstandinghowtheuseofvideorelatestoNPOVandverifiabilityisachallengingissueforeditorsbecauseitrequiresnewwaysof

framingandverifyinginformationthatdifferfromtextualmechanisms.

b)PresentingillustrationswithNPOV

Knowledgekid87nominatestheEgyptianrevolutionarticleforaPOVcheck(whichinvolvesawarningtagbeingplacedonthepage)

becausehesaysthatbothcartoonsusedonthepageside(d)withprotesters(00:26UTC,29January2011).Othersweighin,debating

howtomoreaccuratelyreflectanNPOV.

Figure 7 Original selection of the page nominated for a POV check by Knowledgekid87 at 00:28, 29 January, 2011


32/57


Othersmakesuggestionstoresolvetheissueorextendthecritique:

a) Ocaasisuggests(perhapssarcastically)addingapoliticalcartoonthatsideswiththegovernment.Ocaasiwrites:Politicalcartoons

don'tusuallysidewithoppressiveregimes.Doyouhaveonethatdoes?Wecanaddit...

b) HethensuggestsMov(ing)thecartoonstothereceptionsectionratherthanasillustrationforthefactualcontent.Thereception

sectionofthearticlewaswhereeditorsaddedsummariesofresponsestotheprotestsinEgyptandinternationally.

c) PeterGWernerweighsintoaddthatjustification(needsto)begiventhatthesecartoonsarenewsworthyinthemselves,clearly

representativeofworldreaction.

d) TheEgyptianLiberalrespondswithimagesshowingthat(Latuffs)cartoons(are)beingheldbytheprotestersduringtheir

marches.e) PeterGWernersuggestsusingoneoftheimagesofLatuffscartoonsheldbyprotestorsinsteadoftheoneinthearticleandadding

textthatput(s)itin(to)context.

f) Onethecartoonsissubsequentlyremoved.

Figure 8 Latuff cartoon moved from the Protests section to the Domestic responses: Media censorship section (Egyptian revolution article as at 00:56, 31January 2011) as a result of the POV check


33/57


Figure 9 Khaled Mohamed Saeed cartoon is removed and caption is edited to include more context.

Figure 10 Figures above showing the 00:28, 29 January 2011 (POV check) and the 00:56, 31 January 2011 versions of the photo captions after the POV check


34/57


ThisexampleshowsthatPOVchecksmaybeusefulforimprovingcontent.Editorsareincentivizedheretoreviewallthecontentofthe

pageinordertohavethePOVtagremovedsothattheyareabletoprovethequalityofthearticleagainstoneofthemostfundamental

Wikipediapolicies,NPOV.WecanalsoseeherethatmultimediamayrequirespecialNPOVguidelinesbecausethecontextandplacement

ofimagesorvideoiscriticaltoitsneutrality,unliketextualinformation.

3.Decidingwhethertouseprimaryorsecondarysources

At04:32UTConthe28thofJanuary,ananonymoususerasksothereditorstoaddJoeBidenscommentsonMubarakasreportedinthe

ChristianScienceMonitor[1]tothearticle.Eightminuteslater,TheEgyptianLiberalhassummarizedthestoryfromtheChristianScience

MonitorarticleandaddedhissummaryittotheInternationalreactionssectionas

USVicePresidentJosephBidensaid"...wereencouragingthegovernmenttoactresponsiblyandandtotrytoengageina

discussionastowhatthelegitimateclaimsbeingmadeare,iftheyare,andtrytoworkthemout.",aswellaschoosingnottorefer

Mubarakasadictatorandthatheshouldnotstepdown[1]

TheEgyptianLiberalmarksthetaskasDoneontheTalkpage.Thenextday,Abrazamealtersthetextofthesentence,removingthe

phrase:aswellaschoosingnottoreferMubarakasadictatorandthatheshouldnotstepdownandreplacingthequotewiththefollowing:

USVicePresidentJosephBidensaidHosniMubarak"hasbeenanallyofoursinanumberofthings.Andhesbeenvery

responsibleon,relativetogeopoliticalinterestintheregion,theMiddleEastpeaceefforts:theactionsEgypthastakenrelativetonormalizingrelationshipwithIsrael." [1]

Intheactualtranscriptoftheinterviewthislineisfollowedbythewords:AndIthinkthatitwouldbe--Iwouldnotrefertohimasa

dictator2.

