I am not online, or I would just edit this myself. But I thought it sort of sadly humorous enough to mention here. :)
I am offline, reading our biography of Desmond Tutu. A great man, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, instrumental in the fight against apartheid, and of incredible cultural importance and impact on our era.
I quote our article:
In the Friends episode The One With the Two Parties RACHEL is quoted as saying "My parents happened. All they had to do was sit in the same stadium, smile proudly, and not talk about the divorce. But nooo, they got into a huge fight in the middle of the commencement address. Bishop Tutu actually had to stop and shush them."
I think that's one of the worst examples of fancruft I have seen in a very long time. (And, I note, there is no source. :))
--Jimbo
On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I think that's one of the worst examples of fancruft I have seen in a very long time. (And, I note, there is no source. :))
Breaking news on reuters about confusion at wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Tutu in 5..4..3..
Mathias
(PS: Thanks to "Killer" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desmond_Tutu&diff=64721999&...)
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I am not online, or I would just edit this myself. But I thought it sort of sadly humorous enough to mention here. :)
I am offline, reading our biography of Desmond Tutu. A great man, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, instrumental in the fight against apartheid, and of incredible cultural importance and impact on our era.
I quote our article:
In the Friends episode The One With the Two Parties RACHEL is quoted as saying "My parents happened. All they had to do was sit in the same stadium, smile proudly, and not talk about the divorce. But nooo, they got into a huge fight in the middle of the commencement address. Bishop Tutu actually had to stop and shush them."
I think that's one of the worst examples of fancruft I have seen in a very long time. (And, I note, there is no source. :))
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I removed the entire Trivia section - none of it was sourced and yes, it was *all* very trivial.
-kc-
On 7/19/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
<snip> > I quote our article: > >> In the Friends episode The One With the Two Parties RACHEL is quoted as >> saying "My parents happened. All they had to do was sit in the same >> stadium, smile proudly, and not talk about the divorce. But nooo, they >> got into a huge fight in the middle of the commencement address. Bishop >> Tutu actually had to stop and shush them." >> > > I think that's one of the worst examples of fancruft I have seen in a > very long time. (And, I note, there is no source. :)) > > --Jimbo <snip> > I removed the entire Trivia section - none of it was sourced and yes, it was *all* very trivial.
-kc-
But, but...I remember that from Friends, doesn't my memory count as a reliable source? Can't I just go to the DVD and look it up? I think that almost every TV or movie-related article violates WP:NOR. And that's a real problem. They even have templates for TV shows that are currently ongoing. It's nice to be able to find out what you've missed when you walk in half-way through an episode of 24, but it's a complete policy violation...
That's not true, non-readable media can serve as a source.
But, but...I remember that from Friends, doesn't my memory count as a reliable source? Can't I just go to the DVD and look it up? I think that almost every TV or movie-related article violates WP:NOR. And that's a real problem. They even have templates for TV shows that are currently ongoing. It's nice to be able to find out what you've missed when you walk in half-way through an episode of 24, but it's a complete policy violation... _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
That's not true, non-readable media can serve as a source.
Direct quotes (like the Rachel one) are probably appropriate use of the episode as a primary source (though, obviously, it should be referenced to the episode, the medium (DVD, original run, or syndication) and the date and time accessed). But creating a synopsis of a movie or TV show is OR because it requires that you look at the episode, determine what is more important and what is less important, and come up with what happened. In effect, you create your impression of what happened. And that is improper use of a primary source.
But, but...I remember that from Friends, doesn't my memory count as a
reliable source? Can't I just go to the DVD and look it up? I think
that
almost every TV or movie-related article violates WP:NOR. And that's a
real
problem. They even have templates for TV shows that are currently
ongoing.
It's nice to be able to find out what you've missed when you walk in half-way through an episode of 24, but it's a complete policy
violation...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What an odd point! You are saying that the creative construction of an article violates our original research guidelines. No article can be exhaustive, certain things are left out and those deemed more important are kept in. The construction of an article on a historical event (that is, deciding what is worth mentioning and what is not) is a creative process and, by your definition, is original research. Writing an article about the construction of the computer is therefore original research. By your definition, every article in Wikipedia should be promptly deleted.
On 19/07/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
That's not true, non-readable media can serve as a source.
Direct quotes (like the Rachel one) are probably appropriate use of the episode as a primary source (though, obviously, it should be referenced to the episode, the medium (DVD, original run, or syndication) and the date and time accessed). But creating a synopsis of a movie or TV show is OR because it requires that you look at the episode, determine what is more important and what is less important, and come up with what happened. In effect, you create your impression of what happened. And that is improper use of a primary source.
But, but...I remember that from Friends, doesn't my memory count as a
reliable source? Can't I just go to the DVD and look it up? I think
that
almost every TV or movie-related article violates WP:NOR. And that's a
real
problem. They even have templates for TV shows that are currently
ongoing.
It's nice to be able to find out what you've missed when you walk in half-way through an episode of 24, but it's a complete policy
violation...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/19/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
But, but...I remember that from Friends, doesn't my memory count as a reliable source? Can't I just go to the DVD and look it up? I think that almost every TV or movie-related article violates WP:NOR. And that's a real problem. They even have templates for TV shows that are currently ongoing. It's nice to be able to find out what you've missed when you walk in half-way through an episode of 24, but it's a complete policy violation...
That no source was provided is a problem, but it's not the problem.
The inclusion of sub-trivia on our articles damages is a waste of reader time, an insult to our editors, and a cause of damage to our professional image... It's also a magnet for potential vandalism, especially if we'll tolerate it without citation.
If it's not notable enough to mention it (and other cases like it) in the article on the TV show, it's certainly not notable enough to go into other articles.
On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote: [snip]
I think that's one of the worst examples of fancruft I have seen in a very long time. (And, I note, there is no source. :))
You must not be trying hard. :)
A fun technique is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Friends&...
Whenever I'm feeling too happy I'll run that against buffy the vampire slayer.
Ashame we don't have a mechanism in place that would allow us to batch up changes to reasonable articles and review them all critically before making them the front version. ;)
On 7/19/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Ashame we don't have a mechanism in place that would allow us to batch up changes to reasonable articles and review them all critically before making them the front version. ;)
Do I hear someone asking for a stable version mechanism? :)
On 7/19/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
A fun technique is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Friends&...
Whenever I'm feeling too happy I'll run that against buffy the vampire slayer.
I find The Simpsons to be the worst, with Spongebob close behind.
~~~~ Violet/Riga
On 7/19/06, Violet/Riga violetriga@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/19/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
A fun technique is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Friends&...
Whenever I'm feeling too happy I'll run that against buffy the vampire slayer.
I find The Simpsons to be the worst, with Spongebob close behind.
At one time buffy was the worse... But I removed a few hundred references. There are likely lower hanging fruit now. :)
Trivia sections must die, in all articles, period. If you see one, do Wikipedia a favor and move it to the talk page (or remove it entirely).
Erik
On 7/19/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
Trivia sections must die, in all articles, period. If you see one, do Wikipedia a favor and move it to the talk page (or remove it entirely).
Yes and no. Sometimes "references in popular culture" do tell you something, like a reference to "I, Robot", or a GWB gaff, etc. But mentioning a reference to someone that was already very notable in their own right is pointless.
Steve
Erik Moeller wrote:
Trivia sections must die, in all articles, period. If you see one, do Wikipedia a favor and move it to the talk page (or remove it entirely).
Erik
My impression of the trivia sections is that they serve a very important purpose. They are the compromise that keeps the trivia out of the rest of the article. Now I am not saying I like them, but if you remove them then the contents of the section will work its way back into the article. It will be spread out where readers will find it and it will reflect poorly on us. Now if its keep in a trivia section the blow to our image is less or possibly totally mitigated, and I admit sometimes I am in the mood for a bit of trivia.
Dalf
On 7/20/06, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
My impression of the trivia sections is that they serve a very important purpose. They are the compromise that keeps the trivia out of the rest of the article. Now I am not saying I like them, but if you remove them then the contents of the section will work its way back into the article. It will be spread out where readers will find it and it will reflect poorly on us. Now if its keep in a trivia section the blow to our image is less or possibly totally mitigated, and I admit sometimes I am in the mood for a bit of trivia.
They should be flagged with a big TRIVIA WARNING template.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 7/20/06, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
My impression of the trivia sections is that they serve a very important purpose. They are the compromise that keeps the trivia out of the rest of the article. Now I am not saying I like them, but if you remove them then the contents of the section will work its way back into the article. It will be spread out where readers will find it and it will reflect poorly on us. Now if its keep in a trivia section the blow to our image is less or possibly totally mitigated, and I admit sometimes I am in the mood for a bit of trivia.
They should be flagged with a big TRIVIA WARNING template.
Steve
Probably though most the time I see them under there own level 2 or 3 heading of Trivia. I think an actual "OMG TRIVIA WATCH OUT!" kinda box would disrupt the flow of the article. Heck I don't much care for the spoiler warning templates though obviously they are necessary.
The best solution is to teach editors not to want to include trivia to begin with.
SKL
On 7/20/06, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
Probably though most the time I see them under there own level 2 or 3 heading of Trivia. I think an actual "OMG TRIVIA WATCH OUT!" kinda box would disrupt the flow of the article. Heck I don't much care for the spoiler warning templates though obviously they are necessary.
The best solution is to teach editors not to want to include trivia to begin with.
They do have one benefit: they let new editors get their toes wet. It seems to me that the first contributions made by a lot of new editors are either adding to trivia sections like that ("Oh! Oh! I know! I saw this in a Simpsons episode once! I can't believe no one added that!") or adding to existing lists of other things (creating the phenomenon of a list of 37 examples when only 2 were needed).
Solution: Regular pruning.
Steve
Erik Moeller wrote:
Trivia sections must die, in all articles, period. If you see one, do Wikipedia a favor and move it to the talk page (or remove it entirely).
I made much the same point back in February; if I was online I'd pull out the link to the archives.
Here's one of the useful (ie. not "OMG WP:NOT paper") replies:
Subject: [WikiEN-l] "Trivia" sections in articles To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID: 43FD53A3.7050804@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
They look ugly and unprofessional. Can we get a policy or something to suggest that they be renamed "Miscellaneous information" or merged into the rest of the article?
And while we're at it, can we get rid of "{{PAGENAME}} in popular culture" sections?
Much if not all of much of this content is unreferenced. People apparently just toss in stuff off the top of their head. Like lists, I think they become a game in which people try to think of something, anything that isn't there already.
