BoyWiki:Agora/4 May 2016

4 May 2016

A note on "citations" and "references"

"Citations" are really all about avoiding plagiarism. Had I "stolen" Enochian's words, it would have been plagiarism. But by giving a citation I am crediting Enochian for the ideas formulated in the manner which he formulated them. Whether his explanation is true or false has nothing to do with the citing--it is just a matter of "giving credit where credit is due".

Here's another citation:

• "The Earth is flat."

(Reference: A 2012 address made by the President of the Flat Earth Society, etc. etc..)

Is the Earth really flat just because I gave a "correct citation"?

The second reason citations are given is to allow the reader to himself check whatever supporting evidence may exist (from scientific studies, etc.) for some statement made. But if some "study" is faulty, then that study may support a statement which may be a completely false statement.

Then again, I can make a statement that is absolutely true, without giving a citation to some "scientific study," etc. to try to "prove" anything. Here is such a statement:

• "Two plus two is not always four".

That is an absolutely true statement. Now, if a reader is smart, he can figure out why that statement is true. If the reader is not smart, he may have problems with accepting the validity of that statement. As a courtesy (not as a necessity) I may include a reference to something that explains the nature of what occurs when combining cups of different types of fluids, or when combining cups of finely grained substances with more coarsely grained substances, but I don't have to give such a "reference" or "citation".

Example of how "2+2 does not always equal 4":

• "Two cups of water combined with two cups of alcohol does not give four cups of liquid. Two cups of marbles combined with two cups of sand does not give four cups of solid material," etc. etc.

My statement is just as true, with or without giving any references. It is up to the reader to decide whether to accept my statement as "fact" or not. Yes, giving "references" or "citations" is nice, but not necessary for my claims (however outlandish they may seem to an uninformed person) to be absolutely true!

References may appear to make something seem more "authoritative" but, in fact, academics play all kinds of games with citations. For example, they often cite other articles or studies which they have never even read, they quote "statements" which do not' appear in the cited source, they may add dozens of citations just to improve the "visibility" or "rating" of their article relative to other articles in scientific journals, they include citations to articles in other non-peer-reviewed journals (which makes the reliability of the information more questionable), etc. etc.

I have an article from a respected journal which did a study on citations in journals, and which goes into these problems with citations in great detail. I have not included a reference to the article here. Do you have to have the reference to that article in order to believe what I said above? No. You could just accept my authority when I make such statements. Or you can reject my statements, just as you could reject any statements made in any journal article that I cited to support my statements here!

(Most of this is from a Talk page, but I believe a record of this should exist elsewhere, as well.)

(Also, I would like to expand on this later, but as editing Agora pages without javascript enabled in one's browser is problematic, I will have to leave this entry as it is, and incomplete.)

::Now, I didn't have to give a reference here--it is just a courtesy to the reader, in case he wants to see the context of my words. Without the reference, he can just assume that, yes, indeed, some conversation took place somewhere on a Talk page which involved something that Enochian said. Giving the reference does not make my statements more "truthful" or "accurate" etc. User4 (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

A controversy about categorization of BoyWiki articles

This is from the Talk:Rape_rape_vs._"rape"_rape page of the article Rape_rape_vs._"rape"_rape but as it is highly relevant to BoyWiki policy, I am including it here so that others may examine the arguments contained in it as well.

[Etenne's comment] This is an personal experience/editorial entry based on personal opinion and does not belong in Category Encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles are factual articles written with the goal of preserving knowledge and elucidating ideas pertaining to boylove. --Etenne 14:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Uh, I'm kind of confused now...

For example, if somebody is interested in finding out the strange things about the laws regarding BoyLove, they are likely to go to the Law category, aren't they?

Is the article about the strange things about how the law applies to BoyLovers? Yes, absolutely. So...[[Category:Law]]

For example, if somebody is interested in finding out about the strange ways that psychologists view BoyLove, they are likely to go to the Psychology category, aren't they?

Is the article about the strange ways that psychologists view BoyLove? Yes, absolutely. So...[[Category:Psychology]]

For example, if somebody is interested in curious things about how BoyLove sexuality is viewed by society, they are likely to go to the Sexuality category, aren't they?

Is the article about BoyLove sexuality? Yes, absolutely. So...[[Category:Sexuality]]

For example, if somebody is interested in reading about the personal experiences of BoyLovers, they are likely to go to the Personal experiences category, aren't they?

Is the article about the personal experiences of one particular BoyLover? Yes, absolutely. So...[[Category:Personal experiences]]

But stop a moment, and ask yourself this: If someone is interested in strange things about the laws regarding BoyLove, or about how psychologists view BoyLovers, or about how BoyLover sexuality is viewed by society, they are not likely to go to the Personal experiences category to find those things, are they? Tell the truth--is that the category that you would go to, to find those things?

See, there is not just one correct category for each article. There can be many correct categories for each article. The inclusion of categories is so that the interests of the reader are accommodated. It is not about "putting things in the one right category". Don't you see what I am saying? Haven't you looked at how other wikis categorize articles? User4 (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I honestly do not know how to explain to you that personal antidotes and personal expirance does not constitute an encyclopedic article. Technical writing is different from creative writing. I have chosen not to disallow this type of writing altogether as Wikipedia and the French BoyWiki has done because I feel it has a place under Category:Life and to a lessor extent under Category:Entertainment, which I believe was also the original intentions of the creators of BoyWiki.--Etenne 19:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I honestly do not know how to explain to you the absurdity of anyone, especially one who is the editor of a wiki--and is involved in personally editing and classifying the articles as well, and one who states that he wishes the articles to be academic in nature, making the following statement, "I honestly do not know how to explain to you that personal antidotes and personal expirance does not constitute an encyclopedic article." User4 (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Additional explanations about how Categories work--and why Categories exist--on a wiki.

This is an extract from a discussion found at Category talk:Newspapers and magazines.

A newspaper is a periodical. Therefore links to all articles about newspapers belong in the main category "Periodicals". This is for the convenience of someone who is interested in all types of periodicals, whether newspapers or magazines.

Newspaper articles should also be included in a subcategory "Newspapers", and this is for the convenience of those who are exclusively interested in newspapers articles.

A magazine is a periodical, too. Therefore links to all articles about magazines belong in the main category "Periodicals". This is for the convenience of someone who is interested in all types of periodicals, newspapers as well as magazines.

Magazine articles should also be included in a subcategory "Magazines". This is for the convenience of those who are exclusively interested in magazines.

Therefore, within the subcategories "Newpapers" and "Magazines," each relevant articles displays another link.

This is a system of redundancy, which allows someone to avoid all links to newspapers by going directly to the "Magazine" category, if he wishes.

And this allows someone to avoid all links to magazines by going directly to the "Newpaper" category, if he wishes.

Do you not understand how this system works? For the convenience of the reader, you include one main category, which contains links to all newspaper and magazine articles.

Then, for the convenience of a smaller group of readers, who have more specific interests, you include subcategories containing duplicate links to only that relevant content.

It is a filtration system, which filters out certain content based on the interests of the readers.

I'm sure that you will be able to see the logic involved if you just think about it for a while... User4 (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

<End of extract.> User4 (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)