Talk:Wikifact: Difference between revisions

I have a bit of difficulty in understanding the Wikifact proposal.

1. For instance, what is a fact? The example "General Min Aung Hlaing's speech on TV Feb 8th 2021" is not a normal statement. A statement would be "General Min Aung Hlaing spoke on TV 8 february 2021".
2. If the so-called "fact" is the transcribed talk called "General Min Aung Hlaing's speech on TV Feb 8th 2021" then there is already Wikisource. Note however, the possible problem of copyright with such content. If the Video source and the speech is compatible with CC BY-SA, then the video file can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and the speech can be transcribed on Wikisource.
3. I wonder what is meant by the Wikifact proposal is some kind of Wikisource with annotation capability, where fragments of a source is called into question and wanted for fact checking?
4. I wonder what we can do if the sourceis not compatible with CC BY-SA? Can we quote fragments?
5. The English Wikipedia and a number of other Wikipedias have Template:Citation needed span. Are there anyone using that template and listings of it?

— Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Reply

Thank you.

1. As interesting, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/ offers some in-depth discussion of what facts are.
2. I added Wikisource to the list of wiki sites which could be benefitted by a Wikifact project.
3. That annotation capability is interesting to consider for Wikinews, Wikipedia, and Wikisource. Also described in the technical discussion topics is an interdependency between articles and facts, and that editors would desire to be alerted or notified when facts upon which their articles depend change, are annotated, or happen to unfold.
4. That's a good question. I don't know. In the United States, there is Fair Use.
5. That template seems proximate to what I broach for discussion with {{fact|User content goes here.}}, except that developers could implement needed functionality with a new template span, such as {{fact}}, which could create and synchronize with Wikifact content.

— AdamSobieski (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Reply

Good questions, thank you.

1. I see that the point is not that "General Min Aung Hlaing spoke" (that is a fact we know), but what did he say in his speech. To check facts of his speechs, the claims he made.

--Teemu (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for the answers. Perhaps the proposal would benefit from a few concrete examples? — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC) Reply

The proposal keeps talking about Wikinews —I'll suppose we're talking about en.wn— but I see no sign in the proposal of knowing how en.wn works. En.wn takes great pains to meet high standards of accuracy and neutrality before publishing articles, making it a source of reliable, neutral information, which other projects are welcome to make use of. En.wn does not use Wikipedia as a source, and does not use Wikidata as a source; afaics the proposed Wikifact would also use Wikipedia-style collaboration and so en.wn wouldn't use it as a source either.

The differences between Wikipedia-style collaboration and Wikinews (well, en.wn) -style collaboration are profound, and also relate to the whole matter of fact-checking; I'm happy to discuss those things, of course (subject to my own time constraints, obviously), as they may be highly relevant to the concept being this proposal; but my immediate point here is that incautious assumptions are apparently being made in this proposal about how Wikinews works. --Pi zero (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC) Reply

• Talk pages with syntax highlighting errors