We should be proactive about putting {{unverifiedsect}} tags on these sections, {{fact}} tags on the unreferenced items, and removing them after a reasonable period of time and in a fair way. That will go a long way to solving the problem.
I personally believe these items are valuable and interesting _if referenced._ Incidentally insisting on reference is also a reasonable filter against subtrivial cruft; if the Statue of Liberty appears _in an important way_ in some movie, Ebert or someone is likely to have mentioned it somewhere; if it is just a cameo appearance to establish that a ship is approaching New York, nobody is likely to comment on it outside of a personal blog or forum, and finding a reference will be hard.
My initial complaint was that "trivia" sections were ugly and stupid. The insight of dpbsmith was that they are *harmful*. Sadly, everyone forgot about it.
On 7/25/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
My initial complaint was that "trivia" sections were ugly and stupid. The insight of dpbsmith was that they are *harmful*. Sadly, everyone forgot about it.
The sort of people that add trivia to non-trivial articles are not the sort of people that can easily be stopped. Hence my harm minimisation strategy: Regularly prune these sections without guilt.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 7/25/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
My initial complaint was that "trivia" sections were ugly and stupid. The insight of dpbsmith was that they are *harmful*. Sadly, everyone forgot about it.
The sort of people that add trivia to non-trivial articles are not the sort of people that can easily be stopped. Hence my harm minimisation strategy: Regularly prune these sections without guilt.
Steve
What about putting a notice on the talk page about things in trivia sections still needing references. Then after some short time move a copy of the section to the talk page and remove any unreferenced bits from the article. Leave a comment in the article at the top of the section suggesting that trivia that someone wants to add, should first be added to the talk page where people if they re so inclined can find references for it.
As I said before in cases where I have seen these sections come into being where they had not previously been, it was to get the information OUT of the rest of the article. Editors who felt that the information was *ahem* trivial, did not want it in the article but could not win an edit war for its removal so as a sort of compromise the trivia section is born. I am only pointing this out since I think it should be remembered by anyone trying to do the section in. The editors who want to add this information will not go away, and can usually make a good enough argument for some of the info being useful to keep it in the article somewhere.
SKL
You know, I haven't really seen a good working definition of the term "fancruft", yet I seem to have run afoul of the concept more often than I have failed to. Mind you, the areas of my expertise (animation and RPGs) are especially vulnerable to such claims, but I seem to be running into it far more often than most other editors.
I would say that I have an objection to some of the ways the policy has been applied, particularly to my own articles, but since I do not know what the policy actually entails (all things considered) it is difficult for me to form a rational response or objection to the times when I feel it is applied unfairly or unwisely.
Could someone give me a non-judgmental (because it usually seems to be applied to content that those who cite find objectionable for other reasons, as in the case of the possibly offensive Archbishop Tutu joke that Mr. wales cites) explanation of just what the term 'fancruft" means and entails as a matter of Wikipedia policy? (The apparently contemptuous nature of the term 'fancruft" itself also sticks in my craw as inherently judgmental, but that is neither here nor there.)
On 19/07/06, Michael Hopcroft michael@mphpress.com wrote:
You know, I haven't really seen a good working definition of the term "fancruft", yet I seem to have run afoul of the concept more often than I have failed to. Mind you, the areas of my expertise (animation and RPGs) are especially vulnerable to such claims, but I seem to be running into it far more often than most other editors.
I would say that I have an objection to some of the ways the policy has been applied, particularly to my own articles, but since I do not know what the policy actually entails (all things considered) it is difficult for me to form a rational response or objection to the times when I feel it is applied unfairly or unwisely.
Could someone give me a non-judgmental (because it usually seems to be applied to content that those who cite find objectionable for other reasons, as in the case of the possibly offensive Archbishop Tutu joke that Mr. wales cites) explanation of just what the term 'fancruft" means and entails as a matter of Wikipedia policy? (The apparently contemptuous nature of the term 'fancruft" itself also sticks in my craw as inherently judgmental, but that is neither here nor there.)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fancruft is the overdocumentation of certain fields of entertainment. Jimbo's extract is a good example of bad fancruft - inserting niche information into an article which won't benefit the reader.
Sadly, the word "fancruft" is too often levelled at anything the accuser doesn't like him/herself. In this case it is a form of elitism; the accuser claims that the articles a particular user is trying to write are somehow not worthy enough simply due to their subject matter. All you need to do is cite "Wikipedia is not paper".
On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Fancruft is the overdocumentation of certain fields of entertainment. Jimbo's extract is a good example of bad fancruft - inserting niche information into an article which won't benefit the reader.
Sadly, the word "fancruft" is too often levelled at anything the accuser doesn't like him/herself. In this case it is a form of elitism; the accuser claims that the articles a particular user is trying to write are somehow not worthy enough simply due to their subject matter. All you need to do is cite "Wikipedia is not paper".
I actually cringed when Jimbo used the word fancruft because of this very reason. Him using the word, will give Pokemon/Simpsons/SpongeBob hating editors yet other ammo to claim anything related to them is fancruft. Don't have the word fancruft around. Be specific and set your own ego aside. If I didn't I wouldn't have saved multiple Pokemon articles from doom. I despise them, but that gives me no right submitting them for deletion.
What I would like to see is mention that Tutu being named in friends is not sufficiently useful to be included in the article. Now if he actually appeared in the episode...
Mgm
On 7/20/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
What I would like to see is mention that Tutu being named in friends is not sufficiently useful to be included in the article. Now if he actually appeared in the episode...
...then that would be interesting to mention on the article about the episode. But unless his appearance was particularly notable (ie, controversial, caused a schism in the church, example of how he lost the plot in 1997...), then it's probably still too trivial to mention in his article.
Moral of the story: Keep fancruft where it belongs: on articles about the series itself.
Steve
On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/20/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
What I would like to see is mention that Tutu being named in friends is
not
sufficiently useful to be included in the article. Now if he actually appeared in the episode...
...then that would be interesting to mention on the article about the episode. But unless his appearance was particularly notable (ie, controversial, caused a schism in the church, example of how he lost the plot in 1997...), then it's probably still too trivial to mention in his article.
Moral of the story: Keep fancruft where it belongs: on articles about the series itself.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Actually, if he appeared in an episode, he'd have a filmography which is always worth including.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote: I actually cringed when Jimbo used the word fancruft because of this very reason. Him using the word, will give Pokemon/Simpsons/SpongeBob hating editors yet other ammo to claim anything related to them is fancruft. Don't have the word fancruft around.
Maybe this will help: anyone who starts an argument with "Jimbo said..." is guilty of Jimbocruft, which is worse than fancruft. :)
What I would like to see is mention that Tutu being named in friends is not sufficiently useful to be included in the article. Now if he actually appeared in the episode...
Perhaps. :)
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote: I actually cringed when Jimbo used the word fancruft because of this very reason. Him using the word, will give Pokemon/Simpsons/SpongeBob hating editors yet other ammo to claim anything related to them is fancruft. Don't have the word fancruft around.
Maybe this will help: anyone who starts an argument with "Jimbo said..." is guilty of Jimbocruft, which is worse than fancruft. :)
That's reminiscent of the children's game "Simon says take two giant steps". If you simply followed the instruction, "Take two giant steps," you would be out of the game. The only difference is that Simon has been replaced by Jimbo. :-)
Ec
Michael Hopcroft wrote:
You know, I haven't really seen a good working definition of the term "fancruft", yet I seem to have run afoul of the concept more often than I have failed to.
I would think of it in terms of how much thought and effort went into the connection.
If a movie is a retelling of a historical event, then it's something that hundreds of people worked to create, and it affected the thousands who watched it, so the existence of the movie is significant enough to be worth noting on the historical event's page.
But if the event is only suggested in a offhand joke in a TV show, it was probably the result of a total of five minutes work by one scriptwriter, and only a tiny number of viewers, aka the "fans", would even notice the reference at all, so it's insignificant.
Another way to look at it is that WP is a condensed summarization ("compendium"). So if you had a 700-page scholarly work on the Simpsons that, as part of its thoroughness, explained every joke and allusion in every show, and condensed it down to 70 pages of WP articles, what would you choose to keep? Probably not every one of the random allusions.
Stan
On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I quote our article:
In the Friends episode The One With the Two Parties RACHEL is quoted as saying "My parents happened. All they had to do was sit in the same stadium, smile proudly, and not talk about the divorce. But nooo, they got into a huge fight in the middle of the commencement address. Bishop Tutu actually had to stop and shush them."
I think that's one of the worst examples of fancruft I have seen in a very long time. (And, I note, there is no source. :))
--Jimbo
The source is right there: "the Friends episode The One With the Two Parties".
Anthony
On 7/19/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I quote our article:
In the Friends episode The One With the Two Parties RACHEL is quoted as saying "My parents happened. All they had to do was sit in the same stadium, smile proudly, and not talk about the divorce. But nooo, they got into a huge fight in the middle of the commencement address. Bishop Tutu actually had to stop and shush them."
I think that's one of the worst examples of fancruft I have seen in a very long time. (And, I note, there is no source. :))
--Jimbo
The source is right there: "the Friends episode The One With the Two Parties".
Funny. But it has no more place on an article about Desmond Tutu than an episode of Bewitched has on the Benjamin Franklin article.
Isn't the word fancruft uncivil like listcruft ( http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/044870.html)
On 7/20/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/19/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I quote our article:
In the Friends episode The One With the Two Parties RACHEL is quoted
as
saying "My parents happened. All they had to do was sit in the same stadium, smile proudly, and not talk about the divorce. But nooo,
they
got into a huge fight in the middle of the commencement address.
Bishop
Tutu actually had to stop and shush them."
I think that's one of the worst examples of fancruft I have seen in a very long time. (And, I note, there is no source. :))
--Jimbo
The source is right there: "the Friends episode The One With the Two
Parties".
Funny. But it has no more place on an article about Desmond Tutu than an episode of Bewitched has on the Benjamin Franklin article. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 05:25:33 +0100, "Tony Sidaway" f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Funny. But it has no more place on an article about Desmond Tutu than an episode of Bewitched has on the Benjamin Franklin article.
How true those words are even today.
An argument I have fairly frequently with the YTMNDers as well :-)
Guy (JzG)
On 7/20/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/19/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I quote our article:
In the Friends episode The One With the Two Parties RACHEL is quoted as saying "My parents happened. All they had to do was sit in the same stadium, smile proudly, and not talk about the divorce. But nooo, they got into a huge fight in the middle of the commencement address. Bishop Tutu actually had to stop and shush them."
