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

[mboverload]

I messed the last section up:  A lazy reporter cites something from
Wikipedia that is not cited (and maybe not true).  The lazy reporter
then reports on it in a reliable source.  Then that reliable source
gets cited in the article to back up that "fact".

Srry.

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:38 PM, mboverload <mboverloadlister at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>