On 07/27/11 4:40 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
Yes I agree that primary sources should ONLY be
cited-quoted, in their original language.
A translation can be *published* but that publication cannot be in Wikipedia solely. It
must live somewhere else as well, published by a reliable source.
In this case of an audio file, we should have a transcription, than a translation.
However having Wikipedians translate primary sources and then citing and quoting those
*translations* in-project is a recipe for disaster and fraught with the potential for
abuse, as well as being original research. In this case the original research is *your
unpublished translation used as the actual source*.
It's also a mistake to use "original research" as an excuse for
suppressing information, as is often done on Wikipedia. A
wiki-translation is fine as long as long as the original is linked and
can be checked. The other dangers that you cite are real, but we cannot
expect perfection from imperfect sources. Whether a source is
"reliable" or research is "original" depends on one's POV.
best served by expressing our uncertainties instead of blocking
uncertain facts. Especially in matters of history it should be up to
the reader to decide what weight to give to material.
From: Ray Saintonge
Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 4:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
On 07/27/11 12:42 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation?
An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact.
You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either.
You are presenting it.
If that is to be the case the exact quote MUST be in its original
anguage. All translations require interpretation.