I think that's one of the worst examples of fancruft I have seen in a very long time. (And, I note, there is no source. :))
--Jimbo
The source is right there: "the Friends episode The One With the Two Parties".
Funny. But it has no more place on an article about Desmond Tutu than an episode of Bewitched has on the Benjamin Franklin article.
I wasn't trying to be funny, nor was I trying to say that it belonged in the article.
The problem isn't lack of source. It's more one of original research.
Anthony
I wasn't trying to be funny, nor was I trying to say that it belonged in the article.
The problem isn't lack of source. It's more one of original research.
The problem is *not* original research. To summarise the events of an episode, film, book or the features of a piece of software, or the design of a famous building, is not original research.
The problem is the inclusion of inane trivia in articles where they won't benefit the reader. The average reader of [[Desmond Tutu]] will not learn anything about him because his name was mentioned in a popular television show.
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is the inclusion of inane trivia in articles where they won't benefit the reader. The average reader of [[Desmond Tutu]] will not learn anything about him because his name was mentioned in a popular television show.
Of course they will. They'll learn that he's actually really cool.
Steve
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I wasn't trying to be funny, nor was I trying to say that it belonged in the article.
The problem isn't lack of source. It's more one of original research.
The problem is *not* original research. To summarise the events of an episode, film, book or the features of a piece of software, or the design of a famous building, is not original research.
I'm sorry, but I disagree.
The problem is the inclusion of inane trivia in articles where they won't benefit the reader. The average reader of [[Desmond Tutu]] will not learn anything about him because his name was mentioned in a popular television show.
On 20/07/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I'm sorry, but I disagree.
Then Wikipedia must immediately change its policy on original research. All articles contain the summarisation that you consider original research. It is this that makes an article an article.
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/07/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I'm sorry, but I disagree.
Then Wikipedia must immediately change its policy on original research. All articles contain the summarisation that you consider original research. It is this that makes an article an article.
Not all articles use something as a source for itself (e.g., using an episode of Friends as a source on what happened in an episode of Friends).
Anthony
On 20/07/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Not all articles use something as a source for itself (e.g., using an episode of Friends as a source on what happened in an episode of Friends).
We never copy an account word-for-word. Even published synopses have to be summarised by our editors. I cannot see the fundamental difference between summarising an episode and summarising a summary of an episode. This must be original research by your standard too?
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/07/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Not all articles use something as a source for itself (e.g., using an episode of Friends as a source on what happened in an episode of Friends).
We never copy an account word-for-word. Even published synopses have to be summarised by our editors. I cannot see the fundamental difference between summarising an episode and summarising a summary of an episode. This must be original research by your standard too?
No, it isn't. I'm sorry you can't see that.
On 21/07/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
No, it isn't. I'm sorry you can't see that.
Perhaps you could humour me and explain how they are different?
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/07/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
No, it isn't. I'm sorry you can't see that.
Perhaps you could humour me and explain how they are different?
I suspect Anthony might be of the opinion that an encyclopedia should only be a tertiary source, summarising the judgment of secondary sources.
(am I right?)
-Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/07/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
No, it isn't. I'm sorry you can't see that.
Perhaps you could humour me and explain how they are different?
I suspect Anthony might be of the opinion that an encyclopedia should only be a tertiary source, summarising the judgment of secondary sources.
If so, it seems like pointless pedantry to me. What if we were to summarize a transcript of the episode instead? The extra step of indirection has no effect on the end result.
And primary sources are explicitly allowed by WP:NOR anyway, so the whole issue seems moot. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary_and_secondary_sources
On 7/20/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/07/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
No, it isn't. I'm sorry you can't see that.
Perhaps you could humour me and explain how they are different?
I suspect Anthony might be of the opinion that an encyclopedia should only be a tertiary source, summarising the judgment of secondary sources.
(am I right?)
I think summarizing something directly (e.g. using a Friends episode as a source for facts about itself) is, by its very definition, original research. The Friends episode isn't even a primary source in this case - the Friends episode is the subject, and the summary would be the primary source.
There are a number of reasons to do this. One is that it helps lessen the amount of "fancruft".
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
There are a number of reasons to do this. One is that it helps lessen the amount of "fancruft".
First it behooves to demonstrate what's actually wrong with "fancruft" before trying to come up with arbitrary limitations intended to reduce it.
For quite a while now I've been using Wikipedia first before IMDB when I want to know whether a movie or TV show is worth watching, a synopsis is rather important in that regard.
On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
For quite a while now I've been using Wikipedia first before IMDB when I want to know whether a movie or TV show is worth watching, a synopsis is rather important in that regard.
No one, but no one, is claiming that synopsises of TV shows are fancruft. Fancruft is the documenting of the entire fictional universe in detail. Out of control fancruft is documenting not only the official fictional universe, but subsequent fictional universes created by fans (fan-fancruft).
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
For quite a while now I've been using Wikipedia first before IMDB when I want to know whether a movie or TV show is worth watching, a synopsis is rather important in that regard.
No one, but no one, is claiming that synopsises of TV shows are fancruft. Fancruft is the documenting of the entire fictional universe in detail. Out of control fancruft is documenting not only the official fictional universe, but subsequent fictional universes created by fans (fan-fancruft).
Which si no less relevant to the question I asked about: "Why does (subject of article) matter? Why are you even reading this article? Why did someone reasonably believe that it was worth his time and effort to write it?"
Michael Hopcroft wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
For quite a while now I've been using Wikipedia first before IMDB when I want to know whether a movie or TV show is worth watching, a synopsis is rather important in that regard.
No one, but no one, is claiming that synopsises of TV shows are fancruft. Fancruft is the documenting of the entire fictional universe in detail. Out of control fancruft is documenting not only the official fictional universe, but subsequent fictional universes created by fans (fan-fancruft).
Which si no less relevant to the question I asked about: "Why does (subject of article) matter? Why are you even reading this article? Why did someone reasonably believe that it was worth his time and effort to write it?"
The problem with fancruft** is one of distraction and dilution. I think the best way to sum this up is that in almost every case the reader has come looking for something else and the fancruft gets in the way. For the enthusiastic fan it is likely that they already knew this bit of trivia (or in the case of our Harry Potter articles actively disagrees with the crufty bits added by someone else so they need to add a crufty counter example). It is rather like the Monty Python sketch that gave unsolicited commercial email its name when it starts to spread out into other articles.
Now as to the articles about the fictional universe in question. If I am a big enough fan of stargate that I am entertained by reading about all of the different kinds of space ships on the show. Then (A) I am better served by a single page to document them all. No one of them is going to ever have enough information that meets the other inclusion guidelines to have a full article. (B) I don't need to know every episode that an instance of said craft was used. If I am such a big fan as this then I have all the DVDs and know of 3 or 4 places on the Internet where such information is appropriate.
Fancruft if about wishing everyone though the things you like are as important as you think they are. In some cases this leads to a desire to have an article on every little detail as proof of its importance. But, the results are bad for wikipedia and they are bad for the coverage of the show or book. The rounding up and merging of Harry Potter articles that has been going on has had a very significant impact on the quality of our HP coverage.
** I am using the term fancruft to mean the inclusion of specific details of a fictional universe where they are not necessary or even detract from the encyclopedic point being made. Especially when found in articles on unrelated subjects.
Dalf
ScottL wrote:
The problem with fancruft** is one of distraction and dilution. I
think the best way to sum this up is that in almost every case the reader has come looking for something else and the fancruft gets in the way. For the enthusiastic fan it is likely that they already knew this bit of trivia (or in the case of our Harry Potter articles actively disagrees with the crufty bits added by someone else so they need to add a crufty counter example). It is rather like the Monty Python sketch that gave unsolicited commercial email its name when it starts to spread out into other articles.
Monty Python did indeed do a sketch on the matter, but they did not originate the term, and they built upon a previously known and highly dispersed product.
Fancruft if about wishing everyone though the things you like are as important as you think they are. In some cases this leads to a desire to have an article on every little detail as proof of its importance. But, the results are bad for wikipedia and they are bad for the coverage of the show or book. The rounding up and merging of Harry Potter articles that has been going on has had a very significant impact on the quality of our HP coverage.
** I am using the term fancruft to mean the inclusion of specific details of a fictional universe where they are not necessary or even detract from the encyclopedic point being made. Especially when found in articles on unrelated subjects.
This may be a better explanation of the concept than many others that I have read in this thread.
Ec
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
For quite a while now I've been using Wikipedia first before IMDB when I want to know whether a movie or TV show is worth watching, a synopsis is rather important in that regard.
No one, but no one, is claiming that synopsises of TV shows are fancruft.
Anthony apparently does. Here's what he wrote in the email this was a response to:
I think summarizing something directly (e.g. using a Friends episode as a source for facts about itself) is, by its very definition, original research. The Friends episode isn't even a primary source in this case - the Friends episode is the subject, and the summary would be the primary source.
There are a number of reasons to do this. One is that it helps lessen the amount of "fancruft".
I was mainly disagreeing with the notion that the episode itself isn't an acceptable source for a description of the episode, but this other notion about the summary being fancruft seems implied as well.
On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
For quite a while now I've been using Wikipedia first before IMDB when I want to know whether a movie or TV show is worth watching, a synopsis is rather important in that regard.
No one, but no one, is claiming that synopsises of TV shows are fancruft.
Anthony apparently does. Here's what he wrote in the email this was a response to:
I think summarizing something directly (e.g. using a Friends episode as a source for facts about itself) is, by its very definition, original research. The Friends episode isn't even a primary source in this case - the Friends episode is the subject, and the summary would be the primary source.
There are a number of reasons to do this. One is that it helps lessen the amount of "fancruft".
I was mainly disagreeing with the notion that the episode itself isn't an acceptable source for a description of the episode, but this other notion about the summary being fancruft seems implied as well.
*Some* synopses of TV shows are what I think Jimbo is referring to when he uses the term "fancruft". *Some* aren't. One (reasonable, in my opinion) way to draw the line is whether or not another respectable source has talked about the episode.
This goes for Shakespeare as well as for Sopranos (*). Both can be the subject of perfectly acceptable scholarly research. But Wikipedians shouldn't be the ones doing the research, Wikipedians should be making an article which organizes the research done by others.