2Interviewtranscript:

JIMLEHRER:Theword--thewordtodescribetheleadershipofMubarakandEgyptandalsoinTunisiabeforewasdictator.ShouldMubarakbeseen

asadictator?

JOEBIDEN:Look,Mubarakhasbeenanallyofoursinanumberofthingsandhe'sbeenveryresponsibleon,relativetogeopoliticalinterestsinthe

region:MiddleEastpeaceefforts,theactionsEgypthastakenrelativetonormalizingtherelationshipwithIsrael.


35/57


ButAbrazamewritesthattheChristianScienceMonitorsheadlineJoe

BidensaysEgypt'sMubaraknodictator,heshouldn'tstepdown...isa

twistingofBidenswordsandthatsuchU.S.-partisanbaitingdoesnot

belonginthisarticle.AbrazamecontendsontheTalkpagethatthe

actualconversationwithBidenwasverydifferentfromthewayitwaspresentedintheheadline.

User:MissionarydisagreesontheTalkpage,writingthatthestorymade

headlines(in)severalunrelatedreliablesourcespointingtothree

articlesfromCBSNews(JoeBiden:"SpeakerBoehnerandIareFriendshttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20029872-503544.html),

FoxNews(Biden:Mubarakshouldnotstepdown

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/28/biden-mubarak-step/)

andtheMalaysianSun(U.S.comestodefenseofEgyptiangovernment,http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/b8de8e630faf3631/i

d/737115/cs/1/ht/US-comes-to-defence-of-Egyptian-government/),and

linkingtothetranscriptoftheinterviewonPBSnews(http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june11/biden_01-

27.html).

AbrazamerepliesinanunusuallylongpostthatWikipediaeditorsshouldnotbeswayedbyprovocativeheadlinewriterswhohaveotheragendasandthatbyusingthistwistedversiontheywouldbecommittingthesinofPOV(pointofview).

Surelyyouknowthatheadlinewritersaretheretobeprovocativeinordergethitsand/orsellcopy,andthatsyndicatesandthe

blogospherethrivesonsuchprovocativeness,preferringtobandyaboutthebroadestandbluntestconclusion-jumpingifitfits

intotheir"storyline",ratherthanactuallyreadandcomprehendthewordsandtheircontext.

HealsowritesthatUsingthisarticletoamplifythisaspectoftheVP'sinterviewseemsPOVandthatsuchaprovocativestatement

shouldhavemorethanonemisreadingofasourcenomatterhowmanysitesmirrorthisamplifiedmisinterpretationtosupportit.

AndIthinkthatitwouldbe--Iwouldnotrefertohimasadictator.(FromPBS.org http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june11/biden_01-

27.html)

Current(10May,2012)citationtoasectionoftheoriginal

PBSNewsHourinterviewvideofromwherethequotescamehttp://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/exclusive-biden-

discusses-unrest-in-egypt-keeping-us-competitive.html


36/57


32minuteslater,thecitationisrevisedbySergeowhoreplacestheChristianScienceMonitorarticlewithalinktoavideo[3]ofasection

oftheinterview(notthesectionthatisquotedinthearticle)withaneditsummaryclaimingthatthePBSciteisaDirectsourceandthat

itwasdoneforneutralityreasons.Sergeousesthetermdirectsourceperhapsbecausehewouldrathernotusethelessacceptable

primarysourceterm.Interestingly,thePBScitationcontainsonlyaselectionoftheentireinterviewvideoanddoesnotcontainthe

selectionquoted.Sergeousesthetermdirectsourcebuttheoriginal,full-lengthsource(inwhichthequotethatisusedoccurs)islocatedatanotherURL(http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june11/biden_01-27.htmland

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=N-_1FMTMzRg)andamoredirectsourcewouldbetheactuallineused

inthecontextoftheentireinterview.

ItseemsthatWikipediascurrentpoliciesonsourcesleavequestionsrelatingtoappropriatesourceshere.

