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

[mboverload]

>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
>