Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Citing sources: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Sample supported uses: no offense, Sphilbrick, but the text is long. :) I'd rather not have to scroll down to get to the talk.
Line 204: Line 204:
*{{edit conflict}} One of the points not listed is that a quote serves as part of the identification of the citation.  My sense is that the quote is a function of the citation, not of the article.  So if one source is used dozens of times, it is not my sense that I should try to provide dozens of quotes.  But allowing that I can add a quote, an artistic element becomes how to use it.  As Hobit mentioned, one of the benefits of the quote can be to make the article more interesting.  While a basic use would be instant WP:V verification of material in the article, another use of the quote is to bring in material not mentioned in the article.  It is also worth mentioning that there is a big difference between a quote in the article and the same quote in the citation, the quote in the citation serves more in the role as an advertisement, in that it draws attention to the original author and publisher.  This becomes a win-win-win for the author, publisher, and reader; with the editor getting the joy of knowing good work has been produced.  Further, we have a precedent from Google books.  [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 20:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
*{{edit conflict}} One of the points not listed is that a quote serves as part of the identification of the citation.  My sense is that the quote is a function of the citation, not of the article.  So if one source is used dozens of times, it is not my sense that I should try to provide dozens of quotes.  But allowing that I can add a quote, an artistic element becomes how to use it.  As Hobit mentioned, one of the benefits of the quote can be to make the article more interesting.  While a basic use would be instant WP:V verification of material in the article, another use of the quote is to bring in material not mentioned in the article.  It is also worth mentioning that there is a big difference between a quote in the article and the same quote in the citation, the quote in the citation serves more in the role as an advertisement, in that it draws attention to the original author and publisher.  This becomes a win-win-win for the author, publisher, and reader; with the editor getting the joy of knowing good work has been produced.  Further, we have a precedent from Google books.  [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 20:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
:*Google books gives us no precedent for doing this for two reasons: first, as a search engine, they have a different function than Wikipedia and so their basis for "fair use" is different than ours, under the first pillar. Second, Google books is not exactly legally cleared in its usage; see [http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/2011/03/22/google-books-copyright-settlement-rejected/]. The bulk of copyrighted works displayed on Google are licensed and paid for ([http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704461304576216923562033348.html]), a luxury we don't have. Hoping that copyright owners will actually be pleased if we save people the bother of paying to read their text is not an unheard of argument, but I think it was quite rightly rejected by Commons in their [[:Commons:Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle|precautionary principle]], who list specifically as against their scope such defenses as "“The copyright owner will not mind/should be pleased that we have disseminated his/her work.”" We do not use non-free content where free content serves; our usage must be [[transformation (law)|transformative]] and not seek to supersede the original. Utilizing a quote in a body of text offers us much more defense than utilizing it to "bring in material not mentioned in the article" and certainly decorative use should play no part in our adaptation of copyrighted content. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 20:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
:*Google books gives us no precedent for doing this for two reasons: first, as a search engine, they have a different function than Wikipedia and so their basis for "fair use" is different than ours, under the first pillar. Second, Google books is not exactly legally cleared in its usage; see [http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/2011/03/22/google-books-copyright-settlement-rejected/]. The bulk of copyrighted works displayed on Google are licensed and paid for ([http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704461304576216923562033348.html]), a luxury we don't have. Hoping that copyright owners will actually be pleased if we save people the bother of paying to read their text is not an unheard of argument, but I think it was quite rightly rejected by Commons in their [[:Commons:Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle|precautionary principle]], who list specifically as against their scope such defenses as "“The copyright owner will not mind/should be pleased that we have disseminated his/her work.”" We do not use non-free content where free content serves; our usage must be [[transformation (law)|transformative]] and not seek to supersede the original. Utilizing a quote in a body of text offers us much more defense than utilizing it to "bring in material not mentioned in the article" and certainly decorative use should play no part in our adaptation of copyrighted content. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 20:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

