Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archival materials

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
For discussion of Hopkins' use of archival materials, this version shows the necessary level of use to confirm facts in the article. All use of the materials has been removed until an actual policy allows them.

The use of technically unpublished archival materials recovered from an official archivist has come up recently on Hopkins Schools' FAC. Wikipedia:Reliable sources' opening sentence states that "Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources," but archival materials often aren't technically "published" as they are for the school/organization's own history and are most certainly reliable if recovered from the archivist him/herself. In addition, the definition of primary sources under Wikipedia:No original research includes historical documents (which I would think archival information is), and since the materials were researched by the archivist they are not OR. I believe that under Wikipedia:Interpret all rules one should be able to interpret WP:RS as including unpublished archival materials as a reliable source. Staxringold 14:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I think that unpublished references from official school, university, government, or other public archives are acceptable. As long as the archive is publically accessible (which doesn't mean the archive must be online, as many are not) then the archive's materials are okay for use as a reference. Of course, if there is a conflict between the unpublished archival reference and a published reference, then the published reference is prefered. But if needed information is only available in an unpublished archived manuscript or document, then that reference is acceptable.--Alabamaboy 17:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I concur with Alabamaboy. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 18:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I voice that opinion too. Lincher 18:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, except I believe that both a published source and an archive source should have their information accounted for in an article. ProfMoriarty 19:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Alamaboy's reasoning is good. Archival materials are acceptable sources, but in case of conflicts, a slight preference should be given to the published materials. --Jannex 19:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Alabamaboy as well. Having worked for sometime in archives, I know that in some cases there is information that is only available in unpublished formats. Limiting our sources to only those things that have been published could be devestating in quite a number of articles. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that archival materials should definitely be considered as valid sources. Given that they are often what authors of published works use to write their published sources, they are arguable more "primary" than published works! Thus, there is a good argument that they should have primacy over books etc. Also, without these, many articles can never be properly referenced, as the only references are often from archives. I understand that Wikipedia should not tolerate OR, but doing your own research when writing an article is not OR as long as it is verifiable (this is not always true, but with an archive I think it is). Batmanand | Talk 19:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I also agree with this sentiment. Certainly we can't allow anything, but many unpublished sources have information that is both useful and reliable. --Danaman5 04:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree-RFD 13:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Andre (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • (This comment may not adequately contemplate some recent comments, as it was added after an edit conflict.) I don't disagree with this in principle, and certainly don't have a problem in the specific case of Hopkins School, but I think it is important to think about unintended consequences. What if someone were to add original research to an article, and footnote it with: "Unpublished manuscript by J.P. Slovenly, part of the J.P. Slovenly collection at the J.P. Slovenly Institute"? We don't know the pedigree of the author, the overall reliability of the document, or anything about the collecting institution. But could another editor challenge this, without finding the J.P. Slovenly Institute, gaining access to the collection (which sometimes requires various levels of permission from authorities), and finding the reference in question? I'll try to answer some of the hypothetical myself: if the so-called "Institute" did not exist, then that would (IMO) disqualify the reference. Also, if there lacked reliable evidence that the author actually exists/existed, then that would be disqualifying. If author has no seperately-sourced history of involvement with the subject at hand, I would argue that this, at a minimum, casts strong doubt on the sourcing and shifts the burden of proof.
But even if there were a consensus on these points, allowing reliance on unpublished documents for support of controversial points would seem to open the door to massive fraud and deception on Wikipedia. In the in-person world, we can vet the academic credentials and reputations of editors, but this is not the case on Wikipedia, and there would be no stigma associated with supplying a wholly fictional reference, or for misrepresenting a real-but-hard-to-find one. If I say source the actuality of Galileo's apocryphal "Eppur si mouve" in the "Compendio di Conoscenza da Studioso, 16c. manuscript at Basilico San Judea, Nessunni, Italy", how can it be challenged? Reliance on modern, secondary, and published sources would seem to be at the heart of a reliable Wikipedia.
Finally, there is an argument that non-controversial points may be sourced by such documents. This, I think, is the most plausible position. It is useful to annotate a WP article with any available sources, published or not, if they shed light. But I would argue that if the above-stated tests are not met, the sources cannot support a controversial position.
In summary, if we are to allow unpublished sources, I would propose the following tests:
  1. The document must be readily available to the general public;
  2. The document must be held at an institution with a well-established reputation for scholarship;
  3. The document must be by an author whose existence can be verified;
  4. The author must have a verifiable reputation for credibility on the topic;
  5. Unpublished documents may not source positions which are controversial, in the absence of published sources :documenting the same position;
  6. Unpublished sources, are always considered de facto primary sources.
Finally, I would think that this entire discussion belongs at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources. -- Gnetwerker 20:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Just curious: I used archival material as part of my article on the Ursuline Convent Riots. The link is to a digital library available to the public, from a major university; the author is not identified in all cases, though the existence of her community is verifiable. Would this be, in your viewpoint, an appropriate use of unpublished archival material? -- MatthewDBA 12:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
If material is available to the public on the Internet, then it is generally accepted as published. 'Self-published' sites on the Internet, just like 'self-published' books, are generally not acceptable, however. Most editors won't accept material available only on paid-subscription controlled access sites. There are even arguments against using sites that require a login, even if free. The link you provided looks perfectly acceptable to me. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 16:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Verifiability is true for all sources, as is reliability (as mentioned in the original comment). Also, I did post this issue for discussion at WP:RS, but felt that a general community consensus should be obtained before proposing a change in policy. Staxringold 20:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, but here is the problem: the opening para here says "archival materials ... are most certainly reliable if recovered from the archivist him/herself". Nothing could be further from the truth! Reliable for what? is the question. The archives of many institutions contain myth, folklore, oral history, and unsubstantiated rumor. A good scholar, of course, knows the difference, and scholars with reputations seldom misrepresent one for the other. So the mere source of the material does not guarantee its reliability -- there is a good deal of room for editorializing in what documents are selected, what they are purported to source, etc. So as noted, as (at most) primary sources on uncontroversial topics, this might work, but a statement that "archival materials are deemed reliable sources" (and even if you add "about the institution were they are archived") would seem to be a mistake. Most institutions of notability have published secondary sources about them. -- Gnetwerker 20:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but even huge institutions have information that appears in archives but does not happen to appear in published materials. Any information from archival materials should of course comply with the standard requirements for any Wikipedia source, all I believe and am asserting is that archival materials should be given the same chance for verification, rather than just being 100% tossed aside merely because the way their are bound isn't correct (unpublished, that is). Staxringold 20:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not a question of how it's bound. It's a question of whether it is published, i.e., multiple copies of the material are available to the public at convenient locations. That means the material is freely available online, or available in books stores or on Amazon or similar services, or in libraries, either local to editors or through inter-library loans. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 16:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with these points and agree with them:

