Talk:Feminism
From Wikiquote
[edit] The Wickedictionary
This is not a reliable source. Cirt (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Look again, it is an academic source. Stingray 05:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not really, says who? Cirt (talk) 07:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Look at the URL. It is an academic institution. Please explain your problem in more detail. Stingray 12:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is a wiki. The quotes at the wiki are unsourced. There are no dates provided to the quotes, or sources. There is no editorial review. And it is being used on this project as spam by established sockpuppets. Cirt (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- It is an academic website. The sources are acknowledged using footnotes. It is no different to if an academic published it as a book. They are quotes that have merit and do not seem like spam to me. Stingray 13:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is a personal website that happens to be hosted by an academic domain name. The footnotes just say who said the quotes, not when, where, what date, full cite, etc. There is no way to verify the quotes to the original place and time they were said. Get it? Cirt (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- There are some with full cites. The page is obviously a work in progress. But anyhow there are gazillions of pages here on Wikiquote where there are special sections for "unsourced quotes" and "attributed quotes". This seems to be the status quo on the pages here, if the quote is good and yet the sources need further work on. Why don't you delete those too? Because half of Wikiquote would disappear! What might more sense is to restore the deletions you have done, and give them an appropriate heading such as "attributed" or whatever. Stingray 22:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is a personal website that happens to be hosted by an academic domain name. The footnotes just say who said the quotes, not when, where, what date, full cite, etc. There is no way to verify the quotes to the original place and time they were said. Get it? Cirt (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is an academic website. The sources are acknowledged using footnotes. It is no different to if an academic published it as a book. They are quotes that have merit and do not seem like spam to me. Stingray 13:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- It is a wiki. The quotes at the wiki are unsourced. There are no dates provided to the quotes, or sources. There is no editorial review. And it is being used on this project as spam by established sockpuppets. Cirt (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Look at the URL. It is an academic institution. Please explain your problem in more detail. Stingray 12:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I found the WP on removing "unsourced" stuff; your are totally right. However, please point me to the WP that outlaws "other" wikis. IMHO, a wiki is no different from another website or a publication, especially in this case which appears to be a closed academic wiki that is not open to the public. I tried logging in and it wouldn't let me as I'm only a pleb. Stingray 03:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not really, says who? Cirt (talk) 07:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think attribution is really at issue here. While Dr. Abbott invites others to contribute, the page is almost entirely his creation. In the absence of evidence that his account there has been hijacked, it is reasonable to assume words attributed to him therein are claimed by him as his own.
More pertinent to quotability here is that it's just a personal page. It is customary for academic institutions to provide MySpace-like pages for their faculty, and most are hardly more notable than their student's FaceBook pages. There are a only a very few highly prominent academics whose personal pages are widely discussed, and Wikiquote sometimes quotes them on author pages. I see no indication that the good doctor's personal "fun stuff" musings are notable enough to be included in the author page, much less to be scattered in theme pages such as this one. ~ Ningauble 14:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)- Responding to Cirt's comment above, I would like to point out that a website of this nature is no different to, say, the case of a famous novelist being quoted out of a book he wrote. It's a personal book. It contains the musings of the novelist. What's the difference? The key thing that in both cases the material is out there in the public domain. You may say the book is different because at least it has been edited. All the editor does is check the spelling. So what? I don't see any true difference between the two media. Pls enlighten me, as I would like to learn. I am open for you to present an argument that is convincing. Stingray 02:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- If the person is, as you say, a "famous" novelist, then the book is not just a "personal" book. Cirt (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- And what is the thing that makes such a book "just not personal"? Please explain. Because whatever it is, it seems a very fine line for deciding whether to include or exclude some very fine quotes! I hope you can identify something solid and convincing. Stingray 02:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone can create a personal website and then attempt to disruptively spam out quotes on a wiki using socks. Cirt (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. But in this case we are talking about something notable. Let's make an example to illustrate the point. Let's pick a random famous person such as