As a regular contributor to Wikipedia I am very interested in popular culture, gender studies and the biographies of celebrities, for instance, the open and closeted lives of Hollywood stars. As an Elvis Presley expert, who read lots of books and articles on the singer and the rock 'n' roll era, I did much research in order to improve the Wikipedia article on Elvis Presley, which was, and still is, a frequent target of vandalism and is in parts dominated by stuff that has only been produced by fans in order to sing the star's praise.
One of the biggest European fan groups set up for the celebration of the Elvis Presley cult is situated in Duisburg There are important Elvis meetings every year in Duisburg organized by "Friends through Elvis" and supported by EPFCI. The fan magazine regularly reports about these "important" events. In the January 2006 issue, for example, there is an account of Bill E. Burk's visit to Duisburg on the occasion of the Elvis Xmas meeting of 2005. His appearance showed that this guy is primarily interested in self-promotion. He claims to have been a friend of Elvis Presley but to my mind he is only a big fan of the singer who runs a fan site and wants to make money with self-published Elvis magazines.
In my opinion, the Wikipedia article on Elvis Presley should not be dominated by fans who only support 'favorable' views of the singer and endeavor to suppress any critical remark published in primary and secondary sources. In an article by Professor Wall there is an interesting discussion of radical policing strategies implemented over the years by Elvis fan clubs and organisations. The article clearly states that one of these strategies is
Similar things happen with other publications that are not in line with the opinion of devoted Elvis fans, such as Albert Goldman's critical book, 'Elvis' (1981), of which Jonathan Yardley of the Washington Post says that it is a "nasty book, written in spectacularly execrable prose, but the view of Presley that it expressed dovetailed in many instances with my own, and in spite of itself I found things in it to admire."
I am of the opinion that critical remarks concerning a subject should not be suppressed and that all contributions to a Wikipedia article should be well sourced and, if possible, supported by several independent publications (books, articles, reviews, newspaper reports, university studies, manuscripts, web sites). In order to back up their contributions, all users who are adding new material to an article should add some direct quotes from published sources they have used. These may include primary and secondary sources.
Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. Examples of primary sources include eyewitness accounts, photographs, historical documents such as diaries and letters, interviews with people who knew a celebrity well; but also artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. Secondary sources are summarizing other material, usually primary source material. Such sources are papers and books by academics, journalists, and other reputable researchers. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that a Wikipedian should cite the opinions of reliable authors.
However, the reliability required with respect to popular culture may not exclude all material that can be characterized as celebrity gossip, as it is unrealistic to expect only peer-reviewed studies. Therefore, as far as biographical articles on celebrities are concerned, when a substantial body of material is available — e.g., that shown by a google search for a specific topic — the best material available is acceptable, especially when some comments on its reliability are included.
A usual way to show your work is not original research is to provide one or two reliable secondary sources supporting the same argument as you. The most reliable sources are published books and journals, particularly books and journals published by university presses; mainstream newspapers; and books, magazines and journals published by known publishing houses. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable enough.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Therefore, only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been mentioned and discussed by other authors in books, articles, etc. may be included in a Wikipedia article.
The prohibition against original research limits the possibility of an editor presenting his or her own point of view in an article. Therefore, it is important to include verifiable research produced by other authors. Thus multiple points of view may be included in an article if the sources are given, as in many cases there are different views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position is authoritative, and it is important that editors situate the research and may provide contextual information about the different points of view, thereby indicating how prevalent a position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority. If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with several quotes from mainstream texts. If your viewpoint is held by a minority, then it should be backed up by some references to published sources, including the exact page numbers.
It could happen that some other users question your contributions. Therefore, any material that is challenged by another editor needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article, at least in a footnote.
As a regular contributor to Wikipedia I am very interested in popular culture, gender studies and the biographies of celebrities, for instance, the open and closeted lives of Hollywood stars. As an Elvis Presley expert, who read lots of books and articles on the singer and the rock 'n' roll era, I did much research in order to improve the Wikipedia article on Elvis Presley, which was, and still is, a frequent target of vandalism and is in parts dominated by stuff that has only been produced by fans in order to sing the star's praise.
One of the biggest European fan groups set up for the celebration of the Elvis Presley cult is situated in Duisburg There are important Elvis meetings every year in Duisburg organized by "Friends through Elvis" and supported by EPFCI. The fan magazine regularly reports about these "important" events. In the January 2006 issue, for example, there is an account of Bill E. Burk's visit to Duisburg on the occasion of the Elvis Xmas meeting of 2005. His appearance showed that this guy is primarily interested in self-promotion. He claims to have been a friend of Elvis Presley but to my mind he is only a big fan of the singer who runs a fan site and wants to make money with self-published Elvis magazines.
In my opinion, the Wikipedia article on Elvis Presley should not be dominated by fans who only support 'favorable' views of the singer and endeavor to suppress any critical remark published in primary and secondary sources. In an article by Professor Wall there is an interesting discussion of radical policing strategies implemented over the years by Elvis fan clubs and organisations. The article clearly states that one of these strategies is
Similar things happen with other publications that are not in line with the opinion of devoted Elvis fans, such as Albert Goldman's critical book, 'Elvis' (1981), of which Jonathan Yardley of the Washington Post says that it is a "nasty book, written in spectacularly execrable prose, but the view of Presley that it expressed dovetailed in many instances with my own, and in spite of itself I found things in it to admire."
I am of the opinion that critical remarks concerning a subject should not be suppressed and that all contributions to a Wikipedia article should be well sourced and, if possible, supported by several independent publications (books, articles, reviews, newspaper reports, university studies, manuscripts, web sites). In order to back up their contributions, all users who are adding new material to an article should add some direct quotes from published sources they have used. These may include primary and secondary sources.
Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. Examples of primary sources include eyewitness accounts, photographs, historical documents such as diaries and letters, interviews with people who knew a celebrity well; but also artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. Secondary sources are summarizing other material, usually primary source material. Such sources are papers and books by academics, journalists, and other reputable researchers. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that a Wikipedian should cite the opinions of reliable authors.
However, the reliability required with respect to popular culture may not exclude all material that can be characterized as celebrity gossip, as it is unrealistic to expect only peer-reviewed studies. Therefore, as far as biographical articles on celebrities are concerned, when a substantial body of material is available — e.g., that shown by a google search for a specific topic — the best material available is acceptable, especially when some comments on its reliability are included.
A usual way to show your work is not original research is to provide one or two reliable secondary sources supporting the same argument as you. The most reliable sources are published books and journals, particularly books and journals published by university presses; mainstream newspapers; and books, magazines and journals published by known publishing houses. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable enough.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Therefore, only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been mentioned and discussed by other authors in books, articles, etc. may be included in a Wikipedia article.
The prohibition against original research limits the possibility of an editor presenting his or her own point of view in an article. Therefore, it is important to include verifiable research produced by other authors. Thus multiple points of view may be included in an article if the sources are given, as in many cases there are different views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position is authoritative, and it is important that editors situate the research and may provide contextual information about the different points of view, thereby indicating how prevalent a position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority. If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with several quotes from mainstream texts. If your viewpoint is held by a minority, then it should be backed up by some references to published sources, including the exact page numbers.
It could happen that some other users question your contributions. Therefore, any material that is challenged by another editor needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article, at least in a footnote.