  1. The document must be readily available to the general public;
  2. The document must be held at an institution with a well-established reputation for scholarship
  3. Unpublished documents may not source positions which are controversial, in the absence of published sources;
  4. Unpublished sources, are always considered de facto primary sources.
There are plenty of published primary sources. Nor are unpublished sources always primary. An unpublished manuscript may well be a compilation from analysis of primary and/or secondary sources. Please don't confuse the distinctions among primary, secondary and tertiary sources with the distinction between published and unpublishyed. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 16:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I do have an issue with the two issues raised about how the author must be verifiable and have a verifiable reputation. Unpublished archive material is rarely from authors who meet these two criteria (otherwise they would have been published already). I think having the other points, and especially the fact that on controversial subjects unpublished archived subjects can't trump published sources (in fact, this should be the case on any subject) will keep bad info from creeping in. As for someone making up an archive, the "general public" criteria covers that. If something about the archive or institution can't found using Google then obvioulsy the institute doesn't have a "well-established reputation for scholarship."--Alabamaboy 20:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I should add that I think the Hopkins School article is the perfect example of how archived unpublished material should be used. Basically, this is a subject that is too narrow and uncontroversial for there to be a ton of published material on.--Alabamaboy 21:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that Wikipedia policies are ambiguous on this issue. Here are some excepts that may be useful:

  • "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources." - WP:V
  • "we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." - WP:V
  • "Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources." - WP:OR

