MediaWiki talk:Citethispage-content

I suggest removing the following text from the beginning of this page, as it does not seem to apply to Wikisource.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Most educators and professionals do not consider it appropriate to use tertiary sources such as encyclopedias as a sole source for any information—citing an encyclopedia as an important reference in footnotes or bibliographies may result in censure or a failing grade. Wikipedia articles should be used for background information, as a reference for correct terminology and search terms, and as a starting point for further research.

I suggest the following text be replaced with... "As with any community-built data source, there is a possibility for error in Wikisource's content. Please check transcribed text against the source image before citing Wikisource text."

As with any community-built reference, there is a possibility for error in Wikipedia's content—please check your facts against multiple sources and read our disclaimers for more information.

Outlier59 (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

how about

Note to researcher: Encyclopedia articles should be used for background information; as a reference for correct terminology and search terms; and as a starting point for further research. Primary or secondary sources should be used with care mindfully, as, in any human endeavour, we build on the errors of the past.

Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 01:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

'grammaticked' above — billinghurst sDrewth 06:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

fine word choice. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 03:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Done — billinghurst sDrewth 15:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Slowking4, @Outlier59, @Billinghurst: I propose replacing the above-mentioned text with this paragraph:

Note: Wikisource contains primary source works. These documents are reproduced on Wikisource without updating or editing of their contents. They may contain factual errors and inaccurate or offensive views, with or without annotation.

As with any community-built data source, there is a possibility for error in Wikisource's content. You may want to verify a quote by reviewing the original image that was transcribed to Wikisource, which is available for most documents. In many works, you can access the original image by clicking the page numbers in the margin, which will take you to a side-by-side view of the image and the Wikisource transcription.

I have several concerns with the current wording:

1. I don't see why we should be warning against secondary sources, which are generally the most reliable.
2. It talks too much about encyclopedias, which seems unexpected and off-topic.
3. I think the comment about errors of the past is a particular POV belief we have no need to espouse here. I confess it is a more poetic and gentle way of getting at the same issue I am addressing in a more blunt fashion. I'm advocating for clarity while minimizing framing interpretations.
4. It doesn't address the issue of transcription errors, which is likely a concern of those interested in primary source texts.
5. I think guidance in finding the original is helpful.

What do others think? Daask (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Your suggested rewording misses the entire point of the message, and includes more than a few blatant errors. Further, your reasons for making the proposed change include several claims that are not supported by any evidence. So, I see no reason to change the current wording. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

1. we should warn scholars using secondary sources as the Daily Mail is a secondary source, but not reliable.
2. we talk about encyclopedias because we are encyclopedia geeks, and they are all tertiary sources and share the same problem (it is an artifact of wikipedia, but in english wikisource a lot of the work is encyclopedias, different over at french)
3. errors of the past are a fact, the ideology of the enlightenment is POV, show me the method of minimizing framing interpretations, we present the text.
4. transcription errors are a small percentage compared with the POV of the source and POV editing; transcription errors are not POV, they are typographical errors, AGF
5. most readers will not find the side by side, your guidance will not be read, rather we will demonstrate at GLAMs, and experienced scholars of transcription projects will know. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 21:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Do you know what? I don't even remember the text being added through a community consultation. Light investigation indicates that one person added the textual component at their own volition in 2013. So backing this off

1. do we need to comment; if yes,
2. is the comment that these are editions of published works attempted to be reproduced as originally published, and that they may contain either errors of original publication or errors of transcription.

To me, anything else is not our task, or not at that page, and if to be covered, could be covered by linking to a page about our scope, fixing transcription errors, and how to handle errors of publication. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change the link after "Primary contributors:" to [[xtools:articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Revision history statistics]], which is Wikimedia hosted and maintained instead of hosted by someone personally. Dylsss (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. The Xtools statistics seems also better and more precise. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Jan.Kamenicek:, I accidentally put en.wikipedia.org instead of en.wikisource.org in the wikitext, can you edit the page again to fix this. Dylsss (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Mpaa fixed it. Dylsss (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)