:::A most interesting discussion. Generally I agree with much of the above. Here's my two cents but it is in the form of somewhat random musings. I agree with SPhilbrick that a better-worded guideline about the quote parameter <nowiki>|quote= quote goes here</nowiki> might be a worthwhile addition. And I agree with Richard Arthur Norton's general approach to this issue as well. And, I think people understand, correctly, that this is a ''tough issue'' with many nuances and facets since we're trying to straddle two competing principles: [[WP:VERIFY|verifiability]] and [[WP:COPYVIO|protecting copyrights]] as per the non-free content rulings. In Wikipedia, we would like to ''verify'' facts but at the same time not verify them ''so much'' that we plagiarize or steal paid-content from writers who do this for a living. As a result of the ambiguity, I doubt that any kind of hard-and-fast rule is possible, since any particular instance of quoting depends on many variables, such as the context of the quote, the extent of quoting overall within an article, whether the quote serves to ''verify'' a fact or whether it is a rip-off of paid material. Looking over the list of "Sample supported uses" above, I am not quite sure what to make of it, in the sense of what is a fact versus what is an opinion, what are e-books versus what are not e-books (since some content may morph between both worlds), which facts are supposedly controversial versus which aren't -- I suppose it might be tough for any of us to nail down what is meant. And I am kind of thinking it boils down to judgment calls, so all I can do at this point is perhaps a few observations from my experience which might help people move this discussion along?--[[User:Tomwsulcer|Tomwsulcer]] ([[User talk:Tomwsulcer|talk]]) 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

:::* '''Quoting brings prestige.''' And citing in general, as we realize, brings respect to the quoted source by implying that the source is important, correct, interesting, worthy of attention. It brings ''eyeballs'' to the source. Citations work like plumbing valves (wider pipes, greater pressure) bringing greater web traffic. (I worked on an article on [[Search engine optimization]] a while back.) It boosts a source's [[PageRank]] if the source quoted is viewable online, such as a web-readable newspaper article. I have often quoted ''[[The New York Times]]'' and ''[[Boston Globe]]'' and ''[[Washington Post]]'' in my contributions to Wikipedia articles, and what I notice is that not once -- in over three years of contributing here -- come across a message from any newspaper editor or reporter accusing me of plagiarizing their material or causing them to lose sales or complaining that I have quoted them too extensively. If there had been a complaint, I have not heard them, when it is easy for any reporter or editor from any publication to write on my talk page or even send me an email. Why no complaints? And I suspect the reason is that newspapers and sources in general, including academic publications, books, e-books, websites, YouTube videos on occasion, and more ''like'' being cited since it means greater traffic to their websites, greater prestige, perhaps more sales opportunities for them. If citations hurt for-profit media businesses, wouldn't we have got some backlash? And we should realize that many sources work hard to make themselves readily viewable on the web -- this is their decision -- they know what they're doing -- it's a two-way street, in a sense.--[[User:Tomwsulcer|Tomwsulcer]] ([[User talk:Tomwsulcer|talk]]) 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

:::* '''Making love to an old woman'''. And by this, what I mean, as you surely guessed, is that quoting a source is akin to making love to an old woman since it's ''hard to overdo it''. Really. Suppose we're writing an article about [[Flowering plant]]. Too many quotes? Readers eyes will glaze over. Other contributors will find the overly extensive quoting boring, off-topic, and so there is a built-in tendency within Wikipedia to cut down the clutter for space or editing reasons. Force of reason will naturally keep quoting down to reasonable levels.--[[User:Tomwsulcer|Tomwsulcer]] ([[User talk:Tomwsulcer|talk]]) 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

:::* '''Judgment call'''. I think it behooves contributors here at Wikipedia to put ourselves in the shoes of the sources we're quoting and ask: what might the source reasonably feel about our quoting them? Using discretion is important, with a possible guideline being: keeping it short and to the point. That seems reasonable. I like the practice of "one or two short sentences" and removing irrelevant material using "..." in their stead within the quote parameter.--[[User:Tomwsulcer|Tomwsulcer]] ([[User talk:Tomwsulcer|talk]]) 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