Unpublished material, however reputable, does not meet the requirements of these policies. If you would like to use unpublished material, you will need to propose changes to the Wikipedia Verifiability and Original Research policies. Kaldari 22:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This is why I suggested it here first. I believe that the statement "reputable/reliable published source" is unnecessarily binding, as so long as the reputation/reliability can be seen for the materials (again, school archivist with material that is in no way controversial or groundbreaking). I held this belief under Wikipedia:Interpret all rules, however, which is a personal policy, not a site-wide one, so I proposed this discussion here to see what others thought. Staxringold 22:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The restriction to published works is an important cavaet. It basically means that Wikipedia should never be the first source to publish information. The reasoning behind this policy dates back to the early days of Wikipedia, when it was decided that Wikipedia should never be used as a primary source. Since this particular issue has already been debated ad nauseum, I will respectfully decline to rehash the arguments here, but it basically boils down to the idea that we cannot rely solely on the reputation and honesty of the editor. If Wikipedia gets something wrong, there needs to be a published source we can point to in order to explain the discrepancy. Public archives are simply not accessable enough to facilitate source verification. Obviously they are more accessible than private archives, but the line has to be drawn somewhere, so we choose to draw it at "published". This seems to be a more convenient line than the list of criteria given above. BTW, I had a similar situation come up with an article I was working on. A friend of mine was doing research on the anarchist publisher Ross Winn, mostly using sources from the Labadie Collection at the University of Michigan (which is a huge archive of documents, letters, publications, and artifacts from radical political movements in the US). It was tempting to use Wikipedia to publish what he learned, but instead I waited until he had written up his research and got it published in a magazine. That way the magazine, not Wikipedia, was responsible for any errors. Kaldari 22:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the comments by Kaldari. But I also think there needs to be guidance on how to handle archives, and flexibility to handle things on a case by case basis. Archives differ in their accessibility, both in terms of permissions and in terms of paper/online access. One thought I had was whether archives have individual policies on how you can use their materials, or reference them. Online archives probably have a page describing what people should and shouldn't do, and how to reference them, or not. Vaguely related is a sign I saw at a zoo that said "Photography is allowed for personal use only and should not be published elsewhere". The ones where you have to get permission to look at the archives (even though it might call itself a public archive), they might ask people for the reason they want to look at the archive. If the reason was "to research a Wikipedia article", I wonder what the reaction of the archive would be? Carcharoth 13:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing about all of this is that we are missing an obvious point: Many of these public archives are more accessible than some of the "published" books that are used as references on Wikipedia. I have seen a number of references to obscure published books on this site that are long out of print and which I've never heard of and can't find anywhere in the world (like say a book that had a print run of a few hundred copies a hundred years ago). My attitude towards hard to find books and unpublished archival material is the same: use them for noncontroversial subjects like Hopkins School. If someone uses them in a controversial article or an article where other well-known source materials exist, then they sould be severely questioned and not used. This article is a perfect example of why we can't have a total denial of access to certain materials. And are you telling me that the use of the published book Chronicles of Hopkins Grammar School: 1660–1935. Thomas B Davis. Quinnipiack Press, New Haven, CT. 1938, which is a reference in the article, is more valid than the material from the school's archives? Personally, I don't have trouble restricting the use of unpublished archival materials to:
  1. The document must be readily available to the general public;
  2. The document must be held at an institution with a well-established reputation for scholarship
  3. Unpublished documents may not source positions which are controversial, in the absence of published sources;
  4. Unpublished sources are always considered de facto primary sources.
See my comments above to this position. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 16:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we could also add another point to the list, saying that the use of unpublished archival material is decided on a case by case basis and the use must be the consensus of the editors of the article. Having to achieve consensus on the use of a reference like this would be another way to keep out bad sources but also give the flexibility to consider this issue based on the article a reference appears in.--Alabamaboy 14:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
A final point: Carcharoth mentions having to contact an archive to ask permission to use their works in Wikipedia. What if we did just that? In the case of Hopkins School, it appears the school's archivist worked with Staxringold to find appropriate information for the article. What if as a final condition on using unpublished archival material the reference had to include a blurb about having obtained permission to use the material on Wikipedia (including, perhaps, having the full text of an e-mail from the archive in the reference). As I said, I don't mind making a number of hurdles to the use of this type of material but I think we are doing a major disservice if we reject all use of this type of material.--Alabamaboy 14:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

As soon as an archive is scanned and placed on a publicly accessible website, it's published. And as long as the organization is reputable, say a school, then...
--Go for it! 16:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Just don't do it yourself so you can cite it in Wikipedia. That is very definitely frowned on a case of self-publishing. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 16:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