Intermsoftheverifiabilityprinciple,itseemsmoreappropriatetolinktotheactualvideooftheinterviewsothatusersareabletocheckuponwhatBidenactuallysaid,aswellasthecontextinwhichitwassaid.ButtheverifiabilityprinciplealsoindicatesthatWikipedia

shouldmerelyreflectwhatreliablesourcessayaboutaneventratherthanthetruthofwhatactuallyhappened.Noneofthenumerous

articlespublishedfromreliablesourcesonbothsidesofthepartisandivideaboutthespeechleaveoutBidenswords:Iwouldnotrefer

tohimasadictatorastheWikipediaarticledoesanditseemsthattheprimarysourceisbeingusedtopreventhavingtorefertoany

secondarysourcethatwouldcontainthisinformation.Thequestionbecomes,whatshouldWikipediansdowhennewssourcestwistthe

truthbecauseofskewedincentivesandminimalresourcesthattendtoseeothersourcesmerelymirroringtheseincorrectversions?It

mayseembettertobeabletogodirectlytotheprimarysource,especiallywhenthisisincreasinglypossible,buttheproblemisthatin

manycases,Wikipediansmustsummarizetheprimarysourceandindoingsodonotalwaysreflectwhatthemajorityofsecondary

sourcesarehighlighting.Thismaybeaparticularproblemofnewsmediasincenewsmediaisparticularlysubjecttopartisanbias,

recentismandtheinfluencesofadvertisersandinvestors,butitisbecomingamorecommonproblem.

Intheend,AbrazameandSergeoseemtohavewonthisroundbecausetheparagraphwasnteditedagain,norwasAbrazames(verylong)Talkpostrespondedto(thesentenceisnowonthesplitoffpageentitled:Internationalreactionstothe2011Egyptianrevolution

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_2011_Egyptian_revolution ).Someonecouldeditthepagenow,butitiswell

knownthattiming(andconsequentlytheattentionthatsuchtiminggarners)isthemostimportantvariableinthesestories.

AnotherissueraisedbythisexampleisthequestionofwhenaneditorneedstoreachconsensusontheTalkpagebeforeediting.There

arenumerousexampleswhereeditorsrevertandreinstateeditswithoutdiscussionontheTalkpage,buthereitseemsthatAbrazameis

attemptingtousetheTalkpageasawaytodrivehisagendawithlongspeeches--perhapstoolongforeditorstoreadandchallenge.

AbrazamehimselfeditsthepagebeforemakinghiscritiqueofthepreviouseditbutthenrevertsMissionaryseditbecausehewritesthat

heshoulddiscussitonthetalkpageratherthanjustreverting.SinceAbrazamehasthelastwordonthetalkpageabouttheissue,it


37/57


seemsthatithasbeensettledinhisfavor,whenitcouldbethatMissionaryhasgivenupduetothelengthofAbrazamespostsandhis

obviousdeterminationonthetopic.Itmayseemtoomuchofabattletofightandsothereislittleoversight.

Citations(astheyappear/edinthearticle):

1:Murphy,Dan(January26,2011)."JoeBidensaysEgypt'sMubaraknodictator,heshouldn'tstepdown".TheChristianScienceMonitor.

RetrievedJanuary28,2011.

2:Biden:MubarakShouldNotStepDown*

3:Murphy,Dan**(January26,2011)."Exclusive:BidenDiscussesUnrestinEgypt,KeepingU.S.Competitive".PBS.RetrievedJanuary28,

2011.

*TheabovesourceisfromFoxNews.com.Interestingthatitisnotincluded.ThereissignificantoppositiontousingFoxNewsasa

ReliableSourcesoitmaybethattheeditoristryingtoburythereference.

**ItisincorrectthatDanMurphyistheauthor.DanMurphywastheauthoroftheChristianScienceMonitorarticlebutdoesntappearin

thePBSvideo.Probablyanediterrorwhenthecitationwaschanged.

Time Editor Edit Editsummary Talkpost Notes

28January2011

04:32 76.124.12.112 JoeBiden'scommentsonMubarakandlegitimacyof

protestors

PleaseaddhiscommentsasdescribedinCSMonitorhttp://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/012

7/Joe-Biden-says-Egypt-s-Mubarak-no-dictator-he-shouldn-t-

step-down

Anonymoususerasks

editorstoaddBidens

commentstothe

articleandreferences

theChristianScience

Monitorpiece[1].