(*) I doubt you'd find a published work of Shakespeare that *hasn't* been examined by multiple other sources, though.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
Wikipedians shouldn't be the ones doing the research, Wikipedians should be making an article which organizes the research done by others.
NOR policy appears to explicitly disagree with this statement. It reads, in part:
"Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."
You may make other arguments for why it's not appropriate to include a detailed synopsis in some particular article or another, but as far as I can see one based on NOR is simply not valid.
On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Wikipedians shouldn't be the ones doing the research, Wikipedians should be making an article which organizes the research done by others.
NOR policy appears to explicitly disagree with this statement. It reads, in part:
"Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."
You may make other arguments for why it's not appropriate to include a detailed synopsis in some particular article or another, but as far as I can see one based on NOR is simply not valid.
You are misreading NOR. Watching a TV show and then writing about it creates a primary source.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
For quite a while now I've been using Wikipedia first before IMDB when I want to know whether a movie or TV show is worth watching, a synopsis is rather important in that regard.
No one, but no one, is claiming that synopsises of TV shows are fancruft.
Anthony apparently does. Here's what he wrote in the email this was a response to:
I think summarizing something directly (e.g. using a Friends episode as a source for facts about itself) is, by its very definition, original research. The Friends episode isn't even a primary source in this case - the Friends episode is the subject, and the summary would be the primary source.
There are a number of reasons to do this. One is that it helps lessen the amount of "fancruft".
I was mainly disagreeing with the notion that the episode itself isn't an acceptable source for a description of the episode, but this other notion about the summary being fancruft seems implied as well.
*Some* synopses of TV shows are what I think Jimbo is referring to when he uses the term "fancruft". *Some* aren't. One (reasonable, in my opinion) way to draw the line is whether or not another respectable source has talked about the episode.
If we waited for these books to be published we would never be up to date. At best a book of the episodes will be published at the end of the season. One important question is what does the reader want. He may be sitting with a group of friends talking about a favorite TV programme, and as a result want to settle an argument about some particular episode. He's not looking for an academic thesis about the show; he just wants to check out some basic facts. He doesn't give a tinker's dam about where WE got the information from the episode itself or a book about it. If he feels that our information is accurate he's happy.
This goes for Shakespeare as well as for Sopranos (*). Both can be the subject of perfectly acceptable scholarly research. But Wikipedians shouldn't be the ones doing the research, Wikipedians should be making an article which organizes the research done by others.
(*) I doubt you'd find a published work of Shakespeare that *hasn't* been examined by multiple other sources, though.
That's because they've had 400 years to do it.
Ec
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Anthony wrote:
There are a number of reasons to do this. One is that it helps lessen the amount of "fancruft".
First it behooves to demonstrate what's actually wrong with "fancruft" before trying to come up with arbitrary limitations intended to reduce it.
For quite a while now I've been using Wikipedia first before IMDB when I want to know whether a movie or TV show is worth watching, a synopsis is rather important in that regard.
As anyone who's been in a college literature course can tell you, there are many important things to ask about any work of art that go well beyond what happened in it and who was involved in tis creation. "why is this important?" "why do people talk about it, and what about it do they discuss?" "what does it mean, both intrinsically and in the context of the times and situation in which it was created?" "what reasons do those who dislike or dismiss it have for doing so, and how valid are those reasons today?" "has the way the work has been percieved changed signficantly between the time in which it was created and now?" The same can be said in many respects for the creators of a work; "Why was Shakespeare?" and "Why does Shakespeare matter?" are even more vital questions for a scholar (and encyclopedia writing is an essentially scholarly exercise) as "Who was Shakespeare?"
There are many things that would be readily accepted in an article about Macbeth that would dismissed as "fancruft" in an article about The Sopranos -- but there is no fundamental difference between the purpose of those two articles. None at all. "Why does The Sopranos matter?" is just as important a question as "Why does Macbeth matter?", just as "Why is The Sopranos the way it is?" is just as important a question as "Why did Shakespeare write macbeth the way he did?". Just because a work is newer, is less mainstream, or is more poorly regarded in the mainstream does not make it any less worthy of this sort of examination. Sometimes quite the contrary, at times: if one is writing an article on Plan Nine from Outer Space, the low-budget science-fiction film of legendary shoddy awfulness, it is important to provide some reason WHY it is worth talking about -- as an example of delusional hubris on the part of the idiot auteur Ed Wood, or perhaps as an example of the perseverance and improvisation that enabled Wood to complete the film in the face of innumerable obstacles like the death of his only remotely qualified actor.
Meanwhile, many wikipedia writers seem to be letting relatively minor things occupy more of their attention -- not because those things should not be included, but because they stop with them and do not go any further. I find this most common the biographies of actors, particularly LGBT actors. The last time I checked the article on Raymond Burr, one of the most significant actors in early American television, the only point mentioned other than a bare stub was his homosexuality -- a fact that, while worth noting, is utterly irrelevant to his legacy or, for that matter, to what made raymiond Burr a significant figure. Although if you want to examine the life of Raymond Burr his sexuality would matter, the article must still answer the question "Why is Raymond Burr important? What did he do and what did it mean? How is the world different than it would have been had Raymond Burr not existed?"
To partly answer that question: Burr matters because he was one of the first true "TV stars", because he had a knack for combining gravity with subtle humor which brought to vivid life one of the seminal characters of the medium of television, and his charisma enabled him to trancend the mold of the "leading man" stereotype of the era -- helping prove in the process that the new and not-well-respected medium WAS worthy of the attentions of a serious actor. In short, if you want to understand the way mass media developed in the United States, Raymond Burr is VERY important. Yet only his sexuality was considered important by whoever did his wikipedia article (unless it has been edited further since I I read it).
When writing a pop-culture article, even a stub I wish would be completed by others, I have made a practice of showing, as best I could, exactly what about my topic is significant. Because anyone who approaches editing cultural Wikipedia with any degree of serious should realize that they ARE scholars -- even if they're scholars of the Collected works of CLAMP rather than The Collected Works of George Orwell.
On Jul 21, 2006, at 8:56 AM, Michael Hopcroft wrote:
As anyone who's been in a college literature course can tell you, there are many important things to ask about any work of art that go well beyond what happened in it and who was involved in tis creation. "why is this important?" "why do people talk about it, and what about it do they discuss?" "what does it mean, both intrinsically and in the context of the times and situation in which it was created?" "what reasons do those who dislike or dismiss it have for doing so, and how valid are those reasons today?" "has the way the work has been percieved changed signficantly between the time in which it was created and now?" The same can be said in many respects for the creators of a work; "Why was Shakespeare?" and "Why does Shakespeare matter?" are even more vital questions for a scholar (and encyclopedia writing is an essentially scholarly exercise) as "Who was Shakespeare?"
This is very true and correct, and is exactly the sort of questions we look for in better Wikipedia articles.
<snip sensible paragraph on pop culture not being different from Shakespeare in terms of these questions>
Meanwhile, many wikipedia writers seem to be letting relatively minor things occupy more of their attention -- not because those things should not be included, but because they stop with them and do not go any further.
I agree; I can only explain this as finding sources than answer the questions above are harder than finding sources for the more minor aspects. But we certainly should have both.
<snip sad, but common, example>
To partly answer that question: Burr matters because he was one of the first true "TV stars", because he had a knack for combining gravity with subtle humor which brought to vivid life one of the seminal characters of the medium of television, and his charisma enabled him to trancend the mold of the "leading man" stereotype of the era -- helping prove in the process that the new and not-well-respected medium WAS worthy of the attentions of a serious actor. In short, if you want to understand the way mass media developed in the United States, Raymond Burr is VERY important. Yet only his sexuality was considered important by whoever did his wikipedia article (unless it has been edited further since I I read it).
That's a *great* explanation! Please don't give up on Wikipedia - if you can do such writing, and are willing, we are delighted to have you - don't let anyone convince you otherwise.
When writing a pop-culture article, even a stub I wish would be completed by others, I have made a practice of showing, as best I could, exactly what about my topic is significant. Because anyone who approaches editing cultural Wikipedia with any degree of serious should realize that they ARE scholars -- even if they're scholars of the Collected works of CLAMP rather than The Collected Works of George Orwell.
And we greatly thank you for doing that. Please keep up the good work.
Jesse Weinstein
Michael Hopcroft wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Anthony wrote:
There are a number of reasons to do this. One is that it helps lessen the amount of "fancruft".
First it behooves to demonstrate what's actually wrong with "fancruft" before trying to come up with arbitrary limitations intended to reduce it.
For quite a while now I've been using Wikipedia first before IMDB when I want to know whether a movie or TV show is worth watching, a synopsis is rather important in that regard.
As anyone who's been in a college literature course can tell you, there are many important things to ask about any work of art that go well beyond what happened in it and who was involved in tis creation. "why is this important?" "why do people talk about it, and what about it do they discuss?" "what does it mean, both intrinsically and in the context of the times and situation in which it was created?" "what reasons do those who dislike or dismiss it have for doing so, and how valid are those reasons today?" "has the way the work has been percieved changed signficantly between the time in which it was created and now?" The same can be said in many respects for the creators of a work; "Why was Shakespeare?" and "Why does Shakespeare matter?" are even more vital questions for a scholar (and encyclopedia writing is an essentially scholarly exercise) as "Who was Shakespeare?"
I don't dispute that, but in a site such as this the information is layered. It will begin with rudimentary information about the person's vital statistics, his field of importance. In the case of a writer, his most important works will be listed. Ideally, as others become involved the article will grow to include the kind of documented analysis that you describe. Lesser luminaries are less likely to receive that kind of treatment, but their more limited biographies still have a place in Wikipedia.
There are many things that would be readily accepted in an article about Macbeth that would dismissed as "fancruft" in an article about The Sopranos -- but there is no fundamental difference between the purpose of those two articles. None at all. "Why does The Sopranos matter?" is just as important a question as "Why does Macbeth matter?", just as "Why is The Sopranos the way it is?" is just as important a question as "Why did Shakespeare write macbeth the way he did?". Just because a work is newer, is less mainstream, or is more poorly regarded in the mainstream does not make it any less worthy of this sort of examination. Sometimes quite the contrary, at times: if one is writing an article on Plan Nine from Outer Space, the low-budget science-fiction film of legendary shoddy awfulness, it is important to provide some reason WHY it is worth talking about -- as an example of delusional hubris on the part of the idiot auteur Ed Wood, or perhaps as an example of the perseverance and improvisation that enabled Wood to complete the film in the face of innumerable obstacles like the death of his only remotely qualified actor.
