From a completely outside perspective I see the problem
with WikiQuote
is sourcing.
From what I have a layperson have seen is that there is
pretty much no
sourcing for a large body of the content. To explain how dangerous
it
is to put words in someone's mouth would require a long diatribe that
you all have already heard.
I think WikiQuote needs a WP:BLP (maybe one exists, don't know,
writing from a random internet user perspective that doesn't care to
investigate). If there is NOT an EXACT, reliable source, it's not
fukken on the page, period. Ever. You keep putting the quote there
you're banned. No ifs ands or buts. It doesn't matter how innocuous a
quote may be.
You're saying someone said something which they may not have, which is
dangerous. Quotes are commonly passed through word of mouth. If it
gets put on WikiQuote it may be assumed to be true, then put in a
reliable source, thus proving the quote. Wikipedia is having that
exact problem right now. Our content is being put into reliable
sources, oftentimes without reference. Then some lazy reporter comes
along and cites it. Thus Wikipedia just made a brand new fact...that
isn't a fact at all.
I am being harsh. Feel free to be harsh back at Wikipedia. Tell me
I'm wrong (no, seriously, I am known where I work to be extremely
receptive to feedback). We all benefit when someone points out what
hurts the most.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:04 AM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2008/9/8 Andrew Whitworth
<wknight8111(a)gmail.com>om>:
1) What is the boundary that differentiates a
quote from a source? If
we have a transcript of length X, at what N is X > N suitable for
Wikisource and X < N suitable for wikiquote? Obviously, N is not going
to be a firm number, but having a clear answer to this question will
help silence some detractors who say WQ should be merged into WS.
WS is for complete works. So the complete Shakespeare play goes to WS.
Quotes from that play to WQ.
2) Is the purpose of WQ to store, source, and
organize quotations in
an analogous way to how Commons handles media? If so, we should be
pursuing technical means through which quotations from WQ can be
easily transcluded into works that require them, such as WP, WB, WV,
and WN.
Nope getting the quotes off wikipedia was one of the initial advantages of WQ.
3) If a contemporary figure makes an important
statement, is that the
jurisdiction of WQ, WN, WP, or a combination thereof? That is, is WQ
trying to follow current events, or is it focusing on a more
historical perspective?
A combination thereof. WP has answered this many times.
4) Is a GFDL site license really appropriate if
the vast majority of
content on WQ is not released under that license? If we have quotes
that are too old for copyright (and therefore PD) or quotes that are
too new (and therefore being used as some kind of fair use), does
having a GFDL stamp on the website really make any sense?
It's complicated.
--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l