04:39

04:41

TheEgyptian

Liberal

04:39:USVice

PresidentJosephBidensaid

"...wereencouragingthe

governmenttoact

none04:41: Done

TheEgyptianLiberal

summarizesthestory

fromtheChristian

ScienceMonitorarticle


38/57


responsiblyandandtotry

toengageinadiscussionasto

whatthelegitimateclaims

beingmadeare,iftheyare,

andtrytoworkthemout.",as

wellaschoosingnottorefer

Mubarakasadictatorand

thatheshouldnotstep

down[1]

andaddsittothe

International

reactionssectionafter

anonymoususerasks

foreditorstoaddthe

informationonthe

Talkpage

29January2011

02:36-

02:40

Abrazame 02:36:USVice

PresidentJosephBidensaid

HosniMubarak"hasbeenan

allyofoursinanumberof

things.Andhesbeenvery

responsibleon,relativeto

geopoliticalinterestintheregion,theMiddleEastpeace

efforts:theactionsEgypthas

takenrelativetonormalizing

relationshipwithIsrael." [1]

International:C

overageofthis

statementtakes

outofcontext

andoverstates

diplomatic

refusaltoletaninterviewerput

wordsintohis

mouth

02:40:Hiscomments"asdescribedinthe ChristianScience

Monitor"areapartisanPOVtwistingofhiswords,andsuch

U.S.-partisanbaitingdoesnotbelonginthisarticle.Bidenwas

askedtwoorthreedaysago,"ifthetimehas"comefor

PresidentMubarakofEgypttogo?"Bidenanswered:"No.I

thinkthetimehascomeforPresidentMubaraktobeginto

moveinthedirectionthattobemoreresponsivetosome...oftheneedsofthepeopleoutthere."Thisisnotthesameasthe

titleofthatsmearpiececharacterizes,thatBidensays

he"shouldn't"stepdown.Atthetime,Obamahadnot

personallymadeanofficialcomment;nowthathehas,

theCSM'stwistingoftheVicePresident'swords,whichwas

neverinpropercontext,areevenlessnecessaryorrelevant.

Respondingtoquestionsabout"wouldyousaythis,andwould

yousaythat"as"no,that'snotwhatIwouldsay"doesn'tmean

youdon'tthinkthosethings,itsimplymeanstheVice

Presidentisn'tfallingintothetrapoflettingpeopleputwords

inhismouthatatimethatrequiresdiplomacy.That

theCSMwouldputtheoppositeofthosewordsinhismouthis

nomorerelevantorappropriatetoparadeasifitweretheVicePresident'sopinion.

Whatisrelevanttothissituationisthedesireforcontinuityin

peacetreatiesthatMubarakhasadheredtoasaU.S.ally,so

ratherthanremovingthesectionagaininitsentirety,Ihave

leftinthepartthatspeakstothatlegitimatelyrelevant

point.Abrazame(talk)02:40,29January2011(UTC)

Abrazamealtersthe

text,removingthe

phrase:aswellas

choosingnottorefer

Mubarakasadictator

andthatheshouldnot

stepdownandreplacingthequote

withanother.

02:51 Missionary USVicePresidentJoseph Undidrevision Missionaryundoes


39/57


BidensaidHosniMubarak

shouldnotstepdown,and

that"Mubarakhasbeenan

allyofoursinanumberof

things.Andhesbeenvery

responsibleon,relativeto

geopoliticalinterestinthe

region,theMiddleEastpeace

efforts;theactionsEgypthas

takenrelativetonormalizing

relationshipwithwith

Israel....Iwouldnotreferto

himasadictator." [1][2]

410682826

byAbrazame(ta

lk)Editgoes

againstthe

unanimous

opinionof

Reliable

Sources

Abrazamesrevision

becausehewritesthat

itgoesagainstthe

unanimousopinionof

ReliableSourcesand

addsthephrase:...I

wouldnotrefertohim

asadictator.tothe

quotefromBiden.

03:03 USVicePresidentJoseph

BidensaidHosniMubarak

"hasbeenanallyofoursina

numberofthings.Andhes

beenveryresponsibleon,relativetogeopolitical

interestintheregion,the

MiddleEastpeaceefforts:the

actionsEgypthastaken

relativetonormalizing

relationshipwithIsrael." [1]

Undidrevision

410684863

byMissionary(t

alk)Please

discussthisonthetalkpage

ratherthanjust

revertingPOV

intothearticle

Abrazamerevertsit

backtohiseditand

asksMissionaryto

discussthisonthetalk

pageratherthanjustrevertingPOV.