If an author's significance endures more becomes available with time. One could dispute the importance of the porter in "Macbeth", but De Quincey's essay does much to focus on his significance. Unamuno's "Our Lord Don Quixote" is reverence at its best. When dealing with the arts and literature of our time it would be presumptuous of us to prejudge the importance of any specific work or artist. It takes time.
Ec
On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
First it behooves to demonstrate what's actually wrong with "fancruft" before trying to come up with arbitrary limitations intended to reduce it.
For quite a while now I've been using Wikipedia first before IMDB when I want to know whether a movie or TV show is worth watching, a synopsis is rather important in that regard.
/me stabs Bryan
We're not talking about crufty articles about movie/TV show FOO. People expect some amount of directly related trivia and even subtrivia in pop culture subjects, and sometimes find it useful.
We're talking about when someone goes to an academic subject.. like an article on electron spin, an article on a Nobel prize winner, or an article on a prestigious university and adds something like "In episode 9543 of [[Real ultimate OMG coolness]] the main character, Mr. Bubbles, mentioned X in passing"... and these inclusions pile up.
Unless you happen to read the entirety of Wikipedia (or at least the what links here on the movie page) you're not going to see these things... so I doubt that you're talking about the same thing.
On 21/07/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Unless you happen to read the entirety of Wikipedia (or at least the what links here on the movie page) you're not going to see these things... so I doubt that you're talking about the same thing.
As an interesting aside, Wikipedia is growing at such a rate that even if someone spent 24 hours reading newly added content, and had a very fast reading rate, they couldn't keep up!
On 7/21/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/07/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Unless you happen to read the entirety of Wikipedia (or at least the what links here on the movie page) you're not going to see these things... so I doubt that you're talking about the same thing.
As an interesting aside, Wikipedia is growing at such a rate that even if someone spent 24 hours reading newly added content, and had a very fast reading rate, they couldn't keep up!
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
Well, at least one can can still keep up with New Pages, even if Recent Changes is now beyond mortal ken. It's actually rather interesting to see what obscure stuff pops up.
~maru
On 7/21/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
Well, at least one can can still keep up with New Pages, even if Recent Changes is now beyond mortal ken. It's actually rather interesting to see what obscure stuff pops up.
One can, perhaps.. but people don't do so consistently..
I've found examples of obvious garbage newpages which were unedited months after their initial creation.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
First it behooves to demonstrate what's actually wrong with "fancruft" before trying to come up with arbitrary limitations intended to reduce it.
For quite a while now I've been using Wikipedia first before IMDB when I want to know whether a movie or TV show is worth watching, a synopsis is rather important in that regard.
/me stabs Bryan
Would stabbing count as a "personal attack?" At least it's not a legal threat... :)
Unless you happen to read the entirety of Wikipedia (or at least the what links here on the movie page) you're not going to see these things... so I doubt that you're talking about the same thing.
I do believe we're talking at cross-purposes, yes. My main argument in this thread is against the IMO very strange notion that one cannot use a work of fiction as a source when writing an article about it. Anthony's most recent response also implied that he considered a simple plot synopsis to be "fancruft", which was what the post you're responding to was in disagreement with.
I wasn't talking about what you're talking about in this response at all. I think we'd likely even agree about it. Fortunately I'm about to leave on a week-long vacation in a few hours, so the thread can continue without the risk of finding consensus in that area. :)
/me stabs <INSERT USER HERE>
Just so you know, /me is a IRC command, and saying you're "stabbing" someone on IRC is a total joke, used a lot. Not a personal attack =D
On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
First it behooves to demonstrate what's actually wrong with "fancruft" before trying to come up with arbitrary limitations intended to reduce
it.
For quite a while now I've been using Wikipedia first before IMDB when
I
want to know whether a movie or TV show is worth watching, a synopsis
is
rather important in that regard.
/me stabs Bryan
Would stabbing count as a "personal attack?" At least it's not a legal threat... :)
Unless you happen to read the entirety of Wikipedia (or at least the what links here on the movie page) you're not going to see these things... so I doubt that you're talking about the same thing.
I do believe we're talking at cross-purposes, yes. My main argument in this thread is against the IMO very strange notion that one cannot use a work of fiction as a source when writing an article about it. Anthony's most recent response also implied that he considered a simple plot synopsis to be "fancruft", which was what the post you're responding to was in disagreement with.
I wasn't talking about what you're talking about in this response at all. I think we'd likely even agree about it. Fortunately I'm about to leave on a week-long vacation in a few hours, so the thread can continue without the risk of finding consensus in that area. :)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I do believe we're talking at cross-purposes, yes. My main argument in this thread is against the IMO very strange notion that one cannot use a work of fiction as a source when writing an article about it. Anthony's most recent response also implied that he considered a simple plot synopsis to be "fancruft", which was what the post you're responding to was in disagreement with.
As I explained in my other post, my comments were much more restrictive than that. If you have to resort to original research in order to create a plot synopsis, *that* is what I have a problem with.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
As I explained in my other post, my comments were much more restrictive than that. If you have to resort to original research in order to create a plot synopsis, *that* is what I have a problem with.
The only way I can see needing original research to come up with a plot synopsis would be to go on set and observe the filming of the show, or maybe personally interview the scriptwriter or something. Once the show's been broadcast or put on DVD it's a published primary source.
I think we're at the point where we're just repeating ourselves at each other, but I'm about to leave on vacation so someone else will have to take over repeating for me here. :)
On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Anthony wrote:
As I explained in my other post, my comments were much more restrictive than that. If you have to resort to original research in order to create a plot synopsis, *that* is what I have a problem with.
The only way I can see needing original research to come up with a plot synopsis would be to go on set and observe the filming of the show, or maybe personally interview the scriptwriter or something. Once the show's been broadcast or put on DVD it's a published primary source.
It's a primary source on what? Not on itself.
I think we're at the point where we're just repeating ourselves at each other, but I'm about to leave on vacation so someone else will have to take over repeating for me here. :)
On 7/21/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Anthony wrote:
As I explained in my other post, my comments were much more restrictive than that. If you have to resort to original research in order to create a plot synopsis, *that* is what I have a problem with.
The only way I can see needing original research to come up with a plot synopsis would be to go on set and observe the filming of the show, or maybe personally interview the scriptwriter or something. Once the show's been broadcast or put on DVD it's a published primary source.
It's a primary source on what? Not on itself.
I think we're at the point where we're just repeating ourselves at each other, but I'm about to leave on vacation so someone else will have to take over repeating for me here. :)
This is somewhat confusing to me, because it seems so obvious to me that watching a TV show and then writing about it is original research. Anyway, here's what I found about what is a primary source:
"The distinction between types of sources can get tricky, because a secondary source may also be a primary source. Garry Wills' book about Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, for example, can looked at as both a secondary and a primary source. The distinction may depend on how you are using the source and the nature of your research. If you are researching Abraham Lincoln, the book would be a secondary source because WIlls is offering his opinions about Lincoln and the Gettysburg Address. If your assignment is to write a book review of Lincoln at Gettysburg, the book becomes a primary source, because you are commenting, evaluating, and discussing Garry Wills' ideas."
It seems to me, based on this paragraph, that using "Episode 5 of Season 3 of Friends" in an article about that episode, would be the *creation* of a primary source.
Anthony
WAIT A SECOND.
How is summarizing a TV show any different than summarizing a book, or a comic? A TV show is just a book (transcript) with a bunch of pictures. And a comic is just a book with many pictures but less text.
I fail to see your point in any form.
On 7/21/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote: This is somewhat confusing to me, because it seems so obvious to me that watching a TV show and then writing about it is original research. Anyway, here's what I found about what is a primary source:
"The distinction between types of sources can get tricky, because a secondary source may also be a primary source. Garry Wills' book about Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, for example, can looked at as both a secondary and a primary source. The distinction may depend on how you are using the source and the nature of your research. If you are researching Abraham Lincoln, the book would be a secondary source because WIlls is offering his opinions about Lincoln and the Gettysburg Address. If your assignment is to write a book review of Lincoln at Gettysburg, the book becomes a primary source, because you are commenting, evaluating, and discussing Garry Wills' ideas."
It seems to me, based on this paragraph, that using "Episode 5 of Season 3 of Friends" in an article about that episode, would be the *creation* of a primary source.
No. Here's the analogy broken out from quote you provide:
Use of Wills' book: researching Abraham Lincoln Primary source: Lincoln's Gettysburg Address Secondary source: Wills' book "Lincoln at Gettysburg"
Use of Wills' book: book review of Lincoln at Gettysburg Primary source: Wills' book "Lincoln at Gettysburg" Secondary source: N/A
If you are writing about Shakespeare, the primary source is the text of Shakespeare's work. If you are writing about an episode of Friends, the primary source is the episode itself.
Now all of this is really somewhat distinct from whether something is original research (at least in the context of what that means on Wikipedia). If you are writing a simply plot summary, there is not much OR involved--as others have pointed out, every article on Wikipedia involves selecting which details to include and which to omit. There may be disagreement about which details are significant, but to be a simple plot summary, the details must be explicitly present (verifiable) in the primary source.
Where things cross the line into OR is when the summary starts to put forward some sort of analytical synthesis--such as attempting to explain WHY a character may have taken a certain action or comparing the plot to that of some other work. OR occurs when one starts to advance ideas that are not explicitly present in the source material, but are based on inference or synthesis or other techniques.
Bkonrad
On 7/21/06, Bkonrad bkonrad123@sbcglobal.net wrote:
On 7/21/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote: This is somewhat confusing to me, because it seems so obvious to me that watching a TV show and then writing about it is original research. Anyway, here's what I found about what is a primary source:
"The distinction between types of sources can get tricky, because a secondary source may also be a primary source. Garry Wills' book about Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, for example, can looked at as both a secondary and a primary source. The distinction may depend on how you are using the source and the nature of your research. If you are researching Abraham Lincoln, the book would be a secondary source because WIlls is offering his opinions about Lincoln and the Gettysburg Address. If your assignment is to write a book review of Lincoln at Gettysburg, the book becomes a primary source, because you are commenting, evaluating, and discussing Garry Wills' ideas."
It seems to me, based on this paragraph, that using "Episode 5 of Season 3 of Friends" in an article about that episode, would be the *creation* of a primary source.
No. Here's the analogy broken out from quote you provide:
It's not an analogy, it's an example.