When permissible, the relevant materials should be scanned and put on Wikisource. In general, archival materials accessed to the public are fine. I have concerns about materials only accessible to specially selected scholars, viz. the whole Dead sea scrolls saga. There's also a middle ground of concern, materials accessible not to the public but to "researchers" (basically means having to convince someone that you're serious). Again, verifiability issues. Phr 07:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As I understand, putting materials on Wikisource does not count as publishing, and does not make them acceptable as 'verifiable'. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 16:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

My position is that nothing discussed on this page can invalidate the requirements of WP:V and WP:NOR. All you can do here is guage whether there might be sentiment for a change. If you want to change two of the three fundamental policies of Wikipedia, you will have to propose doing so at those two policy discussion pages. However, I think it would be a big mistake to weaken those policies in the way proposed here. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 13:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you could elaborate precisely which aspects of the current discussion and proposals depart from WP:V and WP:NOR. I think some uses of archival materials may be a departure, but others may not be. This needs to be examined in detail and there hasn't been enough discussion in that direction on this page, IMO. Phr 23:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability in a nutshell is:

Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Wikipedia:No original research in a nutshell is:

Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas.

How do any unpublished archival materials not violate those two policies? -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
There's a semantic issue of "published" meaning different things in different contexts. "Published" for verifiability can simply mean that it's available so anyone can check that it asserts some fact (e.g. a birth certificate would attest to someone's birthday); it can mean that the assertion has withstood expert examination (a peer-reviewed journal article) or it can mean (e.g. for notability) that some media outlet thought the person was important enough to spend ink on. For the first case, if you get a document from an archive and upload a scan to Wikisource, I'd say it's published for WP:V purposes. If uploading the scan is impermissible but the archive itself is accessible to anyone who wants to see the document, that's sort of like quoting from an obscure out-of-print book that's available in a few libraries: more accessible sources are preferred, but sometimes this is the best you can do. If the archive is closed to the public and only accessible through special arrangements and uploading scans isn't allowed, then I'd say there are problems with both WP:V and WP:NOR. And for the other cases (establishing notability, validating an opinion, etc.), archival materials wouldn't count. Is that reasonable? Phr 00:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
What part of published by reputable and reliable sources do you not understand? Having material in a single location, even if it accessible to the public, is NOT published by reputable and reliable sources. Scanning something and putting it in Wikisource does not meet the test either. Wikisource is not a a reputable and reliable source (just as Wikipedia itself is not a reputable and reliable source) as there is no peer review or fact checking of anything put on Wikisource. Again, I say that you cannot decide here to over-ride either Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:No original research. If you want to change those policies, take it to the talk pages for those policies. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I second Staxringold's request that you keep it civil. What do "published" and "reliable" mean? I'd say "published" means the item is available for members of the public to verify (WP:V) that it says what the person citing it claims that it says. "Reliable" means that the means of publication have involved some kind of respectable vetting process that validates the contents (e.g. a peer-reviewed journal article). So, a rant on someone's personal web page alleging that some celebrity was once arrested for mooning Queen Elizabeth is published, but not reliable. The actual arrest report, signed by the arresting officer and the booking magistrate and sealed in some court file is reliable (it came into existence through a careful set of official procedures), but not published. If the arrest report is subsequently unsealed, the unsealing doesn't make it unreliable, though if you have to go to the courthouse to look at it, it only marginally qualifies as "published". If someone then gets a copy and scans it and puts it on wikisource, it's now published; I'd say that its reliability (that derives from the procedures that created it) is still with it, and is only implicated if there's reason to think the wikisource version is a possible forgery. This would mean it's now citeable evidence that an arrest took place, though any interpretations of its contents beyond totally noncontroversial statements of fact (e.g. the date on the document is such-and-such) borders on original research, since there may be other (unscanned) documents that would change the interpretation, and there hasn't been anything like external peer review of the interpretation. Anyway, I'm open to persuasion about the above, but keep it civil and don't just stomp your foot about reliability; all of us are sensitive to these issues or we wouldn't be here at this RFC. Phr 23:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. I do not believe that your interpretation will find much support there. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 02:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
As I said on your talk page, I was in fact doing nothing of the sort. First off, RFC has absolutely no power currently to change anything, I was merely trying to get some community thoughts, so the suggestion that it is an attempt to bypass these pages is insulting to me (please see WP:CIVIL). Second, I already did note the discussion on the policy talk page, I simply did it on WP:RS because that was the policy discussed in the RFA that spawned the discussion in the first place. Please do not assume something sinister from a simple discussion in the future. Staxringold 02:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems like there are two different kinds of "unpublished sources:" contemporary work that is not published but may be (i.e., potentially unpublishable drivel), and manuscript sources that will likely never be. In either case, using them is potentially problematic, but the policy stipulating no data or statements might be overly restrictive in some cases for the latter. I would say ver batim quotation might be acceptable from historical manuscripts (but not translations), and data might be appropriate in some instances, particularly regarding declassified government documents that are not widely available but are open to the public in an archive. No article or section should rely heavily on such sources, according to WP:NOR. At the same time, the spirit of NOR is broken quite often (and perhaps rightly so) for articles on contemporary issues such as Intelligent Design, where interpretation and synthesis of published primary sources (newspaper articles, interviews, etc) is the basis for most of article. The result is not "novel" in terms of being an original conclusion, but because of the sheer volume of material (from many different viewpoints) that must be culled very selectively, it does end up blurring the line between "original" and "source-based".--ragesoss 19:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If unpublished material in an archive is really pertinant to a subject, then it is likely that someone will eventually publish it or something about it. Raw unpublished material from an archive is not necessarity reliable. Once it has been published, a number of people have a chance to review it, and to pipe up and call it rubbish, if they are so inclined. We just have to wait for that to happen. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 20:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
No, it simply isn't Donald. Archives of an organization provide a detailed history, and if your organization doesn't become famous for a scandal or invention someone probably won't write much of a published work with a history of your company. With a school it's even less likely. All archival material is not reliable, but good archives from the organization itself that source text put through the same NPOV gauntlet as anything else should be useable as there's no bias there. Staxringold 21:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. I do not think your interpretation of "published" will receive much support there. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 02:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Please read my edit before copy/pasting a response to another editor. I said nothing about a definition of published, I said it was unfair to be biased against archives because you are working under the assumption that if they have worthy information they will be published. Staxringold 02:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The place to raise that issue is on the talk pages of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. You cannot change those policies in a discussion here. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 03:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
There is discussion here about how to interpret the policy, not change it. It looks to me like you're trying to shut down discussion; why? Can you give some examples of bad situations that would come up given an interpretation that says archive materials are usable according to some guidelines? I've read the Hopkins article and I'd say the uses there are somewhat questionable. I'm thinking of articles like Claude Allen, which links to a document that a blogger obtained from (I think) court files [1] and which seems perfectly appropriate for the article. The document can be considered reliable because the source to be evaluated is the police department that created the document, not the blogger who webbed it (unless there's a forgery question, which there's not in this case). Phr 03:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Donald: How would you interpret the following quote from the Wikipedia:No original research page?