03:33 Missionary

DisagreeThisisnotasmearpiece,itmadeheadlinesof

severalunrelatedreliablesources([2][3][4])Itreallyis

importantasareflectionoftheUSviewtowardsMiddleEast

authoritarianregimesfromahighauthority.Thereisno

broadercontexttobehadhere(seetranscript),Bidenreally

meanttoexpresshisbeliefthatMubarakisnotadictatorand

thatheshouldnotstepdown.

04:08 Abrazame Surelyyouknowthatheadlinewritersaretheretobe

provocativeinordergethitsand/orsellcopy,andthat

syndicatesandtheblogospherethrivesonsuch

provocativeness,preferringtobandyaboutthebroadestand

bluntestconclusion-jumpingifitfitsintotheir"storyline",


40/57


ratherthanactuallyreadandcomprehendthewordsandtheir

context.ItisnotrelevanttothisdevelopingstoryaboutEgypt

thattheVicePresidentoftheU.S.doesn'twantinterviewers

puttingwordsintohismouth.

BidenisnotaskedifMubarak isadictator,heisaskedif

Mubarakshouldbeseenasadictator,andwhatBidenrepliesisthathe"wouldnotrefertohimasadictator"(emphasisis

mine).BidendoesnotsaythatMubarak "isnot"adictator,itis

theheadlinewriterwhosaysthatBidenhassaidthis.Itisnot

relevant,then,whetherthenewsagencymistitlesitassuch,

northatFoxNewsandtheMalaysianSun runwiththe

headlinethatclaimsBidensayssomethingthathedoes

not,particularlywhenwehavetheactualtranscripttoshow

usthis.

Butthisisnotmerelyanargumentaboutsemantics,itisone

aboutdiplomacy,onethatBidenchosetoapproach

diplomaticallygiventhesensitivityoftherelationship,given

thesensitivityofthethen-nascentsituationthere,andgiven

thathedidn'twanttogetoutinfrontofastorybymakingclumsilybellicosecharacterizationsofallies.Thefactthatthe

U.S.considersEgyptanally(andaprimaryreasontheU.S.

considersEgyptanally)isarguablyrelevanttothisarticle

(thougharguablynolessrelevanttootherswhoappreciate

andwishtomaintainthepeaceEgyptmadewithIsrael),soI

thoughtagoodcompromisewastorestorethataspectofhis

comments.Wouldyouarguethattheuseoftheterm"dictator"

ismorerelevantthantheunderpinningsofthisrelationship?It

strikesmethatthisistheapproachofatabloid,ratherthan

thatofanencyclopedia.

Imaybewrong,butI'mnotawareofeitherPresidentObama

orSecretaryofStateClintonsayingthattheywould"refer"to

himasadictator(or,indeed,doingso),andthepointisthatthisiswhatdiplomacyisallabout.Allofthemseemtobeon

thesamepagethattheywouldliketheoutcomeofthistobe

decidedinapeacefulwaybytheEgyptianpeoplewithoutthe

U.S.callingfor"dictators"to"stepdown"astheymovetoward

electionstochooseanewleadergoingforward.Itisimplicit

thatleaderswhocareaboutpreservinglives,muchless

leaderswhosecountrieshavetreatiesandtradepactswith

anothercountry,wouldpreferapeacefulsuccessionof


41/57


governmentratherthanabloodyupheavalthatthrowsallof

theirmutualinterestsintoquestion.Statingpubliclythat

you'renotgoingtousedisparagingcharacterizationsagainst

suchanally,giventhatthisallyhasindicatedhewillholdsuch

elections(therebyimplyingthathemaybereadytostopbeing

whateversortofleaderonemaycharacterizehimas),isadiplomaticallyappropriatechoice.Usingthisarticletoamplify

thisaspectoftheVP'sinterviewseemsPOV.Doingsobecause

itisyourmisperceptionthatBidenthinksthatMubarak

shouldremaininpowerfortheforeseeablefutureisa

misinterpretationoftheinterview,onethatisfueledbythe

influenceofthePOVheadlinesandnotbyanuancedreading

anddigestionoftheactualwordsandtheircontext,andshows

anaivemisunderstandingoftheresponsibilityofspeechby

U.S.leaders.Iftheysayonething,theymaybeaccusedof

fomentinganothercountry'scivilwarorevenimplying

tacticalsupportforsuch.(RememberIrannotlongago?)If

theysayanotherthing,theymaybeaccusedofbackinga

leaderoverhispeople.Idon'tthinkthatanyresponsiblereadingofthisinterviewtakesawaythatBidenissayingthe

latter.