:::* '''Quoting is advertising'''. Let me see if I can explain. It comes down to a general problem with the buying and selling of information which I bumped into when I used to be a management consultant, and it's this: how valuable is a specific piece of information X? We don't know X. We know that X is information. We know that we don't know X. We won't know how ''valuable'' X is until we learn X, and after we learn X, then why should we ''pay anything'' for having learned it? This is a classic problem in marketing research and consulting and it is a doozy. And, to an extent, this issue is present in for-pay media such as newspapers, content such as books, videos -- any kind of information. Newspapers confront this problem by putting their most precious information -- the headline -- in HUGE BOLD LETTERS so that any passing pedestrian might be tempted to read further. Consider movies: how will you sell a movie to the public? And the way the film industry ''tries to get at this problem'' is to show ''trailers'' -- spliced-together film clips of the movie. I have often seen a movie trailer and gotten a fairly good idea of what the movie was about from start to finish -- for free. What I am saying is that a ''quote in Wikipedia'', even within the quote parameter in a citation or even in an article itself -- is kind of like a film clip of a trailer. A quote is a teaser, a free headline of sorts, a free-promotional giveaway, an advertisement for further information urging a viewer to ''learn more'' from the original source (and hopefully buy it there?).--[[User:Tomwsulcer|Tomwsulcer]] ([[User talk:Tomwsulcer|talk]]) 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

:::* '''Good quotes point readers to the source'''. And maybe that might be the wellspring of a guideline for quoting in Wikipedia -- that we quote to the extent that it incites a reader to see more of the real newspaper article ''without'' giving them the whole content of the article. A quote "works" if it gets a reader to click on the NY Times article online; a quote is "overdone" if it is so extensive that a reader gets the full benefit without any incentive to learn more from the NY Times. Another way to put it is this: quoting is helpful when it steers people to sources; it is harmful when used so extensively that it is as if Wikipedia ''becomes'' the ''New York Times'' by trying to replace it.--[[User:Tomwsulcer|Tomwsulcer]] ([[User talk:Tomwsulcer|talk]]) 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

:::* '''More valuable content should be quoted less'''. Content which we might see as more valuable -- meaning more likely to generate wealth for a medium -- we should use shorter quotes AND give the source greater attention within the articles itself. Particularly: recent content; in-demand content. Less valuable content (ie older) such as dated newspaper reports (eg over 20 years old maybe) I think we can be more liberal with quoting. For example, I noticed in the article [[Anselm J. McLaurin]] that one user removed a quote from a newspaper [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anselm_J._McLaurin&action=historysubmit&diff=468297492&oldid=467299650 here]. Here is the quote: "United States Senator Anselm Joseph McLaurin died suddenly to-night of heart disease at his home in Brandon, Miss. The fatal attack seized Senator McLaurin while he was seated in a rocking chair in front of the fireplace in his library. He fell forward without speaking a word, and life was extinct when members of his family reached his side." I question whether removal of the quote was wise since the information is old and non-commercial. The quote was from an obituary in the NY Times dated 1909. I sincerely doubt that the NY Times cares whether we use the full quote or not. I doubt anybody would pay $3 or more to read a 100+ year old article (although it is possible I may be mistaken about this.) It is helpful for Wikipedia fact-checkers to see the quote since it helps readers verify the accuracy of the Wikipedia article. The big benefit to the NY Times is building a reputation for providing factual information, generally, and Wikipedia quoting this article helps it achieve this purpose.--[[User:Tomwsulcer|Tomwsulcer]] ([[User talk:Tomwsulcer|talk]]) 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

