As editors we should be aware of the dichotomy between our-own-stating of
our-own-descriptions and our quoting of descriptions of others already
published.
If Professfor Hausfleish says in "Journal of Jane Austen Studies" that "Jane
Austen's portrayal of life in the English countryside is without any
relevant basis." that is quite different from *me* paraphrasing my own
understanding of Jane Austen with the reality of English living.
Our own interpretations, while editing, should be as-much-as-possible
shelved.
We, as expert editors, should know from where to pull those criticisms and
interpretations, without creating them afresh with our own words vis-a-vis an
appropos paraphrase of some one else's.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
In a message dated 12/11/2008 9:27:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
either using sub-par sources or working in an awkward
and artificial manner that bears little to no resemblance to normal
scholarly practice in the field.>>
----------------------
In a way perhaps. I'd really like an example :)
I'm SURE you have an example. Usually people only come here *after* they've
encountered some specific problem like "Tori Amos", but they don't want to
admit they've been slumming.
It's true. For some articles we have to work in a stilted manner ESP if
those articles are heavily edited and monitored. But that doesn't have to make
our work worse. In fact I think it can make it better by *forcing* editors
to really dig in and find those sources, instead of relying on meandering
language, judgment, memory and hyperbole ;)
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
In a message dated 12/11/2008 9:00:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,
fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net writes:
That's all I'm asking in this general discussion, recognition that there
is a problem.>>
--------------------------
In the articles I've worked on, and I mostly work on biography and a little
on religion, I've not encountered any problems in applying NOR. That's why I
keep looking for a good concrete example of what exactly is the problem.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
In a message dated 12/11/2008 9:11:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,
gmaxwell(a)gmail.com writes:
many blog citations, >>
-----------------
Blogs should already be being rejected.
Point me to an article that has a blog citation and I'll delete it :)
Will "I mean the citation, not the article" Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
In a message dated 12/11/2008 9:09:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
The problem is that there's a very large chunk of literary studies
that would reject the distinction between description and
interpretation.>>
----------------------------
I'm waving my hands around :)
IAR Phil. I'm sure people will let you know if you're overstepping.
If you are *quoting* a source, then you are quoting it.
That's not your interpretation, nor description, you're quoting.
Can you give an exact, concrete, specific, pure, simple, and direct example,
without vague language :)
Not a hypothetical example. A real example, from the project.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
In a message dated 12/11/2008 8:56:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net writes:
You have to examine the work cited and use reasonable judgment. Are
Friedrich Nietzsche's pronouncements (on various subjects) to be
considered authority?>>
------------------------
Depends on the article.
They are an authority on him, his philosophy, his writings, his time and
place in philosophy.
When there are issues with whether he is an "authority" in say an article
about Superman or Jesus Christ, then it's always safest to simply cite-and-QUOTE
what he says, without additional comment.
Not that I would ever quote Nietzsche in the Jesus Christ article, but if
someone were to do so, they themselves, as an editor, would not be presenting an
interpretation or opinion of their own, but rather that of their cited
authority.
So he is an authority, depending on the article.
And where it's more questionable, not ... suicide is painless, but rather
"suicide is painless" (Nietzsche)
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
In a message dated 12/11/2008 8:52:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
Well, in an earlier reply I pointed to the ludicrous problems with NOR
and "interpretation." There's a policy that is actively geared against
the humanities. (Or, let's be fairer, against literary studies, which
is my field)>>
---------------------
NOR only says, "we don't want YOUR opinion and interpretation".
It does not say, we don't want any opinions.
Just not yours.
You as an editor should have no opinion, when editing here.
You should cite and quote the opinions of others.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
In a message dated 12/11/2008 8:46:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net writes:
We still have an editorial duty to evaluate the reliablility of
Professfor Hausfleish and the Journal of Jane Austen Studies. And, if
they are not reliable, reject them as inappropriate sources. If they are
just personal opinion, that's what they are, inappropriate sources.>>
----------------
Hmmm. I think Fred if you follow this reasoning, you'll end up with
humanities articles stripped of all the "essence" and just dry descriptions.
Interpretation is always going to be opinion.
We just have to make sure it's not *our* opinion, but rather the opinion of
some established authority in that field.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
In a message dated 12/11/2008 8:17:02 PM Pacific Standard Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
Another big part is that our policies are shaped heavily by
who showed up in the early days of Wikipedia, and that means that they
are shaped heavily by a techno-libertarian philosophy that has been,
historically, very hostile to postmodernism, and thus, by extension,
very hostile to humanities scholarship. It is the case, frankly, that
Wikipedia, on a policy level, has a systemic bias against the
humanities.>>
------------------------
I think yes and no and maybe and also I refuse to answer but only in a
post-modernist way.
But maybe you could give a concrete example of where you think there is bias
against the humanities. I think that some of the people who shaped the
early policies were actually involved in the soft sciences.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
In a message dated 12/11/2008 6:22:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,
dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com writes:
We get articles rejected at afd every day because there is no outside
criticism. >>
---------------------
We have no outside criticism of say "The Mississippi River", that doesn't
mean it's rejected at AFD.
Can you cite a popular culture article that was rejected for lack of outside
critcism?
I'm not even sure I know what this means. Isn't all criticism "outside"?
I suppose I could criticize myself. Or are you saying "inside" would
include all popular media?
I'm not suggesting we ignore "academic" criticism in pop articles. Only
that it has it's place as a minority viewpoint. A movie star is not mainly a
subject of academic debate and we shouldn't weight academic views higher than
others, simply because they are academic or peer-reviewed in those articles.
Pop culture articles should be mainly about describing the subject and why
the subject is notable. Criticism has it's place, but it shouldn't swamp the
article, but rather be treated as perhaps one paragraph out of ten.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)