[Doofy]

So I'm reading about the Ibanez RG on Wiki, mainly to check that the information is correct.
Ibanez RG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Ibanez RG series has the maximum subtypes of guitars under the Ibanez Electric Guitar catalog (citation needed)

Ummm. Just go look at the catalogue and count.

The Ibanez RG was originally designed as a derivative of Steve Vai's JEM\Universe series (citation needed)

How does one cite a well-known fact?

The RG series are among the most popular hard rock and metal guitars ever made. (citation needed)

Again, any metal guitarist will confirm that the RG is among the most popular metal guitars ever made.

The RG series was first introduced in 1987 as a derivative to the Ibanez JEM and Universe series by Steve Vai, contrary to the more popular opinion that Rocky George, former lead guitarist for the California based hardcore punk/thrash metal outfit Suicidal Tendencies and current lead guitarist for Fishbone was its designer (citation needed)

Again, how does one cite a well-known fact?

The RG Series features a thin neck - The Wizard Prestige and Wizard II necks are the thinnest and flattest necks ever made on guitars (citation needed)

How does one cite something which can only be proven by getting a tape measure and a bunch of guitars together?

Almost all guitars in the series have some variations of a Floyd Rose-style tremolo (citation needed)

Ummm. Go look at them and see how many say "licensed by Floyd Rose" on the trem. Nearly all of them. How's one supposed to cite this?


So. Is Wiki in danger of disappearing up it's own bottom? How does one go about citing real world stuff which everybody in the particular sector of society concerned knows to be the truth but nobody has bothered to write it down because hey, everybody knows?

Water is wet.

(citation needed)

[turtle777]

Yeah, it's bullshit, because it creates the illusion of strict scientific standards and methods.

Also: 1+1=2 (citation needed)

-t

[Laminar]

.

[Big Mac]

It's a problem with the Wikipedia informational model. Given that it's very freely editable by nearly everyone at nearly all times, citations are very necessary. But for obvious facts it's a clear problem because the blatantly obvious is seldom pointed out in notable external sources.

I guess the best alternative is to talk about the obvious facts on the Discussion, show how they are obvious and then cite the Discussion page as a footnote. Either that or publish an article pointing out such obvious things.

[SpaceMonkey]

It's a necessary and useful standard for something like Wikipedia, because its pages are open to anyone's edits. What is a "well known fact" for the guitar-obsessed may not be a well known fact to everyone who might edit the page. For example, someone who subscribes to the "the more popular opinion that Rocky George...was [the RG series'] designer."

[CharlesS]

There have been plenty of "facts" over time that were "well-known" by "everyone" despite being 100% BS. Just look at the history of MacNN for examples.

Citations on Wikipedia are very much needed.

[phantomdragonz]

There was a news outlet that had mis-quoted a wiki article and the article was cited the to (wrong) news article. (Citation needed =p )

vicious cycle of mis-information...

[bstone]

Wikipedia:Verifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Check it out.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by bstone 

Wikipedia:Verifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Check it out.

OK, but I'm not understanding how...

Almost all guitars in the series have some variations of a Floyd Rose-style tremolo (citation needed)

...isn't verifiable. Just go pick a hundred up and see if the trem looks like a Floyd Rose. How does one verify that via a publication (which isn't self-published)? Why does a statement that not all that specific ("some variations of FR style") need a citation anyway?

Is this basically a problem with the information structure of Web 2.0 (and not just Wiki)? I mean, I could tell you right now that I own seven Ibanez RG550s, but how would you verify it? Do I post a pic? What if that pic is at a mate's house and he owns seven of them, while I own none? What if they're Chibanez RG550s, not Ibanez? What if I were just holding them for a Nigerian prince instead of actually owning them?
Where does the buck stop? According to the Wiki model, I could get a mate to set up a publishing company which then publishes an article I write saying "Laminar's wink smileys are very useful". It'd then be third-party verifiable, but still not in any way accurate.

Give a million monkeys a million typewriters for a million years and they'll end up with "(citation needed)"?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

OK, but I'm not understanding how...

...isn't verifiable. Just go pick a hundred up and see if the trem looks like a Floyd Rose. How does one verify that via a publication (which isn't self-published)? Why does a statement that not all that specific ("some variations of FR style") need a citation anyway?