:::* '''We should celebrate good sources'''. When I find a particularly instructive article by ''[[The New York Times]]'', for example, I put both the name of the reporter and a wikilink to the publication ''within the article itself'' -- readable by people -- to acknowledge the reporter's contribution. This brings more readers to both the Wikipedia article about the medium as well as to the content on the web by that medium -- ie both the ''[[New York Times]]'' Wikipedia article and the online article itself.--[[User:Tomwsulcer|Tomwsulcer]] ([[User talk:Tomwsulcer|talk]]) 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

:::* '''Poetry'''. Here is an area where I think we should tread very lightly (and quote less) since it takes a writer much longer to come up with even one line. Here, I am loathe to even quote a full line of a poem, particularly if it is a contemporary poet.--[[User:Tomwsulcer|Tomwsulcer]] ([[User talk:Tomwsulcer|talk]]) 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

:::* '''Public domain content'''. I am not up on copyright law, but there should be something equivalent to the policy on image content, such that if content was written before a certain year (1923?) then there should not be any restrictions on quoting it.--[[User:Tomwsulcer|Tomwsulcer]] ([[User talk:Tomwsulcer|talk]]) 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

:::I hope these musings are helpful, but it can get so complicated. I know a general boost to mankind is our ability to share information freely (one of the keys of the dominance of homo sapien sapiens) -- it is also a boost to authors if they can chalk off some specific words as "their own" and sell it, since the possibility of the chalking off motivates them to write some very interesting stuff. The weirdness of these two worlds colliding -- free dissemination of information and copyrights -- you can see everyday in the public library, where people can borrow a book for FREE which has the words COPYRIGHT on the third page. Clearly one of you bright people writing here will someday explain this weirdness to me while keeping a straight face.--[[User:Tomwsulcer|Tomwsulcer]] ([[User talk:Tomwsulcer|talk]]) 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:01, 1 January 2012

WikiProject iconManual of Style
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.
Note icon
This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate.
Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
Note icon
For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.
WikiProject iconWikipedia Help Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Translation Help Request

We're currently translating the German language article on the Exposition Internationale du Surréalisme into English. The German version features LOADS of references/citatations. We'd like to incorporate the references into the English article. Does anyone know how to do that other than going after each reference in the source code and manually adapting it to the English wikipedia's markup standards? Is there a bot for this? Or do people not migrate citations in general when they translate articles? TIA, Del Oso (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any bot to do that. But the citations, provided they are accurate, are certainly a very important thing to bring over! Not only are they important data for readers, but they justify the prose you are copying ... how else would WP:Verifiability be satisfied? Also, I'm not sure how WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT fits in with translating articles from other WPs ... I suppose an exception is made, since the understanding is that the editors in the other WP already read the sources: it would be a bit much to expect the article translator to also read all the sources. --Noleander (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the translation/importation is happening from one Wikipedia to another Wikipedia, then you import the citations under the same rules that you would if you were WP:SPLITting information out of another Wikipedia article (that is, you trust that the other Wikipedia editor got it right).
If you're importing or translating from some other place (say, some guy's blog that he just happens to have conveniently licensed as CC-SA), then you don't get to cite the blogger's sources just as if you'd read them yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one of the first citations in that de.wiki article:
  • Uwe M. Schneede: Exposition internationale du Surréalisme, Paris 1938. In: Bernd Klüser, Katharina Hegewisch (Hrsg.): Die Kunst der Ausstellung. Eine Dokumentation dreißig exemplarischer Kunstausstellungen dieses Jahrhunderts, S. 94
It looks to me like you need to change "Hrsg." to "Editor" and "S." to "page", and that's it. The formatting is all fine as it stands. You can optionally add translations for the titles if you want (we usually put them in [square brackets]), but that's not required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • cough. Editors translating interwiki have been blocked in the last month over failure to check that the sources exist. Don't just trust the Germans, check that the book / chapter exists when you translate it, and that the citation information is correct. For example, "Eine Dokumentation dreißig exemplarischer Kunstausstellungen dieses Jahrhunderts" says that the chapters in this work may be primary sources, as does the title of the chapter, "Exposition internationale du Surréalisme, Paris 1938." Use of Primary sources in this way in an art history article may be considered Original Research on en.wikipedia. I'd check that it is being appropriately used while translating. Your citation, btw:
    • Uwe M. Schneede (DATE REQUIRED HERE OR…) "Exposition internationale du Surréalisme, Paris 1938." In: Bernd Klüser, Katharina Hegewisch (Eds.) Die Kunst der Ausstellung: Eine Dokumentation dreißig exemplarischer Kunstausstellungen dieses Jahrhunderts [The art of the exhibition: Documents from thirty examples of the century's art exhibitions] LOCATION OF PUBLICATION: PUBLISHER, …OR DATE REQUIRED HERE, p. 94. Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By "required here", we of course mean "not required at all". Editors may choose any style of citation, including one that does not include the name of the publisher, the publisher's location, or the date, and of course the information cannot be given if it does not exist (e.g., the publication itself does not choose to name a date, which is not at all unusual for some types of documents). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UN/UNSC Resolutions/Docs citing previous resolutions/UNCharter Chapters/statements. Are they Secondary Source at that point?

