Camera-wiki.org:Use of sources

This help page gives some recommendations on how to use the sources for Camerapedia articles. It is absolutely necessary to cite these sources in the articles themselves, see Camerapedia.org:Citing sources for more information on how to do that.

Printed sources

Printed sources on a camera model or company can usually be divided in the following categories, distinguished by the time the source documents were published and by the purpose originally fulfilled by these documents.

Original documents

Original documents are all the documents which are contemporary to the events. These may be books, magazine articles, advertisements, leaflets, etc. Their original purpose was usually to promote, describe or test the products of a company.

Use of these documents as a source is encouraged whenever possible. These documents may contain inaccuracies, just as any other source, but in the field of camera research, they usually contain less plain mistakes than sources written later. Caution should be exerted however on some assertions they contain. For example the assertion in an advertisement by some manufacturer that its camera was the first in incorporating this or that feature should not be blindly accepted as a fact.

Original documents are usually less easy to access than other sources, and this could harm the verifiability of Camerapedia contents. On that basis, we can classify original documents into three sub-categories.

Original documents reproduced in a recent publication are fairly easy to access, and there is no problem in citing them. However you are not allowed to copy the reproduction and publish it into Camerapedia, because this would harm the rights of the persons who reproduced them in the first place.

Original documents accessible at public libraries include photographic magazines or books; access to these documents is not necessarily easy but is possible, and they can be cited without breaching the article's verifiability.

Inaccessible original documents include the advertising literature printed by a company, which is difficult or impossible to locate without a good deal of luck and patience. When cited, these documents should be made accessible to the readers by scanning them and publishing them in the site, either because they are in public domain or under fair use.

Older historical accounts

Older historical accounts are documents published several years after the events, but before the subject began to attract collecting interest. These documents usually fall in either one of two sub-categories.

The official older accounts are articles or books written on behalf of companies wanting to document their own history. These were usually written by people working for these companies, but not necessarily at the time of the events. These people are presumed to have had access to documents which were not easily available to others.

The unofficial older accounts are those who were not written on behalf of a company. They usually consist of magazine articles redacted by journalists because of their own interest in a past subject. They sometimes contain primary testimonies, such as interviews of people which were key figures in the events, and are sometimes written by journalists who were themselves directly involved in those events. In that particular case, their status is close to that of original documents, even if you should take care that human memory is fallible and those testimonies might contain minor mistakes.

What is said in older historical accounts is interesting in its own right, and may be mentioned in an article. However the assertions they contain should not be trusted blindly, notably when it conflicts with original documents or direct physical evidence. Official accounts do not have a special status because they were endorsed by a company: some are known to contain mistakes or omissions, and they should not be taken as the definitive word on a subject either.

Older historical accounts were often used as main sources by later research. Mistakes they contain have sometimes been repeated and widespread by later authors. It is unwise to "confirm" what is said by these documents by citing later documents which might have copied them, and the most solid confirmation comes from the confrontation with original sources or direct physical evidence.

Collectors sources

Collectors sources or recent sources are all the documents which were published a considerable amount of time after the events, after the items began to attract collecting interest. These are usually written by people which are mainly motivated by collecting interest, and were not directly involved in the events. These include collectors' books and magazines, or historical articles in mainstream photographic magazines.

In the field of camera research, these documents typically cite their own sources only on rare occasions, and heavily rely on the personal observations of their authors. Some are extremely accurate; others contain huge mistakes. You are on your own to build confidence or not in a particular author or editor and decide if what he says is trustworthy.

Citing collectors sources is permitted in Camerapedia; it is however better to confirm what they contain by citing original sources. Citing both original sources and recent sources have a complementary purpose: the original sources are more solid because they are more closely linked to the events, but are difficult to access, whereas the recent sources are less solid but usually easier to access. This allows two levels of verifiability: people who want to casually check your assertions can go to the recent sources, people who want more in-depth check can make the effort to go back to the original documents.

Some recent sources contain interviews of people who were key figures of the events. In that particular case, these can be handled as original documents, keeping in mind that these primary testimonies were gathered dozen years after the events occurred, and might contain minor mistakes in the dates and other details, unless the witness is known to have kept written records.

Direct physical evidence

Direct observation of surviving items such as cameras or lenses, either through pictures or by direct handling, is a valid source in its own right. However mention of direct observation in an article poses verifiability problems.

Two cases can be distinguished. Observation of general patterns for items which were produced in quantities and are not too uncommon to find today may be mentioned in an article. For example you can state that you observed that all the examples of such camera model with a serial number in the 30xxxx range are black, and all those with a number in the 31xxxx are silver, and infer that these were two distinct batches. These patterns are verifiable by readers who would have the patience to do so by monitoring the used camera market.

Observation of an isolated example of an item may be mentioned, but you should try your best to actually show pictures of it to prove your assertions. To keep personal records of the observation is a good idea, for example by downloading pictures of the camera to your own hard disk. However if you don't have the permission of the copyright owner of these pictures to post them to Camerapedia, this will be insufficient to assert durable verifiability of your claims. When you disappear from the Camerapedia project, either because you don't want to participate any more or for other unfortunate reasons, and you can no longer be contacted, your claims will probably be retagged as "reported observations" by later contributors.

How this differs from Wikipedia policies

If you are accustomed to working with the English Wikipedia, please note that the above recommendations differ from Wikipedia policies.

The goal of Camerapedia is to provide factually true and exhaustive information on cameras. This information should be verifiable, but it does not need to be verifiable by any reader with only casual knowledge of cameras. It is enough that it can be checked by people who actually have the knowledge, willing and time to do so.

Articles written in Camerapedia following the above recommendations would certainly break Wikipedia's policy forbidding original research,[1] and won't be suitable for inclusion there, even if the GFDL legally allows to do so.

Wikipedia's policy places a number of restrictions on the use of "primary sources", such as original documents and direct eyewitness accounts, which are in contradiction with Camerapedia's practice.[2] It notably asks not to make any use of primary sources other than "mak[ing] descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." As said above, this rule doesn't apply in Camerapedia, and conclusions can be drawn from primary sources which actually require specialist knowledge on camera history.

Wikipedia encourages the use of "secondary and tertiary sources":[3] "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." This rule does not apply in Camerapedia. In the field of camera research, the secondary sources are the older historical accounts and recent collectors sources described above, and usually do not provide the level of reliability and verifiability which can be expected from secondary sources in other fields.

In camera research, the quality of an article relying on direct analysis of original sources may result higher that any secondary source available on the subject, and facts unpublished before can be discovered. Minor controversy might arise, but the debate is usually easy to settle. At the worst, the controversy can be explained in the article in simple words.

What is true of camera research is obviously not true of other research domains. In Wikipedia, it is extremely unlikely that anyone writes anything unpublished and true on nuclear science or ancient history, and the resulting debate would prove too complex for the encyclopedia to manage it, hence the policy forbidding original research.