What (if anything) is the present consensus on including (short) PD
texts in
the 'pedia. I'm thinking of http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Yes,_Virginia,_there_is_a_Santa_Claus http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
I don't know that we ever agreed on a single policy. Clearly, there is sentiment against mere "data dumping". Just using Wikipedia as yet another host for old online texts doesn't really accomplish anything. But there's not really any reason to /not/ include full texts along with articles about them, especially if they are short things like poems, essays, etc. 0
I think we should avoid storing *any* texts like these, including the "Origin of Species" book which is still online at the pedia (and I say so even though I am a biologist! ;)
Instead, there should be a link to another web page that has the original text (like Project Gutenberg), and that is to be expected to be around for a while.
Magnus
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com]On Behalf Of lcrocker@nupedia.com Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 6:49 PM To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Source texts
What (if anything) is the present consensus on including (short) PD
texts in
the 'pedia. I'm thinking of http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Yes,_Virginia,_there_is_a_Santa_Claus http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
I don't know that we ever agreed on a single policy. Clearly, there is sentiment against mere "data dumping". Just using Wikipedia as yet another host for old online texts doesn't really accomplish anything. But there's not really any reason to /not/ include full texts along with articles about them, especially if they are short things like poems, essays, etc. 0
At 06:57 PM 4/17/02 +0200, Magnus Manske wrote:
I think we should avoid storing *any* texts like these, including the "Origin of Species" book which is still online at the pedia (and I say so even though I am a biologist! ;)
Actually, I've already removed Origin of Species from wikipedia. :) There's a link to it elsewhere on the web on that page now, along with whatever discussion there was of the book itself.
Personally, I'm against the inclusion of even relatively small source texts in Wikipedia. I've put my reasons in a variety of talk pages, you can find links to most of them from http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Talk%3AYes%2C_Virginia%2C_there_is_a_Santa_Cla... but the basic summary of my position is that we shouldn't be attributing world-editable text to other people. For an ordinary Wikipedia article, there's an implicit "The various random yahoos who edit Wikipedia say" at the beginning, whereas at the beginning of (for example) A Modest Proposal there's an explicit "Jonathan Swift himself, and Jonathan Swift alone, said." It's a lot worse if the latter gets modified than the former, since for the former it's expected as a normal part of how Wikipedia works but for the latter it turns the article into an outright lie.
Copied from the talk page in question, under the GFDL. :)
-- "Let there be light." - Last words of Bomb #20, "Dark Star"
Bryan Derksen wrote:
but the basic summary of my position is that we shouldn't be attributing world-editable text to other people. For an ordinary Wikipedia article, there's an implicit "The various random yahoos who edit Wikipedia say" at the beginning, whereas at the beginning of (for example) A Modest Proposal there's an explicit "Jonathan Swift himself, and Jonathan Swift alone, said."
I think this is a valid concern. Perhaps it could be alleviated by agreeing that it's o.k. for sysops to protect pages that aren't 'community' pages.
I smiled at your characterization of the implicit disclaimer. Following my own personal interests, I often end up corresponding with professors. Sometimes they assume incorrectly that I'm also a scholar and suggest that I might be interested in submitting something to this or that journal. I have to say "Oh, I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I'm just some random idjit from the Internet with lots of questions."
--Jimbo
lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
I don't know that we ever agreed on a single policy. Clearly, there is sentiment against mere "data dumping". Just using Wikipedia as yet another host for old online texts doesn't really accomplish anything. But there's not really any reason to /not/ include full texts along with articles about them, especially if they are short things like poems, essays, etc.
I think this is as close to the consensus as we've ever come. It's a really good statement. "Yes, Virginia" and similar short famous texts should be included only with a cross-reference from an article.
In this case, for example, there's historical interest in the New York Sun, where this was originally published. There's the famous line "If it says it in the Sun, it's so." I think the New York Sun was just recently (or will be soon) relaunched, so interest in the Sun might lead people to this famous historical essay. I see no reason not to include it as a sidebar, in this context.
But, with Lee, I think that "mere 'data dumping'" isn't so useful. I mean, we could auto-import all of the Gutenberg texts... but to what purpose? We aren't a text repository, but an encyclopedia.
--Jimbo
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org