  • An organization restating a previous position isn't a secondary source. I'd go so far as to say that decision by an official organization that adopts a position proposed by some other source, and in so doing, gives it legal force that it wouldn't otherwise have, is a primary source. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK accepted restating/reaffirming.
You might want to read Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources and Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent.
The short answer is that it's complicated, but it's probably a primary source (and a primary independent source for the quotation of the third party).
The more relevant response is a question: Why do you really care if it's a secondary source? You are allowed to use primary sources (carefully). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it should be pointed out that the problem with primary sources is that they may require specialized knowledge to properly evaluate, and that secondary sources are where someone has evaluated the primary source. A source that merely quotes some original source is not thereby "secondary", it is only an indirect quote. If you want to quote what some organization has said (distinct from any inference or interpretation of the statement), quote them directly. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to cite dvd extras

How would i cite dvd extras? D4nnyw14 (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Director / Producer / Production company. (Year). "Name of DVD Extra" Name of Film Disk volume in disk set (volume). Unique Disk/Disk set ID. Distributor Location: Distributor name. Time within feature that citeable content appears (ie: 0:00), OR methodology to reproduce the cited content ("Select third tree to the left, the Art Director's name appears.").
  • Using Template:cite video:
    • {{cite video |people=Director / Producer / Production company |year=Year |chapter=DVD Extra title |title=Film title |url= |format= |medium=DVD (Extra) |language= |trans_title= |publisher=Distributor |location=Distributor location |archiveurl= |archivedate= |accessdate= |volume=Disk 1 of 4 |time=00:00 OR Find the left most banana in the tree, and click it for the lighting guy's favourite toothpaste. |id=Disk release ID code (ie: WIKI04042014) |isbn= |oclc= |quote= |ref= }}
  • that renders as:
    • Director / Producer / Production company (Year). "DVD Extra title". Film title (DVD (Extra)). Vol. Disk 1 of 4. Distributor location: Distributor. Event occurs at 00:00 OR Find the left most banana in the tree, and click it for the lighting guy's favourite toothpaste. Disk release ID code (ie: WIKI04042014). {{cite AV media}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |trans_title= (help)
  • ie:
    • Fifelfoo (Director), D4nnyw14 (Producer), Citing Sources Productions (2011). "Find the Hidden Citation". Lady Macbeth's Tragedy II: Beach Party Tragedy (DVD (Extra)). Vol. Disk 2 of 2. Wikipedia Distributions. Event occurs at 14:53. WIKI04042014. {{cite AV media}}: Unknown parameter |Location= ignored (|location= suggested) (help)
  • thanks Fifelfoo (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use |date= for just a year; use |year= instead. Anything other than a full date will mangle the anchor when using Harvard or shortened citations. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ta, updated example as of Fifelfoo (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for this, it's been really helpful :) D4nnyw14 (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standards for handling publisher location