Some pieces of information will not be verifiable in Wikipedia's model. In their model, then, these pieces of information will not be part of Wikipedia. The model where a group of subject experts write up what is generally understood within their community would be the more traditional model of encyclopedia construction (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica). But that has its disadvantages too, most obviously the timeliness of updates (experts generally value their expertise and don't like giving it away for free). One model is not necessarily superior to the other in any objective sense.

Is this basically a problem with the information structure of Web 2.0 (and not just Wiki)? I mean, I could tell you right now that I own seven Ibanez RG550s, but how would you verify it? Do I post a pic? What if that pic is at a mate's house and he owns seven of them, while I own none? What if they're Chibanez RG550s, not Ibanez? What if I were just holding them for a Nigerian prince instead of actually owning them?
Where does the buck stop? According to the Wiki model, I could get a mate to set up a publishing company which then publishes an article I write saying "Laminar's wink smileys are very useful". It'd then be third-party verifiable, but still not in any way accurate.

No, the most you would be able to state then would be that "Doofy thinks that Laminar's wink smileys are very useful."

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Some pieces of information will not be verifiable in Wikipedia's model. In their model, then, these pieces of information will not be part of Wikipedia. The model where a group of subject experts write up what is generally understood within their community would be the more traditional model of encyclopedia construction (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica). But that has its disadvantages too, most obviously the timeliness of updates (experts generally value their expertise and don't like giving it away for free). One model is not necessarily superior to the other in any objective sense.

But this is the point. You don't need to be an expert to walk into a guitar shop and observe thousands of Ibanez RGs with "licensed under Floyd Rose patents" written on the trem. It's there in front of your face for anyone who reads English. You could do it. My mom could do it. Even Chuck Norris could do it.
It's just not citable. Well, not unless you visit Wiki's own pic of one:

[turtle777]

Well, how's citing gonna improve anything ?

All you do is link to someone ELSE who basically makes the (same) factual statement. Someone who went to the store and looked at all those RGs and then declares "Almost all guitars in the series have some variations of a Floyd Rose-style tremolo."

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

But this is the point. You don't need to be an expert to walk into a guitar shop and observe thousands of Ibanez RGs with "licensed under Floyd Rose patents" written on the trem.

I'm using the word "expert" fairly generally to mean anyone who is familiar with the "literature" (or in this case, items) in their field. If you walk into a guitar shop and observe thousands of Ibanez RGs, you have become an "expert" on Ibanez RGs.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I'm using the word "expert" fairly generally to mean anyone who is familiar with the "literature" (or in this case, items) in their field. If you walk into a guitar shop and observe thousands of Ibanez RGs, you have become an "expert" on Ibanez RGs.

But that's simply not the case, is it? You can look at a large bunch of RGs and see the obvious, but that doesn't make you an expert on them - it makes you someone who can read.
So who says who's an expert? Where does the buck stop in Wiki's information model? And how do we verify that whoever wrote the citation is an expert?

This is not just about Wiki. It's about the whole of the Web 2.0 information model.
And indeed, the whole of the real world's information model, if I think about it. There's a dude over there in the States who's supposed to be (according to thousands of people all over the web) the leading authority on setting up Ibanez guitars. I think he's a bit crap at it. So is he an expert? Who says he's an expert? What's to say I'm not bullshitting about him being a bit crap? Am I an expert? Is there someone out there who thinks I'm a bit crap at it and they're actually the expert? And where's the citation saying that? And who's the citation from? And how would they know, unless they were more expert than he? Where does the buck stop?

[Doofy]

And while we're at it, where's the citation saying that the pic above is of an Ibanez trem? I know it is because I've got eleven of them (7 guitars + 4 spares). But where's the proof, the citation? How do we know it's not a Jackson or Fender trem without some kind of citation from an expert?
Why do we need a citation for a bit of vague text, but not for a photo?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

But that's simply not the case, is it? You can look at a large bunch of RGs and see the obvious, but that doesn't make you an expert on them - it makes you someone who can read.

Isn't that generally the case? If I spend a bunch of my time reading about the Napoleonic Wars, enough that I can cogently explain to people who haven't read about them what they're all about, aren't I generally considered an "expert on" or "learned about" the Napoleonic Wars? No special skill required there -- just the ability to read and explain. Similarly, if someone spends enough time examining RGs that they can explain all of their distinguishing characteristics to other people, they would be an expert. Where do you draw the line? Which leads me to...

