Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Library of Congress Country Studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For what it's worth, I had set up Category:Background Notes based on what I'd seen with Category:Country Studies. But I was not nearly so ambitious as this project. ;-) There were some nation-related articles that I suspected of being copyvios, until I found the same text in the State Dept.'s Background Notes (part of the problem was that a Google search on a a given chunk of text pointed to mirror sites, not the State Dept.'s webpage itself). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'd meant to mention earlier, it looks like what I had done with "Background Notes" was the reverse of this project. In other words I was first identifying articles that had incorporated text from the Background Notes, and then placing those articles in the category. Anyway it lost steam quickly... But there ya have it, FWIW. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Cautions

One issue that needs to be pointed out somewhere... This is a reasonable project, but does need to be approached with great caution. I'd be concerned with simply cut-and-pasting the text of the country studies into Wikipedia articles, even though it would be legal to do so. The source needs to be considered - these are United States government publications, and while they're written by smart people with substantial country expertise, they will inevitably reflect the US government's, including the US military's, priorities. Quoting from the LOC Country Studies homepage:

This website contains the on-line versions of books previously published in hard copy by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress under the Country Studies/Area Handbook Program sponsored by the U.S. Department of Army. Because the original intent of the Series' sponsor was to focus primarily on lesser known areas of the world or regions in which U.S. forces might be deployed, the series is not all-inclusive. At present, 101 countries and regions are covered. Notable omissions include Canada, the United States, France, [...] (emphasis added)

That is, these studies were originally commissioned by the United States military as background on places it might be sent. So especially in relation to issues which the US was a major player in (for example civil conflicts in some third-world countries), but probably in most cases, the LOC country studies should only be considered as one source, and probably not a neutral enough one for word-for-word inclusion in Wikipedia. To do so would not reduce systemic bias; in fact, it might even exacerbate it. CDC (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see bias as major issue in most of the country studies. There may be some editorial bias in the issues covered, but I think that can be addressed by future edits and additions from other sources. For the most part, these seem to be pretty good, straight up, sources of information. However, I have noticed some US-bias in the newer profiles on Iraq and Afghanistan. I word of warning on the main project page would probably be a good idea. Perhaps on the separate pages for countries that might have bias. I still think a lot can be added through basic cut and paste though, as long as some thought is given to whats being pasted and whether it contains bias.--Bkwillwm 22:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a warning of POV to the subpages for Haiti, Venezuela, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I have noticed some clear US bias in these profiles. However, I think these still have much to offer, they just deserve a touch of scrutiny. Most of the others are good, fair resources as far as I have seen.--Bkwillwm 07:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A few suggestions

Cool project, I'm for it, I just wanted to make a few suggestions as to how this can fit better into (1) our guidelines for citing sources and (2) the fact that this is a wiki and these articles will inevitably be modified.

  • The template could be revised to indicate year of pulication of study, since several of these have gone through more than one edition. The dates of the current editions can generally be found at [1].
  • Also to be found there are the names of the editors. Shouldn't we include those, as for any other source that we cite?
  • I would suggest that we should link to an unaltered version of the country study page someplace (maybe countrystudies.us, I don't really have a preference). These articles will evolve; there ought to be a link to the reference material, as to any reference material available online.
  • Further (I realize that this one is slightly more of a pain) I suggest adding a footnote to each paragraph, as I have just done at Spanish society after the democratic transition. Again, these articles will accumulate more material, and it will be very important to anyone watchlisting them to see what material is cited and what is not. (E.g. substantive new material added without citation to a cited paragraph is always suspect).

-- Jmabel | Talk 21:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 20:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other good PD resources from the US govt