[Foundation-l] Wikiquote: to be, or not to be

[geni]

2008/9/8 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com>:
> 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