Use of Wills' book: researching Abraham Lincoln Primary source: Lincoln's Gettysburg Address Secondary source: Wills' book "Lincoln at Gettysburg"
Use of Wills' book: book review of Lincoln at Gettysburg Primary source: Wills' book "Lincoln at Gettysburg" Secondary source: N/A
If you are writing about Shakespeare, the primary source is the text of Shakespeare's work. If you are writing about an episode of Friends, the primary source is the episode itself.
No, if you are writing about Shakespeare, the primary source is the text of Shakespeare's work. If you are writing about the author of Friends, the primary source is an episode of Friends. If you're writing about the play Hamlet, the play itself would not be a primary source. If you're writing about an episode of Friends, the episode itself would not be a primary source.
Now all of this is really somewhat distinct from whether something is original research (at least in the context of what that means on Wikipedia).
In my opinion it confuses the point. Original research is much more simply stated as writing from direct observation, as opposed to writing from someone else's observations.
If writing about an episode of Friends and using that episode isn't original research, I'd have to ask, what is? What is original research in the context of writing about a published work, or is there no such thing as original research in that case?
If you are writing a simply plot summary, there is not much OR involved--as others have pointed out, every article on Wikipedia involves selecting which details to include and which to omit. There may be disagreement about which details are significant, but to be a simple plot summary, the details must be explicitly present (verifiable) in the primary source.
I never said that the act of selecting which details to include and which to omit is original research. It was others who brought that up.
Where things cross the line into OR is when the summary starts to put forward some sort of analytical synthesis--such as attempting to explain WHY a character may have taken a certain action or comparing the plot to that of some other work. OR occurs when one starts to advance ideas that are not explicitly present in the source material, but are based on inference or synthesis or other techniques.
I agree with this to a large extent. But I think when you write about a work using only the work itself as a source you necessarily *do* put forward this sort of synthesis. Otherwise, what is the point of mentioning the fact?
I guess the exception would be when you just list out facts in random order and don't make any attempt to make them relevant. And I suppose you could argue that's what the Trivia section of an article does. But otherwise, analytical synthesis is a necessary part of every article.
Frankly, I think such a limited exception is not enough to restrict what is OR, since listing out random facts is not a good thing either.
Anthony
On 7/21/06, Bkonrad bkonrad123@sbcglobal.net wrote:
On 7/21/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
If you are writing about Shakespeare, the primary source is the text of Shakespeare's work. If you are writing about an episode of Friends, the primary source is the episode itself.
No, if you are writing about Shakespeare, the primary source is the text of Shakespeare's work. If you are writing about the author of Friends, the primary source is an episode of Friends. If you're writing about the play Hamlet, the play itself would not be a primary source. If you're writing about an episode of Friends, the episode itself would not be a primary source.
No, sorry. I used "writing about Shakespeare" as a shorthand for writing about Shakespeare's works. I'm not sure how it is these days, but it used to be a pretty common school exercise to write essays about one or another of the bards works. It was considerably less common to write essays about the bard himself. And it IMO is completely ass-backwards to say "If you're writing about the play Hamlet, the play itself would not be a primary source." The inverse of that is very nearly the definition of primary source, at least in the world beyond Wikipedia's somewhat idiosyncratic usage in discussions of OR.
Now all of this is really somewhat distinct from whether something is original research (at least in the context of what that means on Wikipedia).
In my opinion it confuses the point. Original research is much more simply stated as writing from direct observation, as opposed to writing from someone else's observations.
That is one type of OR, but it is not usage intended by the OR policy on Wikipedia (or at least as it was originally formulated).
If writing about an episode of Friends and using that episode isn't original research, I'd have to ask, what is? What is original research in the context of writing about a published work, or is there no such thing as original research in that case?
As I wrote earlier (now a bit further down), OR in that context would be putting forward ideas that were not explicitly in the episode itself, such as trying to explain a character's motivation or making comparisons with other works.
If you are writing a simply plot summary, there is not much OR involved--as others have pointed out, every article on Wikipedia involves selecting which details to include and which to omit. There may be disagreement about which details are significant, but to be a simple plot summary, the details must be explicitly present (verifiable) in the primary source.
I never said that the act of selecting which details to include and which to omit is original research. It was others who brought that up.
Yes, but presenting a simple plot summary is little more than selecting details from the primary source.
Where things cross the line into OR is when the summary starts to put forward some sort of analytical synthesis--such as attempting to explain WHY a character may have taken a certain action or comparing the plot to that of some other work. OR occurs when one starts to advance ideas that are not explicitly present in the source material, but are based on inference or synthesis or other techniques.
I agree with this to a large extent. But I think when you write about a work using only the work itself as a source you necessarily *do* put forward this sort of synthesis. Otherwise, what is the point of mentioning the fact?
Now, whether there is a point to mentioning any specific detail (or even an assembly of details) is a valid consideration, but that is separate from either OR or verifiability. As to whether you "necessarily" put forward an original synthesis when writing about a work using only the work itself -- I disagree. It is a fine line and one easily crossed, but so long as any such use of a primary source sticks to reporting only what is explicitly in the source and avoids making derivative observations, it is both verifiable and not OR. Whether it is worth including in an encyclopedia is another matter.
I guess the exception would be when you just list out facts in random order and don't make any attempt to make them relevant. And I suppose you could argue that's what the Trivia section of an article does. But otherwise, analytical synthesis is a necessary part of every article.
Frankly, I think such a limited exception is not enough to restrict what is OR, since listing out random facts is not a good thing either.
Why would they have to be in random order? We order things all the time in extracting details from other sources in writing articles. The details in a simple plot summary should reflect the order of presentation in the show. The trivia sections in articles have nothing to do with plot summaries. I'm not sure why you bring that up here.
Bkonrad
I agree with this to a large extent. But I think when you write about a work using only the work itself as a source you necessarily *do* put forward this sort of synthesis. Otherwise, what is the point of mentioning the fact?
I have noticed you say this or something like it a few times. Throughout this thread you seem to be arguing that you cannot use a work as a source for itself. But, every time someone points out an instance where you clearly can, you revert to "... write about a work using only the work itself as a source ....". Which is your position? I agree that is almost every case, you are right with the modified "only source". It would not make much of an article if you simply said very shortly what happened and which characters where there etc. However, that is quite a different thing from using it as a source for individual facts--which characters where present in the first episode as compared to the last, how many seasons the show ran, etc--and using other sources for the other facts needed to make the article readable.
Dalf
On 7/24/06, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
I agree with this to a large extent. But I think when you write about a work using only the work itself as a source you necessarily *do* put forward this sort of synthesis. Otherwise, what is the point of mentioning the fact?
I have noticed you say this or something like it a few times. Throughout this thread you seem to be arguing that you cannot use a work as a source for itself. But, every time someone points out an instance where you clearly can, you revert to "... write about a work using only the work itself as a source ....". Which is your position? I agree that is almost every case, you are right with the modified "only source". It would not make much of an article if you simply said very shortly what happened and which characters where there etc. However, that is quite a different thing from using it as a source for individual facts--which characters where present in the first episode as compared to the last, how many seasons the show ran, etc--and using other sources for the other facts needed to make the article readable.
I'm saying that the work itself is the only source for that particular fact. If the work itself is the original source, but another source mentions it, then that wouldn't qualify.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
On 7/21/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Anthony wrote:
As I explained in my other post, my comments were much more restrictive than that. If you have to resort to original research in order to create a plot synopsis, *that* is what I have a problem with.
The only way I can see needing original research to come up with a plot synopsis would be to go on set and observe the filming of the show, or maybe personally interview the scriptwriter or something. Once the show's been broadcast or put on DVD it's a published primary source.
It's a primary source on what? Not on itself.
I think we're at the point where we're just repeating ourselves at each other, but I'm about to leave on vacation so someone else will have to take over repeating for me here. :)
This is somewhat confusing to me, because it seems so obvious to me that watching a TV show and then writing about it is original research. Anyway, here's what I found about what is a primary source:
Yet defining it as such creates innumerable practical problems when doing articles on television and film.
There is also a logical contraction: you seem to be asking people to write articles on movies and TV shows they HAVE NOT SEEN, which of course is as much a total absurdity as asking a literary scholar to write a thesis on novels and plays he has never himself read, based solely on previously-existing external scholarship. The idea is unrealistic nearly to the point of psychotic detachment.
On 7/22/06, Michael Hopcroft michael@mphpress.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 7/21/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Anthony wrote:
As I explained in my other post, my comments were much more restrictive than that. If you have to resort to original research in order to create a plot synopsis, *that* is what I have a problem with.
The only way I can see needing original research to come up with a plot synopsis would be to go on set and observe the filming of the show, or maybe personally interview the scriptwriter or something. Once the show's been broadcast or put on DVD it's a published primary source.
It's a primary source on what? Not on itself.
I think we're at the point where we're just repeating ourselves at each other, but I'm about to leave on vacation so someone else will have to take over repeating for me here. :)
This is somewhat confusing to me, because it seems so obvious to me that watching a TV show and then writing about it is original research. Anyway, here's what I found about what is a primary source:
Yet defining it as such creates innumerable practical problems when doing articles on television and film.
There is also a logical contraction: you seem to be asking people to write articles on movies and TV shows they HAVE NOT SEEN, which of course is as much a total absurdity as asking a literary scholar to write a thesis on novels and plays he has never himself read, based solely on previously-existing external scholarship. The idea is unrealistic nearly to the point of psychotic detachment.
Really? It would be quite posible for me to write articles on canals I've never seen nor ever will see (since they are now under a city or the like).
geni wrote:
There is also a logical contraction: you seem to be asking people to write articles on movies and TV shows they HAVE NOT SEEN, which of course is as much a total absurdity as asking a literary scholar to write a thesis on novels and plays he has never himself read, based solely on previously-existing external scholarship. The idea is unrealistic nearly to the point of psychotic detachment.
Really? It would be quite posible for me to write articles on canals I've never seen nor ever will see (since they are now under a city or the like).
It may be possible, but in the case of literary criticism what would be the point if the works themselves are accessible?
It would, of course, be necessary in the case of LOST works of which there are no extant copies. But if the book, or the play, or the film is still extant, not to mention easily obtainable, there is no reason for a scholar not to refer to it. And what would he gain from REFUSING to do so? How can one gain a useful interpretation of a film he has not seen?