Putanotherway,asitseemstobeyourassertionthattheU.S.

wantsMubaraktoremaininpowerratherthanholdthose

electionsandhaveapeacefultransferofpower,orfor

Mubaraktobeunyielding(dictatorial)tothedemandsofhis

peopleforhoweverlonghemightholdontohispositionin

advanceofsuchanelection,canyouciteanyotherreliably

sourced,non-POV-twistingstatementtosupportthat?Because

selectingthisoneaspecttomisquoteoutofcontextisan

irresponsibleamplificationofaposition,thatBidenandby

extensiontheU.S.governmentactuallywantsMubarakto

stayon,andsuchaprovocativestatementshouldhavemorethanonemisreadingofasourcenomatterhowmanysites

mirrorthisamplifiedmisinterpretationtosupport

it.Abrazame(talk)04:08,29January2011(UTC)

04:40 Sageo International:Di

rectsource-

neutrality

Changesthecitation

referencetoPBS[3]


42/57


4.Citingonlinesources

Intheexcerptbelow,youcanfindanexampleofaneditorbringinganincompletesourcetothetalkpage.Here,Ocaasimakesanew

sectiononthetalkpageentitledNEWSDESK(sourcingandverification)andaskseditorstoUsethissectiontopostrequestsforsources,statementsneedingverification .(Talk:2011_Egyptian_revolution/Archive_3)

Inthisexample,Ocaasinotesthattheopposition

leaderhasnotbeennamedandthatatraceable

sourceneedstobeprovided.Theeditorwhohad

madetheeditwasprobablywatchingAlJazeerahs

livenewscoverageasmanywereduringtheevents.Othereditorsrespondwithinconclusivereplies

perhapsbecauseOcaasihasntexplicitlyaskedfor

whatheislookingfor.About11hourslater,

SilverserenfindsanonlinesourcereferringtotheAlJazeerareportandanothereditor,Lihaas,editsthe

referenceinthearticle,concludingthecollaborative

turn.

Interestingly,thetextofthearticlereferredtoAl

Jazeerasreportanddidnotmentiontheoppositionleadersname.Thearticlewasfromtheblogs

sectionoftheLATimesandalargelogoofthe

CarnegieMiddleEastCenteronthepageindicated

thatitwaswrittenbythestaffoftheLATimesandtheCarnegieMiddleEastCenter.Belowyoullfindthearticlewithphrasesreferringtoothernewsmediareportsinboldred.AlsonoticetheoriginalURLprobablyfromanearlierheadlinethatspecifiedthesourceofthe

information(i.e.AlJazeera).

EGYPT:Oppositionplanstonegotiatewithmilitary,notpresident

January30,2011| 1:34pm

LATimes

Reference request:


43/57


44/57


reportingwasdonebybloggersratherthanstaffoftheLATimes.

Originalphrase(broughttothetalkpagebyOcaasiat09:01,31January,2012):

Revisionasof21:34,31January2011byLihaas(addingtherefURL)

Laterthenextday,changedto:

Andasof15May,2012thetextreads:

TheconventionofHeadlinetitle+publisher+retrievaldate(sometimesprecededbytheauthorofthearticleifknown)isusedasthe

formatforthemajorityofreferences.Editorsmayusecitationtemplates(seebelow)toinsertappropriateinformationandformatthe

citationcorrectlybutthetemplatesdonotenableeditorstoreflectcomplexauthorshipofformssuchasnewspaperweblogswherethe

contentisoftenwrittenbyauthorsoutsideofthepublicationscorestafforwhereitmaycontaininformationthatisunverified(duetothe

Anoppositionleader[who?]saidthattalkswouldnotbeheldwithMubarakbutonlywiththearmy.[113]

Anoppositionleader{{Who|date=January2011}}saidthattalkswouldnotbeheldwithMubarakbutonlywiththe

army.http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/01/arab-satelite-network-al-jazeera-has-reported-that-

egyptian-opposition-leaders-say-that-their-negotiations-for-a-transition.html

^"EGYPT:Oppositionplanstonegotiatewithmilitary,notpresident|Babylon&Beyond|LosAngelesTimes" .

