Proposal talk:Tutorials for finding peer-reviewed secondary literature

A basic principle of Wikipedia is that anybody may contribute his/her knowledge. This does require self-awareness by the users as to what they do and do not know. Users messing about with sources they do not understand is one of the big problems of Wikipedia. Pretending that Wikipedia can teach users how to find their way in peer-reviewed literature is creating accidents-waiting-to-happen. Users should stick to what they know and understand, and Wikipedia should encourage them in doing just that. Tutorials should be restricted to helping users to find their way through Wikipedia. - Brya 18:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the evidence that encouraging editors to use the most accurate secondary literature would increase instead of decrease accidents-waiting-to-happen? 76.254.71.129 20:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look up what "peer-reviewed literature" means rather than asking silly questions? - Brya 19:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Impact?

Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the answers to that question are similar to those at Proposal talk:Develop systems for accuracy review -- There would be a hugely positive impact. 99.35.129.22 19:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The one thing that appears certain is that "the answers to that question are [completely unrelated] to those at Proposal talk:Develop systems for accuracy review". See also my remark above. - Brya 19:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

This turns out to be a controversial proposal.[1] See http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brya#Reliable_sources for more information. I can understand, for example, that this proposal might be opposed on principle. There are a number of longstanding content disputes based on disagreements between the religious. Faith is defined in terms of doubt, so I don't find it surprising. I welcome the opportunity to highlight accuracy comparisons between the secondary peer-reviewed literature and religious texts. The former almost always prevail, and do so in a repeatable fashion, unlike the latter. 99.35.129.22 19:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no sign that this proposal is controversial (I am the only one to repond to it, here above; otherwise it is completely ignored). All that was discussed on the cited page is whether it should be categorised among the proposals for introducing expert review of Wikipedia articles, merely because of the occurrence of the text string "peer review" in "peer-reviewed literature". The intent of categorising is to categorise by purpose of the proposal (see talk:call for proposals), not by how other users may feel about the proposal (or what the title reminds them off). - Brya 19:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Having "learn by doing" resources at Wikiversity to support the development of skill in finding good sources was part of the Wikiversity project proposal. Wikiversity has a Citing Sources learning project that could be developed along the lines of this proposal. --JWSchmidt 17:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In all languages?

Well, I think it is a nonsence. If you doesnt understand English, that it is very hard to browse English language databases for all scientific articles. Better would be to offer Pub Med, WoS and others translations to different languages, like MediaWiki does.--Juan de Vojníkov 18:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)