On 7/22/06, Michael Hopcroft michael@mphpress.com wrote:
geni wrote:
There is also a logical contraction: you seem to be asking people to write articles on movies and TV shows they HAVE NOT SEEN, which of course is as much a total absurdity as asking a literary scholar to write a thesis on novels and plays he has never himself read, based solely on previously-existing external scholarship. The idea is unrealistic nearly to the point of psychotic detachment.
Really? It would be quite posible for me to write articles on canals I've never seen nor ever will see (since they are now under a city or the like).
It may be possible, but in the case of literary criticism what would be the point if the works themselves are accessible?
That is somewhat different from the original assertion which would have suggested that [[Q document]] was imposible to write.
It would, of course, be necessary in the case of LOST works of which there are no extant copies. But if the book, or the play, or the film is still extant, not to mention easily obtainable, there is no reason for a scholar not to refer to it. And what would he gain from REFUSING to do so?
Since we are not meant to be reporting on the film it self rather people's responces to it and how they recored it (NPOV) it could provide useful self disserplin.
How can one gain a useful interpretation of a film he has not seen?
You are not meant to.
Michael Hopcroft wrote:
It may be possible, but in the case of literary criticism what would be the point if the works themselves are accessible?
I think the point is that we are not suppose to be writing "literary criticism", or at least not *originating* it. That would be OR! FOr the parts of the articles that consist of literary criticism we are suppose to be summarizing not creating.
However, an article on a fictional work is not a literary critique, it has some of that in it. However in this case it is an encyclopedia article and depending on the work may include a lot more, some of which are facts that can (only?) be verified from the original work.
Though I think your point still stands that summarizing the critiques that are out there would be much more difficult for someone totally unfamiliar with the original work.
Dalf
On 7/24/06, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
I think the point is that we are not suppose to be writing "literary criticism", or at least not *originating* it. That would be OR! FOr the parts of the articles that consist of literary criticism we are suppose to be summarizing not creating.
However, an article on a fictional work is not a literary critique, it has some of that in it. However in this case it is an encyclopedia article and depending on the work may include a lot more, some of which are facts that can (only?) be verified from the original work.
This is totally correct.
Steve
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 23:52:21 -0700, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
However, an article on a fictional work is not a literary critique, it has some of that in it. However in this case it is an encyclopedia article and depending on the work may include a lot more, some of which are facts that can (only?) be verified from the original work.
If there are no secondary sources I'd say it was unencyclopaedic anyway. Mind you, for my money we'd have a single one-paragraph article on the entire subject of Pokémon...
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 23:52:21 -0700, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
However, an article on a fictional work is not a literary critique, it has some of that in it. However in this case it is an encyclopedia article and depending on the work may include a lot more, some of which are facts that can (only?) be verified from the original work.
If there are no secondary sources I'd say it was unencyclopaedic anyway. Mind you, for my money we'd have a single one-paragraph article on the entire subject of Pokémon...
What makes something encyclopedic is that there are people who want to read about the subject.
A single sentence in your Pokémon article could be, "The names of the Pokemon characters are 'Pikachu, Bulbasaurus, ...'." :-) In deference to an other class of luddites I would then omit the accent from "Pokémon".
Ec
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:58:20 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If there are no secondary sources I'd say it was unencyclopaedic anyway. Mind you, for my money we'd have a single one-paragraph article on the entire subject of Pokémon...
What makes something encyclopedic is that there are people who want to read about the subject.
Not really. Judging by teh intarwebs most people want to read about reality TV and porn ;-)
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:58:20 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If there are no secondary sources I'd say it was unencyclopaedic anyway. Mind you, for my money we'd have a single one-paragraph article on the entire subject of Pokémon...
What makes something encyclopedic is that there are people who want to read about the subject.
Not really. Judging by teh intarwebs most people want to read about reality TV and porn ;-)
For some people Pokémon is reality TV. :-) The Pokémon characters are sufficiently secretive thsat any pornographic interaction between them is unlikely to be verifiable. :-) Ec
I'm not sure why you're mentioning it, but I recently changed every mention of Pokemon to Pokémon.
mboverload
On 7/25/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
A single sentence in your Pokémon article could be, "The names of the Pokemon characters are 'Pikachu, Bulbasaurus, ...'." :-) In deference to an other class of luddites I would then omit the accent from "Pokémon".
On 7/25/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure why you're mentioning it, but I recently changed every mention of Pokemon to Pokémon.
Ray was intending, I believe, to leave one flamewar for another, for variety.
-Matt
mboverload wrote:
I'm not sure why you're mentioning it, but I recently changed every mention of Pokemon to Pokémon.
mboverload
On 7/25/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
A single sentence in your Pokémon article could be, "The names of the Pokemon characters are 'Pikachu, Bulbasaurus, ...'." :-) In deference to an other class of luddites I would then omit the accent from "Pokémon".
I'm not sure what your arguing about in your top post to an out of context quote. It's not important enough for me to trace that back. I need to assume that the "you" in my comment referred to you, and IIRC you wanted to limit the article to one paragraph. I was merely making a suggestion for one sentence that that paragraph could include.
So am I safe to say that you made your above comment so that you could get a virtual pat on the back for your efforts? If so I hereby offer that to you.
A few years ago there was a big debate over whether names should include accents, and I believe that was settled back then. This doesn't meant that we don't have a few retro-luddites who would still believe that the results should have been different.
:-) Ec
On 7/22/06, Michael Hopcroft michael@mphpress.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
This is somewhat confusing to me, because it seems so obvious to me that watching a TV show and then writing about it is original research. Anyway, here's what I found about what is a primary source:
Yet defining it as such creates innumerable practical problems when doing articles on television and film.
Well, after reading the argument about Shakespeare's works over again, I have to say that I'm probably wrong that this falls explicitly under the WP:NOR policy.
Of course, I still think it's a bad idea, to use a fictional work as a source for itself.
There is also a logical contraction: you seem to be asking people to write articles on movies and TV shows they HAVE NOT SEEN, which of course is as much a total absurdity as asking a literary scholar to write a thesis on novels and plays he has never himself read, based solely on previously-existing external scholarship. The idea is unrealistic nearly to the point of psychotic detachment.
Well, you're not exactly getting what I was saying accurate. I don't think people should only write articles on movies and TV shows they haven't seen. I think it's fine if they do so, but they don't have to.
I think you're missing an important point too. Most Wikipedians aren't literary scholars, and Wikipedia articles aren't thesis papers. Furthermore, Wikipedia isn't set up to easily distinguish between literary scholars and crackpots. Wikipedia is written by and large by non-experts, and that's the context you have to put the rules about original research into.
But again, I capitulate that the "no original research" rule probably doesn't explicitly bar this type of statement.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
"The distinction between types of sources can get tricky, because a secondary source may also be a primary source. Garry Wills' book about Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, for example, can looked at as both a secondary and a primary source. The distinction may depend on how you are using the source and the nature of your research. If you are researching Abraham Lincoln, the book would be a secondary source because WIlls is offering his opinions about Lincoln and the Gettysburg Address. If your assignment is to write a book review of Lincoln at Gettysburg, the book becomes a primary source, because you are commenting, evaluating, and discussing Garry Wills' ideas."
Fortunately, Wikipedia did not exist in 1863. Had you been at Gettysburg then and writing about it, NOR would have prevented America from ever hearing about Lincoln's speech. :-)
Ec
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Anthony wrote:
As I explained in my other post, my comments were much more restrictive than that. If you have to resort to original research in order to create a plot synopsis, *that* is what I have a problem with.
The only way I can see needing original research to come up with a plot synopsis would be to go on set and observe the filming of the show, or maybe personally interview the scriptwriter or something. Once the show's been broadcast or put on DVD it's a published primary source.
That seems to sum it up very well.
Ec
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 20/07/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Not all articles use something as a source for itself (e.g., using an episode of Friends as a source on what happened in an episode of Friends).
We never copy an account word-for-word. Even published synopses have to be summarised by our editors. I cannot see the fundamental difference between summarising an episode and summarising a summary of an episode. This must be original research by your standard too?
It's important to remember that the original purpose of the no original research rule was to thwart screwball scientific theories. These episodes are fictitious to start with so summarizing them directly or from another summary shouldn't matter. It's a misapplication of the idea of no original research. If something in the only available summary is dead wrong are you still going to accept the validity of the summary over the real episode?
Ec
On 7/23/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It's important to remember that the original purpose of the no original research rule was to thwart screwball scientific theories. These episodes are fictitious to start with so summarizing them directly or from another summary shouldn't matter. It's a misapplication of the idea of no original research. If something in the only available summary is dead wrong are you still going to accept the validity of the summary over the real episode?
Ec
If there is only one summery I would dig out WP:V combien it with WP:NPOV and list it for deletion.
On 7/21/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Not all articles use something as a source for itself (e.g., using an episode of Friends as a source on what happened in an episode of Friends).
An article about an episode that cites nothing but the episode itself is a poor article. It amounts to an article about the Mona Lisa simply putting a high resolution copy of the image and saying "you can see for yourself". In order not to violate NOR, we could say very little about the episode. We couldn't say if it was good or bad. We couldn't say what fans thought about it. We couldn't say if the jokes were funny. We couldn't say it was the first time Rachael kissed Ross.
We could say "The episode lasted 23 minutes". We could offer a plot summary. We could describe some of the gags. How boring.
Steve
I don't see the problem with bending the rules a bit for episodes. Who's it going to hurt?
On 7/21/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/21/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Not all articles use something as a source for itself (e.g., using an episode of Friends as a source on what happened in an episode of Friends).
An article about an episode that cites nothing but the episode itself is a poor article. It amounts to an article about the Mona Lisa simply putting a high resolution copy of the image and saying "you can see for yourself". In order not to violate NOR, we could say very little about the episode. We couldn't say if it was good or bad. We couldn't say what fans thought about it. We couldn't say if the jokes were funny. We couldn't say it was the first time Rachael kissed Ross.
We could say "The episode lasted 23 minutes". We could offer a plot summary. We could describe some of the gags. How boring.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/21/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see the problem with bending the rules a bit for episodes. Who's it going to hurt?
Ouch. So we have a serious encyclopaedia based on a set of principles, but for TV episodes the rule is "anything goes"? Please, no.
Steve
A serious encyclopedia that wants to archive the summaries of one of our most important cultural references - TV
On 7/21/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/21/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see the problem with bending the rules a bit for
episodes. Who's it
going to hurt?