...research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

(emphasis added)

Many primary sources are published, and should be used whenever possible. That has nothing to do with the prohibition on using unpublished sources. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 16:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware that much archival material is not reasonably considered as published; however, there is some (e.g. available online in digital libraries) which is generally considered published material. In this case, I don't see that WP:OR prohibits its use. -- MatthewDBA 13:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If materila not otherwise available is published on-line (and hasn't been put up there solely for inclusion in Wikipedia), then it can be used. I think though that the restriction on using only 'reputable and reliable' sources applies here, as well. That is why blogs, forums, etc. have severe restrictions placed on their use as sources. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 16:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. -- MatthewDBA 16:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a weblink (or published reference) that explains how (for the public) to access the archives, when it's open, etc. This would also help verify the archive's existence (in this case, not questioning it). --Aude (talk | contribs) 00:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In this case you just need to contact the school archivist, and he's available when he's in school (So usually 8-3:30 or so). However, for a general policy are you suggesting requiring this for using public archives as a ref? It makes a certain amount of sense. Staxringold 01:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that would be a good idea to require referencing some basic information about the archives, so that the public knows how to access. In the case of Hopkins school, are the archives part of the library? If so, does the library website explain anything about the archives? --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Basically, I'm okay with materials from places, such as the New York Public Library's Manuscripts and Archives Division. Many of these manuscripts might not be "published" per-se, but are publicly available and fine by me to use as a source. Obviously the Hopkins school is much smaller, but if there is something on the library website that mentions the archives and perhaps the hours, that would be useful to people that want to verify something. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
No, as I said, they are available through the school archivist. Some of them are in the library, but they are accessed by asking the archivist. Staxringold 14:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
How would I do that? How would I contact the archivist? Is contact information for the archivist listed somewhere on the Hopkins School website? --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I could very easily include his email address in the reference, but I would seriously hesitate to give out third party contact information through Wikipedia.. Staxringold 14:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy change to NOR

Sandbox of the proposal to keep the discussion readable.