So who says who's an expert? Where does the buck stop in Wiki's information model? And how do we verify that whoever wrote the citation is an expert?

That's the point. In the real world, we have external validators who back up our supposed expertise in a way that we can signal to the rest of the world. Universities that give us PhDs in history, resumes demonstrating experience in music tech. Because of the nature of Wikipedia's model, it's impossible to force everyone who edits a topic to prove their expertise. Hence, external validation is provided in the form of in-line citations.

This is not just about Wiki. It's about the whole of the Web 2.0 information model.
And indeed, the whole of the real world's information model, if I think about it. There's a dude over there in the States who's supposed to be (according to thousands of people all over the web) the leading authority on setting up Ibanez guitars. I think he's a bit crap at it. So is he an expert? Who says he's an expert? What's to say I'm not bullshitting about him being a bit crap? Am I an expert? Is there someone out there who thinks I'm a bit crap at it and they're actually the expert? And where's the citation saying that? And who's the citation from? And how would they know, unless they were more expert than he? Where does the buck stop?

You're overthinking. He's an expert if enough people say he is. So are you. And two experts can disagree.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

You're overthinking. He's an expert if enough people say he is. So are you. And two experts can disagree.

Citation needed.

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Citation needed.

Exactly!

Spacey, I get your point. But how does it apply to real world stuff which is obvious to everyone who can read yet still requires a citation in Wiki's model? Is the World's largest encyclopaedia supposed to miss out the obvious stuff because it can't be cited? That's a pretty big knowledge gap, no?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Citation needed.

-t

At some point you need to assume that language means what we think it means (such as the definition of the word "expertise"), if only because we're able to have a mutually intelligible conversation. If this assumption does not hold true, then you end up with conversations like the ones we have in the Political/War Lounge, where in the use of language, the meaning is secondary to its desired rhetorical impact.

[bstone]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

OK, but I'm not understanding how...

...isn't verifiable. Just go pick a hundred up and see if the trem looks like a Floyd Rose. How does one verify that via a publication (which isn't self-published)? Why does a statement that not all that specific ("some variations of FR style") need a citation anyway?

Is this basically a problem with the information structure of Web 2.0 (and not just Wiki)? I mean, I could tell you right now that I own seven Ibanez RG550s, but how would you verify it? Do I post a pic? What if that pic is at a mate's house and he owns seven of them, while I own none? What if they're Chibanez RG550s, not Ibanez? What if I were just holding them for a Nigerian prince instead of actually owning them?
Where does the buck stop? According to the Wiki model, I could get a mate to set up a publishing company which then publishes an article I write saying "Laminar's wink smileys are very useful". It'd then be third-party verifiable, but still not in any way accurate.

Give a million monkeys a million typewriters for a million years and they'll end up with "(citation needed)"?

It's easy to verify it. Any reliable source (newspaper, magazine, encyclopedia, etc) need to say just that. If it does then you have it verified through the use of a reliable source. Find *any* news article that mentions that fact and insert it as the citation.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Exactly!

Spacey, I get your point. But how does it apply to real world stuff which is obvious to everyone who can read yet still requires a citation in Wiki's model? Is the World's largest encyclopaedia supposed to miss out the obvious stuff because it can't be cited? That's a pretty big knowledge gap, no?

I just explained how it applies. In the real world, the "obvious stuff" is obvious in part because you can judge the expertise of the messenger, whether it's yourself (I was there so I saw it) or someone else (oh, he/she knows all about it because _______). On Wikipedia you generally can't. You judge the content of an encyclopedia like Britannica in part because the brand signifies a certain level of expertise inherent in its pool of subject matter writers/reviewers. You judge the content of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia in part on the amount of citations and how the citations themselves signify expertise (is the citation of a scholarly journal or of The Bumblef*ck Post?). So the citations indirectly help signify the expertise of the messenger.

Sure, that leaves gaps in Wikipedia. But the clumsiness of a model like Britannica's leaves other gaps (read the Wikipedia entry about it ). The bottom line is that encyclopedias are not meant to be exhaustive, all-encompassing storehouses of every piece of information about every subject. They are for browsing, to get a general sense of a topic to help direct further research.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by bstone 

It's easy to verify it. Any reliable source (newspaper, magazine, encyclopedia, etc) need to say just that. If it does then you have it verified through the use of a reliable source. Find *any* news article that mentions that fact and insert it as the citation.