Latimesblogs.latimes.com.Retrieved2011-01-31.

Egyptianoppositionleaderssaidthattalkswouldbeheldonlywiththearmy.[84]

"Egypt:OppositionPlansToNegotiatewithMilitary,NotPresident" .LosAngelesTimes.Retrieved31January2011.


45/57


Figure 11 Web citation template and news citation template

Figure 12 Different source templates


46/57


d)Howwasinformationverified?

Informationwasverifiedbyeditorsinanumberofways,fromsimplycheckingthesourcetoseewhetheritwasaccuratelyreflectedinthe

articletext,tocountingsourcesthatnamedeventsdifferently.

1. Avoidingsinglesources

WheneditorsbroughtbreakingnewstotheTalkpage,somecontinuouslycalledforrefrainingfromusingthesourcestoeditthepage

whenonlyasinglenewschannelwasreportingtheinformation.Onthe28 thofJanuary,KuzwabringsanupdatetotheTalkpagewriting

thatWikileakshasreleasedanewcablewhichclaimsthatAmericahasbeensecretlysupportingthepro-democracymovementinEgyptsinceatleast2008.Also,itlookslikemajordemocraticreformsinEgyptwereplannedfor2011throughsomesortofplot.Notsureifthis

plotcountedinTunisia'scollapseornot.Seehere:[5]--Kuzwa(talk)21:25,28January2011(UTC)

Ocaasireplies:Thinkweshouldwaitabitonitforconfirmingsources.NothingagainsttheVancouverSunbutthisshouldbereportedinmultipleplacesifit'saccurateandnotable.Ocaasi(talk)22:21,28January2011(UTC)

Afewminuteslater,othereditorsdiscoverthatthearticleciteddoesnotrefertotheUSssupportofEgypt.

2. Waitandsee

ThisphrasebecameaconstantrefrainamongeditsontheTalkpageofthearticle.Editorswouldbringbreakingnewstothepage,andwhentherewasonlyasinglesourceavailabletoverifytheinformation,editorswouldaskotherstowaitandseewhetherothernews

outletsweresayingthesamething.Dontdotoomuchsynthesisuntilreliablesecondarysourceshavereviewedtheeventsand

ascertainedwhicharethemostimportant.

Aftersomeeditorscallforasplitofthetimelinesectionofthearticleon3February,User:Wntrepliesthathehopessecondarysourceswillreviewandprioritize/summarizeeventssothateditorscouldthenreflectthatsummaryinfutureversionsofthearticle.

Imhopingsomesecondarysourcewillrevieweventssofar,andprovideagoodoutlinetofollowintermsofhowthedevelopmentof

eventsunfolded.Wnt(talk)05:43,3February2011(UTC)

Wntscommentreflectsoneoftheproblematicissuesinvolvingthewritingofencyclopedicarticlessoclosetoanevent.Asanarticle

grows,informationwillneedtobesummarizedinordertokeepthearticleconcise.Butinordertosummarize,editorsmustprioritize


47/57


whatisimportantwithoutdoinganyoftheirownsynthesis(inwhichcasetheywouldbeabandoningNPOVanddevelopingwhattheycall

originalresearch).Sincethenewsmediatendstoproduceanalysisonlyafterproducinghardnewsstoriesaboutdaytodayhappenings,

thesesourcescanbehard,ifnotimpossible,tocomebyespeciallysincesomanyeditorswouldrathereditthepagethanwaitingtosee

assomeuserscallfor.

3. Readingthearticle/watchingthefootage/understandingthecontextoftheoriginalsourcetocheckwhethertheinformationhas

beenaccuratelyrepresented.

