This article is being scrutinized
I see this article is causing a commotion both on our village pump and even more so on the enwiki village pump. Does anyone here have any views on this issue? The claim is (I think): the Opindia page at Wikiquote contains a bunch of material that would be rejected if someone tried to add it to the English Wikipedia
Since I am fairly new here I was wondering if anyone can articulate our policies as they relate to this article, and explain why material should /should not be rejected? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- All of the quotes that are merely content from OpIndia articles should go, as there is no indication that these have been quoted by anyone else. BD2412 T 06:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- These quotes and the way they are presented seem ok.
- * The quotes are interesting. They give me a clear impression that OpIndia and mainstream media have different views on many issues.
- * The quotes are important. When a publication has views that differs from mainstream media, this is important to know for readers.
- * The quotes are useful. They support some rather bold statements about OpIndia in the corresponding Wikipedia article.
- * The quotes seem to be correct. The ones I checked, correspond with content on OpIndia.
- Content that is interesting, important, useful and correct is fine.
- These were my personal main criteria. The quotes also seem to meet the WikiQuote criteria for quotability: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Quotability
- There is little need for referring to fact checks or context for any of claims made in the quotes here so far, as there are very few concrete claims made, apart from a claim that mainstream media and Wikipedia are wrong and are being controlled and used by some non-identified persons, which is too broad and vague for fact checking. A reader will understand from the quotes themselves that some caution may be useful when reading OpIndia. The quotes mostly express the views of the writers.
- OpIndia refers to "Media lies", while the Wikipedia article debunks some OpIndia stories. If some of these claimed lies or debunks should be included in WikiQuote, it would be useful to refer to some fact checking or context.
- Joreberg (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have a few comments:
- The English Wikipedia's policies on neutral Point of View (en:WP:NPOV) of course have no jurisdiction over Wikiquote, but you have a similar policy at WQ:NPOV.
- As can be seen at en:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Using Wikiquote as a back door for POV pushing there are concerns about certain links from Wikipedia to Wikiquote, along with a consensus that in most cases such links improve the encyclopedia.
- So, on the Wikipedia side, when we see a link to a Wikiquote page that we believe violates en:WP:NPOV, I am going to recommend the following:
- Post the concerns on the appropriate Wikiquote talk page. No point worrying about it if Wikiquote agrees and is willing to make the page conform to WQ:NPOV, which as far as I can tell will satisfy any en:WP:NPOV concerns.
- If that doesn't work, remove the link from Wikipedia to Wikiquote for that one page.
- If the link keeps being re-added, put the link to that Wikiquote page on a Wikipedia banned links list.
- If this is a problem on a large number of Wikiquote pages (something I have seen zero evidence of) ban all links to Wikiquote from Wikipedia.
- I really don't see those last two ever happening, but I included them for completeness.
- Changing the subject a bit, I have been browsing around Wikiquote a lot because of this, and I really like what I see. You folks are doing a great job. I am inclined to help if I can. Where is the best place for someone experienced with Wikipedia but unfamiliar with Wikiquote to start? What policy pages should I read? What areas need the most help? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: Since no one has answered your question yet, I will jump in with my approach, which I am sure is frowned upon by some on WQ:
- When I travel in foreign wikis , I go about my business trying to conform as much as possible with local customs and simply using common sense, just as I do when traveling in person. I don't study the whole criminal code of the jurisdiction ahead of time. This has worked for me, in most circumstances. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- That's a really good question, actually. I think Wikiquote needs something like the article rating system that Wikipedia has, so that we can determine what constitutes our best work, and highlight that as a goal for our pages generally to reach. The basic Wikiquote page should be a fairly definitive collection of quotes from a person or a work, or about a subject, with each quote properly sourced to its work of origin or first known publication (including things like the date and the page or verse number). This has been on my mind for a while. BD2412 T 03:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- I was invited to comment further on my talk page, so here I am. An article rating system seems like a good thing, but I don't see how it addresses the problem I described or how it would convince any of the voices on the English Wikipedia that are calling to never link to Wikiquote. Here is what I think will address the issue:
- Create a Wikiquote:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to go along with Wikiquote:Neutral point of view, just as the English Wikipedia has a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to go along with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
- --Guy Macon (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- In regard to:
Where is the best place for someone experienced with Wikipedia but unfamiliar with Wikiquote to start? What policy pages should I read? What areas need the most help?
- I noticed that en-wikisource has a page for newbie wikipedians, in other words users new to wikisource who are familiar with editing enwiki. I have not checked it out , yet. For those interested it is at: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:For_Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Where I've been working, like at German, Swedish and Estonian wikis, ALL wikiquote articles are linked to wikipedia. So why must the community suffer because of some extremists?--188.8.131.52 01:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't have the time for a post now and will post about various aspects later, but for now I'm just noting that this is neither policy nor practice at WQ, there are many wikiquote pages with quotes from the magazine or newspaper that have not been quoted elsewhere, for example:
- The New York Times
- The Economist
- Dawn (newspaper)
- The Guardian
- The Word Magazine (1904-1917)
- Le Figaro
- The American Mercury
- Dr. Dobb's Journal
- Harvard Lampoon
- Mad (magazine)
- Encyclopedia Dramatica
- Punch (magazine)
- Socialist Standard
- Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
- The Sun (United Kingdom)
- The Times
The article on New_York_Daily_News was also cricized for bias by another user on another website just recently. Many others like Trotskyist_Fraction_–_Fourth_International Alex_Jones or Fox_News have NPOV issues as noted in talkpages or other discussion pages.
I also remember an admin saying that op-ed type of material can be quoted in media/newspaper articles even if not quoted elsewhere, but regular news articles should not be quoted in these type of articles. I'm not sure if this is policy though (but it is certainly reasonable). I will look up later where I found it.
WQ article rating system
Please join the discussion at: Wikiquote:Village_pump#Introducing_Wikiquote_Page_ratings. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)