But that requires a specific point in time, which doesn't verify "almost all guitars in the series have some variations of a Floyd Rose-style tremolo" - it only verifies that the one which is being mentioned in the "reliable article" has a FR-style trem. I suppose to verify that most of them have FRs, a whole string of articles over the 24 years they've been made may verify, but not really.
How does one compress knowledge built up over a long period into a single verifiable fact with one citation?

Let's not even get started on the Rocky George thing, unless we go to Snopes (or someone similar) for the citation. It's 100% bullshit, but there's no reliable written material to say it isn't.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I just explained how it applies. In the real world, the "obvious stuff" is obvious in part because you can judge the expertise of the messenger, whether it's yourself (I was there so I saw it) or someone else (oh, he/she knows all about it because _______). On Wikipedia you generally can't. You judge the content of an encyclopedia like Britannica in part because the brand signifies a certain level of expertise inherent in its pool of subject matter writers/reviewers. You judge the content of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia in part on the amount of citations and how the citations themselves signify expertise (is the citation of a scholarly journal or of The Bumblef*ck Post?). So the citations indirectly help signify the expertise of the messenger.

Sure, that leaves gaps in Wikipedia. But the clumsiness of a model like Britannica's leaves other gaps (read the Wikipedia entry about it ). The bottom line is that encyclopedias are not meant to be exhaustive, all-encompassing storehouses of every piece of information about every subject. They are for browsing, to get a general sense of a topic to help direct further research.

So what you've just said there is that Wiki shouldn't actually need all those citation requirements and should simply put a "this information may or may not be correct - the reader is expected to do his/her own research into the matter" on every page instead?

Solipsism is looking mighty, mighty tempting.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So what you've just said there is that Wiki shouldn't actually need all those citation requirements and should simply put a "this information may or may not be correct - the reader is expected to do his/her own research into the matter" on every page instead?

Solipsism is looking mighty, mighty tempting.

No. The information in an encyclopedia is expected to be accurate. But it's not supposed to represent the be-all end-all of knowledge about a topic.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

But this is the point. You don't need to be an expert to walk into a guitar shop and observe thousands of Ibanez RGs with "licensed under Floyd Rose patents" written on the trem. It's there in front of your face for anyone who reads English. You could do it. My mom could do it. Even Chuck Norris could do it.
It's just not citable.

But what if you applied that methodology to everything? You could walk into a computer shop and observe thousands of PCs with a Windows 7 sticker on them, and conclude that all computers ran Windows 7. (Unless of course the computer shop happened to be an Apple store, in which case you'd conclude that all computers ran Mac OS X and that Windows, Linux, etc. didn't exist).

Not the most foolproof method of verifiability.

[ghporter]

Citations are the difference between stuff made up out or thin air and relating actual information. So let's take the Ibanez entry for some examples of how citations could be used.

Let's start with "maximum subtypes". An appropriate citation would be to refer to their online catalog with the date the catalog was checked.
Ibanez Catalog. https://ibanez.s3.amazonaws.com/Cms/2968/11_Ibz_General_Catalog_low.pdf, checked 7/5/2011

Based on Steve Vai's designs? Who said that? Maybe referring to Ibanez' FAQ could help:
Ibanez FAQ History entry. http://www.ibanez.com/support/faq?id=19 checked 7/5/2011
That one isn't terribly authoritative, but it's a start.

Sure, "everybody knows" some of this, but what if what "everybody knows" is rubbish? At one point "everybody knew" things like certain races were inherently superior to others, and so on. Citations, even in something as mundane as a Wiki article on a guitar, make a big difference in what we "know."

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Citations are the difference between stuff made up out or thin air and relating actual information. So let's take the Ibanez entry for some examples of how citations could be used.

Let's start with "maximum subtypes". An appropriate citation would be to refer to their online catalog with the date the catalog was checked.

Hmmm. But that citation would be inaccurate (unless we were going for US-only data), since Ibanez generate different catalogues (and different models) for different markets. At which point you'll need an expert opinion, not a specific market's catalogue.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Based on Steve Vai's designs? Who said that?

Actually, Steve Vai did. Way back in the late '80s before anyone thought to write it down and PDF it in case some anorak on Wiki decided it needed a citation.
That's part of the problem. The Internet assumes that for data to be valid it's on the Internet somewhere.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Sure, "everybody knows" some of this, but what if what "everybody knows" is rubbish?