Ouch. So we have a serious encyclopaedia based on a set of principles, but for TV episodes the rule is "anything goes"? Please, no.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
mboverload wrote: [fixed top posting]
On 7/21/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/21/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Not all articles use something as a source for itself (e.g., using an episode of Friends as a source on what happened in an episode of Friends).
An article about an episode that cites nothing but the episode itself is a poor article. It amounts to an article about the Mona Lisa simply putting a high resolution copy of the image and saying "you can see for yourself". In order not to violate NOR, we could say very little about the episode. We couldn't say if it was good or bad. We couldn't say what fans thought about it. We couldn't say if the jokes were funny. We couldn't say it was the first time Rachael kissed Ross.
We could say "The episode lasted 23 minutes". We could offer a plot summary. We could describe some of the gags. How boring.
I don't see the problem with bending the rules a bit for episodes. Who's it going to hurt?
Ultimately, it will hurt the rest of Wikipedia; instead of doing *useful* editing, people will be adding /every single detail/ about /every single episode/ of /every single TV show that ever was/, instead of focussing on areas where we have no information, very little information, or information that is inaccurate or doesn't make sense.
There's the entirely seperate issue of approaching copyright infringement (Wikipedia, your source of TV and movie scripts on teh intarwebs!), but I suspect that the point will be lost on you.
On 7/26/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
There's the entirely seperate issue of approaching copyright infringement (Wikipedia, your source of TV and movie scripts on teh intarwebs!), but I suspect that the point will be lost on you.
I had mentioned that, but someone claimed that plots aren't copyrightable. I suspect that's incorrect, but don't care enough to prove it wrong.
Anthony
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
mboverload wrote: [fixed top posting]
On 7/21/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/21/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Not all articles use something as a source for itself (e.g., using an episode of Friends as a source on what happened in an episode of Friends).
An article about an episode that cites nothing but the episode itself is a poor article. It amounts to an article about the Mona Lisa simply putting a high resolution copy of the image and saying "you can see for yourself". In order not to violate NOR, we could say very little about the episode. We couldn't say if it was good or bad. We couldn't say what fans thought about it. We couldn't say if the jokes were funny. We couldn't say it was the first time Rachael kissed Ross.
We could say "The episode lasted 23 minutes". We could offer a plot summary. We could describe some of the gags. How boring.
I don't see the problem with bending the rules a bit for episodes. Who's it going to hurt?
Ultimately, it will hurt the rest of Wikipedia; instead of doing *useful* editing, people will be adding /every single detail/ about /every single episode/ of /every single TV show that ever was/, instead of focussing on areas where we have no information, very little information, or information that is inaccurate or doesn't make sense.
This is pure speculation
There's the entirely seperate issue of approaching copyright infringement (Wikipedia, your source of TV and movie scripts on teh intarwebs!), but I suspect that the point will be lost on you.
Completely irrelevant. Summarizing the plot is about the content, and not about the detailed expression in the script. No-one has suggested that we include entire scripts.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
mboverload wrote: [fixed top posting]
On 7/21/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/21/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Not all articles use something as a source for itself (e.g., using an episode of Friends as a source on what happened in an episode of Friends).
An article about an episode that cites nothing but the episode itself is a poor article. It amounts to an article about the Mona Lisa simply putting a high resolution copy of the image and saying "you can see for yourself". In order not to violate NOR, we could say very little about the episode. We couldn't say if it was good or bad. We couldn't say what fans thought about it. We couldn't say if the jokes were funny. We couldn't say it was the first time Rachael kissed Ross.
We could say "The episode lasted 23 minutes". We could offer a plot summary. We could describe some of the gags. How boring.
I don't see the problem with bending the rules a bit for episodes. Who's it going to hurt?
Ultimately, it will hurt the rest of Wikipedia; instead of doing *useful* editing, people will be adding /every single detail/ about /every single episode/ of /every single TV show that ever was/, instead of focussing on areas where we have no information, very little information, or information that is inaccurate or doesn't make sense.
This is pure speculation
It's based on experience.
There's the entirely seperate issue of approaching copyright infringement (Wikipedia, your source of TV and movie scripts on teh intarwebs!), but I suspect that the point will be lost on you.
Completely irrelevant. Summarizing the plot is about the content, and not about the detailed expression in the script. No-one has suggested that we include entire scripts.
If we include every single detail, we end up with a script.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
mboverload wrote: [fixed top posting]
On 7/21/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/21/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Not all articles use something as a source for itself (e.g., using an episode of Friends as a source on what happened in an episode of Friends).
An article about an episode that cites nothing but the episode itself is a poor article. It amounts to an article about the Mona Lisa simply putting a high resolution copy of the image and saying "you can see for yourself". In order not to violate NOR, we could say very little about the episode. We couldn't say if it was good or bad. We couldn't say what fans thought about it. We couldn't say if the jokes were funny. We couldn't say it was the first time Rachael kissed Ross.
We could say "The episode lasted 23 minutes". We could offer a plot summary. We could describe some of the gags. How boring.
I don't see the problem with bending the rules a bit for episodes. Who's it going to hurt?
Ultimately, it will hurt the rest of Wikipedia; instead of doing *useful* editing, people will be adding /every single detail/ about /every single episode/ of /every single TV show that ever was/, instead of focussing on areas where we have no information, very little information, or information that is inaccurate or doesn't make sense.
This is pure speculation
It's based on experience.
When did we start accepting asnecdotal personal experience as evidence? I am willing to concede that something of the sort may have occasionally happened, but I would avoid generalizing from it.
There's the entirely seperate issue of approaching copyright infringement (Wikipedia, your source of TV and movie scripts on teh intarwebs!), but I suspect that the point will be lost on you.
Completely irrelevant. Summarizing the plot is about the content, and not about the detailed expression in the script. No-one has suggested that we include entire scripts.
If we include every single detail, we end up with a script.
Maybe at the extreme, but it would be a completely original script, and therefore not a copyvio.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Ultimately, it will hurt the rest of Wikipedia; instead of doing *useful* editing, people will be adding /every single detail/ about /every single episode/ of /every single TV show that ever was/, instead of focussing on areas where we have no information, very little information, or information that is inaccurate or doesn't make sense.
Somewhere in this thread above it was pointed out that arguing that every editor who is adding info on pop culture could be writing brilliant Roman History articles instead (or any other topic) is not necessarily correct. Some people are going to edit on one topic or nothing.
Dalf
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 7/21/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Not all articles use something as a source for itself (e.g., using an episode of Friends as a source on what happened in an episode of Friends).
An article about an episode that cites nothing but the episode itself is a poor article. It amounts to an article about the Mona Lisa simply putting a high resolution copy of the image and saying "you can see for yourself".
Sometimes that's the only valid thing you can say. Whether it's a poor article depends on the writing style, and what you want to accomplish.
In order not to violate NOR, we could say very little about the episode. We couldn't say if it was good or bad. We couldn't say what fans thought about it. We couldn't say if the jokes were funny. We couldn't say it was the first time Rachael kissed Ross.
Some of these would be contrary to NPOV anyway. :-) Apart from that some of this information could always be added later.
We could say "The episode lasted 23 minutes". We could offer a plot summary. We could describe some of the gags. How boring.
Yeah! Facts can be boring.
Ec
On 7/22/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
In order not to violate NOR, we could say very little about the episode. We couldn't say if it was good or bad. We couldn't say what fans thought about it. We couldn't say if the jokes were funny. We couldn't say it was the first time Rachael kissed Ross.
Some of these would be contrary to NPOV anyway. :-) Apart from that some of this information could always be added later.
Whether it was good or bad violates NPOV. What the fans think about it would be fine, if there was a published story which said what fans thought about it. Obviously if not it would either be non-verifiable or violate NOR, right? Whether or not the jokes were funny violates NPOV. Whether or not it was the first time Rachael [sp?] kissed Ross would be the part that I personally still don't think should be in there without a source other than the episodes themselves. But that would require using every single episode previously run as a "source". Personally I'd say to find a reliable source which states that that was the first time they kissed, or else the world has to do without that useless bit of information.
Of course, as far as I'm concerned I wouldn't be terribly sad if all the articles about non-free fictional works moved to Fictionpedia. Especially the plot summaries, which are really non-free derivative works in themselves, though they generally fall under fair use of course.
Anthony
On 7/22/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Of course, as far as I'm concerned I wouldn't be terribly sad if all the articles about non-free fictional works moved to Fictionpedia. Especially the plot summaries, which are really non-free derivative works in themselves, though they generally fall under fair use of course.
Plots are generally not copyrightable, although character names may be.
-Matt
On 7/23/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/22/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Of course, as far as I'm concerned I wouldn't be terribly sad if all the articles about non-free fictional works moved to Fictionpedia. Especially the plot summaries, which are really non-free derivative works in themselves, though they generally fall under fair use of course.
Plots are generally not copyrightable, although character names may be.
Could you patent them?
geni wrote:
On 7/23/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/22/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Of course, as far as I'm concerned I wouldn't be terribly sad if all the articles about non-free fictional works moved to Fictionpedia. Especially the plot summaries, which are really non-free derivative works in themselves, though they generally fall under fair use of course.
Plots are generally not copyrightable, although character names may be.
Could you patent them?
You can TRADEMARK them, which is nearly the same thing, and almost everyone does if they can afford the fees.
Sometimes this can cause confusion. Superman the comic book character is a trademark, superman the philosophical term is not. James Bond 007 is a trademark, but James Bond the famous ornithologist after whom Ian Fleming named him is not.
What's really confusing is that it is almost impossible to come up with a name for a fictional character in the normal sense that is not being used by some real person somewhere in the world. Spock is a fictional alien, but Dr. Benjamin Spock is a pioneering writer on pediatrics and childrearing. There are probably hundreds of people named Malcolm Reynolds living in the English-speaking world right now who are, of course, totally unconnected to the protagonist of the television series Firefly.
And there is actually a wikipedia article on Michael Hopcroft -- the English physicist, not myself (a Portland, Oregon based Sf and RPG writer).
Matt Brown wrote:
On 7/22/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Of course, as far as I'm concerned I wouldn't be terribly sad if all the articles about non-free fictional works moved to Fictionpedia. Especially the plot summaries, which are really non-free derivative works in themselves, though they generally fall under fair use of course.
Plots are generally not copyrightable, although character names may be.
Single words or names aren't copyrightable. Perhaps Perrault might have tried with Rumplestilskin, but that was long enough ago that it would have gone into the public domain by now. :-)
Ec