Salman Rushdie. Now let's say one day Salman writes an autobiography. We at Wikiquote obviously like to have good quotes from that autobiography. We don't label it as disruptive. We don't care how many Salman Rushdie fans out there put up these quotes as we don't think of it as spam (so long as they were apposite quotes). We don't even care if some are socks as are they are doing nothing disruptive. Right? Now imagine one day he has a "Salman Rushdie Official Website" for his fans. Say he mentions a few notable things there that weren't in his autobiography. My question is this: why is his website different to his autobiography for quoting the man himself? To my mind, they are both forms of artistic expression in public domain media. The only difference is that in the autobiography he has had his spelling checked by a human editor! Are you trying to imply that all autobiographies should be outlawed from Wikiquote? Please clarify where you are going with this. I'm trying to learn and am finding your answers rather brief and unforthcoming. Stingray 02:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- In the Rushdie example, it would be preferable to use quotes that secondary sources had commented on and identified as noteworthy. Cirt (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- So would you like to go ahead and delete this page: The Autobiography of William Butler Yeats of autobiographical quotes of a very famous author, or do you think other administrators would decry this as disruptive? There are many other examples. We should also delete Hitler's Mein Kampf as that was autobiographical too and there is an autobiographical section on the Charles Darwin quote page. None of these examples are quoting the secondary sources that you suggest; they are directly quoting the autobiography. There are over 300 pages of autobiographical quotes on Wikiquote. Then on top of that Shakespeare quotes use the original Shakespeare reference rather than a secondary source that commented on Shakespeare. Same is true for all novels here. Are you really suggesting we delete these? If not, what's the difference? Stingray 03:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- This discussion is now pointless and bordering on disruptive. Your saying that based on my prior statement of what is preferable, that one should go around deleting other pages, seems to be a bit POINTy. Cirt (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please reread my last two sentences again. I was arguing by hypothetical example.. And my question was asking you "what is the difference"? If you can answer that, it could enlighten me tremendously. At the moment I'm still in the dark. Stingray 05:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Let us please focus on one article at a time. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- We are focusing on the one issue. I am trying to point out an apparently contradictory position you are maintaining and I am trying to understand. Please can you answer the above question? Stingray 05:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- We should strive to emphasize usage of quotes from secondary sources, so as to avoid individual Wikiquote users making determinations about which quotes are noteworthy and which are not. Cirt (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- So what point are you trying to prove by selectively deleting the Wickedictionary quotes that had no secondary sources stated, as opposed to, say, those Yeats or Hitler quotes that have no secondary sources? Are you being perhaps a little disruptive by these actions? Would it not be more constructive to restore your deletions to allow editors time to research secondary sources? Given that we have had Shakespeare around for 400 yrs and haven't gotten around yet to collating secondary sources for all his good quotes, does this appeal to your sense of fair play that Rome was not built in a day and to ease up a bit?Stingray 06:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- We should strive to emphasize usage of quotes from secondary sources, so as to avoid individual Wikiquote users making determinations about which quotes are noteworthy and which are not. Cirt (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- We are focusing on the one issue. I am trying to point out an apparently contradictory position you are maintaining and I am trying to understand. Please can you answer the above question? Stingray 05:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Let us please focus on one article at a time. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- So would you like to go ahead and delete this page: The Autobiography of William Butler Yeats of autobiographical quotes of a very famous author, or do you think other administrators would decry this as disruptive? There are many other examples. We should also delete Hitler's Mein Kampf as that was autobiographical too and there is an autobiographical section on the Charles Darwin quote page. None of these examples are quoting the secondary sources that you suggest; they are directly quoting the autobiography. There are over 300 pages of autobiographical quotes on Wikiquote. Then on top of that Shakespeare quotes use the original Shakespeare reference rather than a secondary source that commented on Shakespeare. Same is true for all novels here. Are you really suggesting we delete these? If not, what's the difference? Stingray 03:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- In the Rushdie example, it would be preferable to use quotes that secondary sources had commented on and identified as noteworthy. Cirt (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. But in this case we are talking about something notable. Let's make an example to illustrate the point. Let's pick a random famous