OnthethirdofFebruary,IP.68complainedonthetalkpagethatascreenshotofAl

Jazeeravideofootageentitled"PoliceincivilianclothbeatingaprotesterinCairo1.png"

hadbeeninaccuratelycaptioned.Itwasnotclearbywatchingthefootagethatthis

particularshotidentifiedpolicebeatingupprotesters.Othereditorschimedinwithpossiblechangestothecaption,forexample:"AviolentscenefromtheJanuary28Cairo

protests"suggestedby[User:Physicsisallgnomes]whosaidthathehadtried

mentioningthereportsofplainclothesofficersbeatingprotesters,butdecideditviolated

WP:SYNTHESIS(thepolicy).[Physics]alsoaddedalinktothevideoandthepicturedsceneslocationinthetimeline(roughly1:50)forotherseditorsreferencesincethis

wasnotincludedintheimageinformation.Thecaptionwasalteredandthenthephoto

wasremovedsoonafterwards.

4. Findingsourcesthatconfirmasinglesource

SincesomanyeditorswerewatchingliveAlJazeeratelevisioncoverageoftheevents,the

coreeditorshadtoworktogethertofindonlinesourcestobackupinformationthatwas

citedtotelevision.Intheexamplebelow,aneditorwaswatchingtelevisionnews

coverageandheardanoppositionleadersayingthattalkswouldonlybeheldwiththearmy(ratherthanwithMubarak).HeeditsthepagetoreflectthiswithacitationtoaTVsource.Ocaasibringsthisreferencetothetalkpageandasksformoreinformationonthe

leadersnameandthesource.Othereditorsrespondwithwhattheysuspectitwasbutwithnoconclusiveanswers.Silverserenfindsan

onlinesourceandanothereditor,Lihaas,editsthereferenceinthearticle,concludingthecollaborativeturnandOcaasipraisesSilverserenforhisfind.

Thisisanexcellentexampleofthecollaborativeverificationprocessesthatweresosuccessfulinthisarticle.Editorscanbeseenhereto

beworkingwelltogether,helpingtoverifyclaimsusingindividualsknowledgeofunfoldingevents(TheEgyptianLiberal),using

Figure 13: From the 2011 Egyptian Revolution articleat 12:32, 1 Feb 2011


48/57


sophisticatedsearchskills(Silverseren)andleadershipqualities(Ocaasi)toensurethequalityofthearticle.

ThisconversationalsoprovidesevidencethatthesourcecitedinaWikipediaarticleisnotalwaysthesameasthesourceofthatinformation.Thisphenomenonwasverifiedininterviews,whereeditorsstatedthattheyfoundtheirinformationinwhattheybelieved

wasamorecontroversialsource(AlJazeerah,forexample,wascitedbymanyeditorsasunreliableonotherpages)andinsteadfound

similarinformationinabetteracceptedsourceandusedthatasthecitationreference.Inthecaseofthe2011Egyptianrevolutionarticle,editorswerefrequentlyobtainingtheirinformationfromtelevisionsourcesandneededtofindadditionalonlinesources(oftenreleased

afterthelivetelevisionfootage)tobackuptheirclaimsusingagreed-uponsourcingmethods.Ontheonehand,findingadditionalsources

toverifyasinglesourcecanleadtomoreaccuratecuration,butontheotherhand,theuseofmainstreamnewssourcescanrenderthe

sourceofinformationopaqueasreaderstrytoverifyclaimsmadeinanarticle.


49/57


Conclusionsanddesignconsiderations

Atypologyofsources

Inthediagrambelow,IhaveoutlinedaWikipediasourcetypology,highlightingeachtypeofrelevantsourceaswellasthecharacteristics

thatarecriticalforanunderstandingofwhereinformationonWikipediaoriginated.Itisimportanttonoteherethatthecharacteristics

foraneditordecidingwhetherasourceisreliableorrelevantenoughforinclusioninanarticleisdifferentfromthecharacteristicsused

byreaderstodecidewhetherthearticleitselfisreliableornot.Forexample,formerNewYorkTimesjournalist,JudithMillerscoverageofIraqsallegedweaponsofmassdestructionwouldbenotableenoughforcoverageinWikipedia(eventhoughtheallegationsturnedoutto

befalse)becausethestoriesplayedaninstrumentalroleintheUSsdecisiontogotowarin2003.Thecharacteristicsofnotability(for

misinformationorrumor)orvalidity,verifiability,depth,experienceetc(foraccurateinformation)canbeusedbyeditorstoselect

sourcesforinclusioninanarticle,butinformationaboutwhohaseditedthepageasw

wikipedia sources: managing sources in rapidly evolving global news articles on the english...

Documents