Hmmm. But if everyone "knows" something yet in reality it's complete rubbish, how does the bloke who actually knows (and is swimming against the stream) manage to be cited anyway? It doesn't make any sense. Yes, it's democratic (if the existing main man is recognised by the masses as the expert) but is it accurate?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Hmmm. But if everyone "knows" something yet in reality it's complete rubbish, how does the bloke who actually knows (and is swimming against the stream) manage to be cited anyway? It doesn't make any sense. Yes, it's democratic (if the existing main man is recognised by the masses as the expert) but is it accurate?

Of course everyone is human and fallible, but the guy who's recognized as an authority on a certain subject has a higher likelihood of being correct when talking about that subject than the 13-year-old kid who hits the Edit button on Wikipedia.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Exactly!

Spacey, I get your point. But how does it apply to real world stuff which is obvious to everyone who can read yet still requires a citation in Wiki's model?

It doesn't.

As you have found, the page is perfectly capable of existing without the suggested citations.

Those "citation needed" notes are merely provisions designed to identify unsubstantiated/unverified claims, so that anyone referring to the page can treat them accordingly.

Example of such differences in usage would be simply quoting an entry in support of a point, versus prefixing it with "according to the wikipedia entry…" and then juxtaposing it with contradictory claims from elsewhere for context.

It's not that complicated.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

It's not that complicated.

No, but it's been a reasonable part of an evening's entertainment.
I was hoping to get into a little discussion about epistemology, but nobody really took the hints. And now it's bedtime.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by bstone 

It's easy to verify it. Any reliable source (newspaper, magazine, encyclopedia, etc) need to say just that. If it does then you have it verified through the use of a reliable source. Find *any* news article that mentions that fact and insert it as the citation.

LOL, but that's exactly the point.

There is information out there that you WON'T find in classic media.

I thought it was the whole point of Wiki to go BEYOND what's already gathered.

If you need to cite everything, Wiki is nothing more than a dumb directory.

-t

[subego]

I see "citation needed" as sort of like "washing the car needed". It would be nice to have, but despite the necessity, things can still function without it, and sometimes you ain't gonna get it no matter how many times you write "wash me" with your finger.

[mattyb]

Wikipedia, lol.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Hmmm. But that citation would be inaccurate (unless we were going for US-only data), since Ibanez generate different catalogues (and different models) for different markets. At which point you'll need an expert opinion, not a specific market's catalogue.

Citations of multiple catalogs, noting that they all similarly list more RGs than anything else would be sufficient.  In this case, the citation isn't bookkeeping, just establishing that this point is not simply opinion. 

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Actually, Steve Vai did. Way back in the late '80s before anyone thought to write it down and PDF it in case some anorak on Wiki decided it needed a citation.
That's part of the problem. The Internet assumes that for data to be valid it's on the Internet somewhere.

Not necessarily.  You can cite print sources, just as long as they're valid sources.  For example, if Steve mentioned the RG design in an interview printed in Rolling Stone or a guitar-specific publication, you'd cite the interview (using standard citation formats you would have to identify the publication, issue, and page).

Part of what my graduate work "graduate" was having to write up a lot of stuff that was, at least to me, common sense.  It was hard at first, but if I thought it out and tried to aim my writing at a "skeptical" audience that needed convincing, it was at least easier to dig into resources to find good references.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Hmmm. But if everyone "knows" something yet in reality it's complete rubbish, how does the bloke who actually knows (and is swimming against the stream) manage to be cited anyway? It doesn't make any sense. Yes, it's democratic (if the existing main man is recognised by the masses as the expert) but is it accurate?

That's the challenge.  It took a lot of convincing to change "common knowledge" about the shape of the world.  The very best evidence is useless if it isn't presented properly for the audience.  Using expert statements doesn't work unless the experts are credible and there is something to back them up-and can be counterproductive if the experts come off as superior or self-impressed.  And unfortunately, the simpler the concept, the more challenging the explanation.  I found it very easy to explain the function of a phase-locked loop synthesizer to a bunch of 18 year old Air Force students, but explaining how one could conform (wear the uniform correctly, etc.) while still demonstrating individuality was a real challenge without depending entirely on examples.  Again, if you aim at a skeptical audience and provide accurate, defensible, well organized evidence, if they still disagree with your point, they also disagree with your sources.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Totally thought this thread was going to be about global warming....so disappoint