We need some kind of standard for how to do the |location= field of the citation templates. I would suggest, per WP:Systemic bias that the recommendations of Chicago Manual of Style, written by American editors for American writers to published in American works for American readers, and those of Oxford's Hart's Rules for the British, and so on, are not sufficient for a global encyclopedia. I would propose the following:

  • Always use the common name of the city/town of publication (in English) when there is one: Munich, not München. Do not provide alternatives as we often do in article prose. Citations are metadata.
  • Do not rewrite history. If the publisher does not exist any longer, use the common English name of the publisher's location as it was then (e.g. Peking, not Bejing for older books); if the publisher still exists in the same location, it's okay to update the spelling. If the publisher moved, retain the original publication data.
  • Always include the country and do not abbreviate it except in the cases of the UK and the U.S. It is not safe to assume that "London", for example, always means "London, England"; to most Canadians, especially in the western provinces, "London" by itself means "London, Ontario". And Wikipedia is written for people who are not as well educated as you, too, who may not know where "the" London is anyway. Use London, UK or London, England, UK. Similarly, to New Mexicans, "Las Vegas" means Las Vegas, New Mexico; the more famous city is referred to by them as "Vegas" or Las Vegas, Nevada. You are not omniscient, and have no idea what geographical assumptions you hold may be confusing to others from different backgrounds. The country name is especially crucial when two or more locations with the same name publish a lot of books, e.g. Cambridge, England in the UK and Cambridge, Massachusetts in the US. Add the country even for well-known, uniquely-named places like Tokyo, Japan, as it is not harmful or difficult, it is consistent, and it serves as a form of metadata that could be useful. When a location has been absorbed by a larger metropolitan area, do not include both names, just use what the publisher used, unless the location name given is no longer valid, in which case use Original location name (now part of Current location name) or something similar.
  • For the U.S, include the state. It is okay to use the standard state abbreviation in this case, just as we may use ISO date format for access dates. Do not assume that everyone in the world knows that Los Angeles is in California and that this is in the United States. For non-U.S. areas, it may or may not be helpful to include a regional clarifier (Canadian provinces, Australian states, British sub-Kingdom country divisions), and these may be abbreviated as well when included. Canberra, ACT, Australia, Toronto, ON, Canada. Including them tends not to be helpful for small countries or those with subdivisions few English speakers have ever heard of. It is especially important when there are two or more cities/towns in the country with the same name but in different subdivisions of the country, in which case the subdivision is required for disambiguation; "Jackson, US" is useless since it could refer to over 20 cities and towns. Do not use subdivisional names or abbreviations without also using the country name, of they can be mistaken for countries (Georgia is a U.S. state and a country and "PE" could be Prince Edward I., Canada or the ISO abbreviation of Peru).
  • Do not use lower-than-subnational divisions (e.g. counties of U.S. states, administrative counties of England), unless required for disambiguation (as is actually the case for the four Jacksons in Wisconsin, as an extreme example). Editors often leave the state off of Kansas City believing it is redundant, not realizing there is a Kansas City, Missouri, too. Rather that make assumptions about what may or may not be optimal, simply follow the pattern and move on.
  • If the name of a city ends with "City", retain that in the location parameter, especially if the bare city name is ambiguous with some other location (overlapping or otherwise): New York City, NY, US. But do not use "City of", "Town of", etc., constructions (City of Johannesburg), except in the unusual circumstance where this construction is universally used, e.g. with City of Industry, California, which is never referred to simply as "Industry" except by locals.
  • Do not wikilink the city, sub-national division, or country. While any populated location is notable enough to have an entry in the encyclopedia, such links are distracting and help neither the reader nor an editor checking source verifiability.
  • Do not wikilink or externally link to the publisher; even if it is notable and has an article, it's history is not relevant in the context of a citation to something it published the way that an author link might be.

SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 21:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that we need any sort of standard for this issue at all. The rule is that the editors at each and every article get to use whatever citation system seems best to them for that article, including omitting locations entirely, linking to the publisher's webpage, including the county name, skipping the state name (do you really believe the average reader needs to be told the state and country for New York City?), or whatever else they want. We do not need a bunch of WP:Instruction creep like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree we shouldn't be using "town of..." FE. However we shouldn't modernize names. If something was published in Edo, we shouldn't change that to Tokyo.Jinnai 00:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I partly agree with WhatamIdoing. People mostly don't follow the instructions we already have, so adding new ones is a waste of time. In particular the fairly standard custom is not to disambiguate world cities like London and Tokyo. I am sure that Canadians are perfectly aware that London (without qualification), in the context of a global encyclopaedia, will mean London England and not London Ontario. We shouldn't have a different rule for the location parameter in citations from the one we use for ordinary text. As for the special case of Cambridge, the problem is solved by not specifying the location because it is not needed when the publisher is "Cambridge University Press". -- Alarics (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are generally good points, and certainly ought to be considered, but better put as suggestions? And more appropriately in the WP:Manual of style?
I would disagree on two points: publisher's location (for books) should be as on the title page. If it is really necessary to include the modern name (or perhaps the publisher has moved?) then the new location could be put in brackets. Also, I don't see that the country should always be included; this should be left to the editor's (hopefully informed) discretion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a media guide

I've decided to put forth my best effort and try to turn 1999 Florida State Seminoles football team into a WP:GA. I do have a question about citing a media guide... how the heck do I do it? I got the media guide in my hands, but is it good enough to say "Florida State media guide, page 67"? I've been going through WP:CITE to try and get a clear-cut answer, but either my attention span is super short or I'm just not finding something. Help :-( Aquamelli (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are using Citation Style 1, then use {{cite press release}} with |type=Media guide. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
great, thank you! Aquamelli (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from citation

A question has arisen at WT:NFC regarding source text being used in the "quote" parameter for the various cite templates instead of simply paraphrasing this information into the artist while still providing the remainder of the cite. One editor believes that we actually should be filling out the "quote" parameter for every source.

Ignoring the non-free issue for the moment (as quoting every citation could be harmful), this doesn't seem to be a recommended practice. I do see the general use of "quote" for providing a foreign language statement and its translation, for fiction where a statement that is simply made in the plot is explained by providing the appropriate dialog to justify the point (without making interpretive statements, granted). But for a plainly factual statement where the only thing we as WP editors is paraphrasing it for summary inclusion (like this edit), the "quote" is unnecessary and weighs down the article. This other editor believes that filling in the "quote" parameters allows the reader to affirm easily that what is said is true, but I believe the weight of this requirement is far outweighed by the basic tenet of WP:V, that information must be verifiable, just not at that moment.

My concern from the NFC side is that if the "quote" parameter should be used, we are going to be pushing the cusp of fair use allowance for text depending on how much of a direct quote has to be pulled from the original source.

Is there an established guide to when the "quote" parameter should be used? --MASEM (t) 14:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, the quote field is little used, nor do major style guides recommend such a practice. I would definitely recommend using a reference quote where the source does not have a good way to reference a page or section, such as some ebooks. See WP:EBOOK. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Including quotations can be useful in contentious articles, particularly when dealing with a certain class of POV pushers who believe their inability to read and/or understand the source means that the source does not contain the material in question, e.g., "Failed verification, because my plain-text search of the JPEG scan of this old newspaper article did not find any words in the image". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adding quotes will not fix that problem— it requires discussion. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where to cite in an article?