person such as Salman Rushdie. Now let's say one day Salman writes an autobiography. We at Wikiquote obviously like to have good quotes from that autobiography. We don't label it as disruptive. We don't care how many Salman Rushdie fans out there put up these quotes as we don't think of it as spam (so long as they were apposite quotes). We don't even care if some are socks as are they are doing nothing disruptive. Right? Now imagine one day he has a "Salman Rushdie Official Website" for his fans. Say he mentions a few notable things there that weren't in his autobiography. My question is this: why is his website different to his autobiography for quoting the man himself? To my mind, they are both forms of artistic expression in public domain media. The only difference is that in the autobiography he has had his spelling checked by a human editor! Are you trying to imply that all autobiographies should be outlawed from Wikiquote? Please clarify where you are going with this. I'm trying to learn and am finding your answers rather brief and unforthcoming. Stingray 02:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone can create a personal website and then attempt to disruptively spam out quotes on a wiki using socks. Cirt (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- And what is the thing that makes such a book "just not personal"? Please explain. Because whatever it is, it seems a very fine line for deciding whether to include or exclude some very fine quotes! I hope you can identify something solid and convincing. Stingray 02:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- If the person is, as you say, a "famous" novelist, then the book is not just a "personal" book. Cirt (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Responding to Cirt's comment above, I would like to point out that a website of this nature is no different to, say, the case of a famous novelist being quoted out of a book he wrote. It's a personal book. It contains the musings of the novelist. What's the difference? The key thing that in both cases the material is out there in the public domain. You may say the book is different because at least it has been edited. All the editor does is check the spelling. So what? I don't see any true difference between the two media. Pls enlighten me, as I would like to learn. I am open for you to present an argument that is convincing. Stingray 02:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
To answer your question, I removed those particular quotes because they were being spammed by sockpuppets. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- So are you agreeing that the quotes in themselves are acceptable? If so then they are not spam. Correct me if I am wrong, but spam in wikiquote is defined as unsourced non-notable stuff. If it is a good sourced quote then it is not spam. If it is not spam then any editors cannot be classed as outlawed socks (socks are only verbotten if they are breaking rules; there is no rule against a harmless sock; many admins have benign socks). I would suggest they are properly sourced good quotes. Why? Because check the WP here, which clearly states that self-published material is ok if it relates to the person who self-published. I would go so far as to say Wickedictionary isn't even classed as self-published because it is hosted on an academic institution website. On this basis, would you kindly reconsider and restore the deleted quotes? Stingray 07:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- No. You are bringing up points you have already made, in circular fashion. This was already commented on, above, by Ningauble. Cirt (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is not circular at all. See the WP link above. That breaks the circle.Stingray 08:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Already addressed by the comment by Ningauble. Cirt (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- It did not address my problem. Where is the appropriate forum to get further advice? Is it the village pump? Please let me know where to go next, as I think we are at an impasse here. Stingray 09:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- It has already been discussed there. Do you have any other intention to contribute to this project Wikiquote other than socking and attempting to spam one particular website? Cirt (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please can you answer my question what I should do next to take this further. I also do not appreciate the accusatory tone in your messages. Stingray 13:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- It has already been discussed there. Do you have any other intention to contribute to this project Wikiquote other than socking and attempting to spam one particular website? Cirt (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- It did not address my problem. Where is the appropriate forum to get further advice? Is it the village pump? Please let me know where to go next, as I think we are at an impasse here. Stingray 09:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Already addressed by the comment by Ningauble. Cirt (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is not circular at all. See the WP link above. That breaks the circle.Stingray 08:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- No. You are bringing up points you have already made, in circular fashion. This was already commented on, above, by Ningauble. Cirt (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
Aphaia agreed The Wickedictionary was spam [1], Jusjih agreed that blocks of users for spamming The Wickedictionary were appropriate [2], and Ningauble said The Wickedictionary should not be used [3]. Not sure what else there is to be said about it. Cirt (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