Under WP:NOR it specifically says:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources

The word "published" seems to be the sticking point here. I'm thinking that the policy could be reworded this to say:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources that are published or available in public archives. [1]
  1. ^ You must provide a reference to a website that verifies the archives existance, that it allows public access, as well as contact information and/or hours.

It's important that the "public archives" is qualified with added reference requirements. Before others would accept the change, they may want to add more qualifications for use of public archival materials.

Now, I don't know the nature of the exchange between you and Donald Albury that's noted on Wikipedia talk:No original research, but that talk page is the place to formally raise this policy change proposal. As well, you should give notice of this on Village pump. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Should contact information be given out in a reference? I will raise it in more official terms once we have some kind of a proposal, the point of this RFC was to establish exactly what you just started discussing, what to truly propose changing rules to. Staxringold 14:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • What if the specific archivist retires or otherwise leaves? And no, I don't think we should put the contact information on Wikipedia itself. I think the contact information and/or hours should be listed on a website. A link to that website should suffice. On the Hopkins School website, I noticed a Faculty and staff directory. Is the archivist listed there? what department? --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Archivist as a position is not listed under the directory, but is listed ON Mr. Peters contact information (if you search by last initial - P you'll find him, the Search History link breaks before you reach his search result, and he is mentioned on the bottom of this page). Would that be the proper addition? Alter in the given way above, then add to the bottom of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#History and WP:V#Sources something like (keep in mind this is a proposal that assumes public archives are allowed):
"Wikipedia allows for the use of information from public archives. To ensure reliability in the use of such unpublished but publicly available sources include contact information for the archive and/or archivist. This will allow the archive to be confirmed by other editors."
Sound good? Staxringold 15:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The web reference looks good. Though where you say "... include contact information for the archive...", that could be read as providing their e-mail/phone number here on Wikipedia. We don't want to do that, but instead provide a reference that includes contact details or for larger public archives, the archive website. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In an admirable urge for simplicity, I think this proposal goes too far. The original proposal involved allowing sourcing of archival material to support statements about the institution holding the archive. Later discussion highlighted that it should be a reliable institution, the statements being supported should be non-controversial, and the source should always be considered primary. The current proposal (at the top of this section), would allow any statement on any subject to be sourced from the archives of any institution. I do not object to you moving the discussion to WP:NOR or WP:RS, but I do object to the over-generality of the proposal. -- Gnetwerker 17:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's modify the wording and add more qualifications, such as the following:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources.
In some limited circumstances, unpublished materials available in public archives may be used as sources, provide that you:
  • Provide a reference to a website that verifies the archives existance, that the institution is a reputable institution, and that it allows public access, as well as contact information and/or hours.
  • The specific information being sourced is non-controversial.

Feel free to further modify the wording and add more qualifications. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

However, I think the statement about the institution holding the archive is open to interpretation, with the way it's worded. For example, take the New York Public Library's Archives and Manuscripts Division which is the repository for materials of the City of New York. I don't think the archival materials pertain specifically to the New York Public Library, but to the City of New York. Also, given that the NYPL is operated by the City of New York, is the City of New York the institution? --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have created a Sandbox of the proposal on my talk page. Feel free to tinker around with the proposal however you feel is fit, and let us know what you did here on the discussion, hopefully having the proposal up but seperate will keep the discussion clear. Once we agree on the finalized version of the proposal we should put it up for a straw poll on the Village Pump (linking from the related talk pages) to get a more official number to present to the higher-ups as a request for policy change. Staxringold 20:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that if you insist on a web reference to the archive (which is a good idea), then you do not need to specify the separate contact info, hours, etc. Regarding --Aude's useful example of the NYC Library, perhaps it is enough to state that the archive itself must be a reliable source on the (non-controversial) subject at hand. No one would think that the Ku Klux Klan's archive of (e.g.) Judaica was reliable, whereas the NYC Library's is probably reliable on many subjects including NYC itself. -- Gnetwerker 21:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Done, sound reasonable (by simply using WP:RS as the guide it makes the whole thing a lot smoother). Staxringold 22:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_Archival_materials_cb37.html"