Hi I'm interested to know if there is specific instructions on how to properly cite information in an article; specifically, if the reference must immediately follow the documentation. So far I have read that consistency seems to be the policy, in this case meaning, that if the rest of article has citations immediately following the documentation, then the others in the article should as well. The example I'm currently concerned with is citations for coordinates appearing in an infobox. It has been suggested to me that citations do not have to be in an infobox, but should be in the main body of text. I would think that this could cause confusion because it is not consistent and WP:Common Sense may apply. I would also think that any editor could see the coordinates at first glance and believe they are uncited, leading to unnecessary confusion and edits. Thoughts? Leitmotiv (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prior discussion is at Template talk:Infobox cave#location ref. The wider issue is also discussed at

and more. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does citing sources have to do anything I've discussed before? Are you going to wikihound me everywhere I go when trying to educate myself? And are you trying to purposefully steer people away from helping me? That's irresponsible and does not assume good faith. I will also point out that it was you who offered I go reading in this direction. So I did and it lead me here to where I now have some questions for the editors at hand. You were unable to supply those answers at the original TfD so please allow me to find them here. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to suggest that you start by reading WP:MINREF, which should help you discover the difference between being able to name a reliable source that supports the material and actually naming a reliable source that supports the material. The first is required for all material; the second is almost always optional for something like coordinates.
When you understand that your question sounds very much like, "What is the best location for a completely unnecessary citation?" then perhaps we can make some recommendations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will look it over, thank you. However, coordinates which are very precise in nature, and have the potential to be extremely accurate, might need citations especially if it was put on Wikipedia using original research: see WP:NOR. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there plenty of different tools and maps determine the coordinates of an object, which is usually not subject to dispute either, I don't see any need for explicit citation in most cases, simply comment in the revision history where you've got them from.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the tools that are the issue, it's the location of the citation. With a citation not present in the article, it's hard to say if the coordinate has one and leads to further confusion. Burying it in the comments doesn't help viewers who routinely visit sources and it doesn't help editors either. Sources aren't strictly for editors, they're for everyone. There is very little gained by burying the citation in the comments where only editors can see them. WP:NOR still applies since any source that is only limited to the comment notes consequently means that it's also not apart of the article and fails to meet the requirements of that policy. An analogy for your proposal is to have some written journal without the citations readily visible, unless you use a decoding pen, except no where on the page does it tell you that you need a decoding pen to reveal the hidden citation that may or may not be there, which means you may have used your decoding pen for nothing and marked up your page needlessly (and perhaps, 99% of your readers don't even own decoding pens). Again, doesn't consistency apply per WP:citing sources#Citation style? Leitmotiv (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic restrictions

The link to a reference on Oregon High Desert Grotto seemingly returns a 403 response to anyone outside the USA (presumably by IP sniffing). This means that it is not working for the majority of our readers. WP:DEADREF doesn't seem to have any advice for such cases (the [http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.tsweekly.com/outside/natural-world/cave-robber-case-closed-intrepid-forest-investigator-hunts-down-missing-lava-cave-formations.html wayback.archive.org version does not show the pictures. How should this be handled? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you archive it with WebCite? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a DEADREF, because the URL works (for some people). What applies is the general principle behind PAYWALL: it does not matter if you personally are able to see the material online. So long as someone can get to the page, the material is still verifiable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not; but we need to account for the fact that it wont work for the majority of our readers. How can we do so, and advise them, so they're not sent to a non-functioning page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done: http://www.webcitation.org/64MfBXO4j but that also doesn't show images. Not an issue for a reference, I suppose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of quote parameter in footnote - a proposal to provide better guidance

I suggest that it would be helpful to give editor more guidance in the use of the quote parameter in citation templates. While there is some guidance currently, I don't believe the guidance is complete. This task will have two challenges: even when we, as a community, know what guidance we want to give, the crafting of suitable language can be a challenge. In this instance, my sense is that we aren't all on the same page, so part of the task will be to determine what is, and is not permissible. It may be premature to discuss specific wording prior to reaching a consensus on what we want as best practices, but draft wording may help clarify the issues to be resolved.

My proposal is to discuss the following for a short period of time, then open an RfC to get broader input.

Background

This issue has two aspects:

  • Fair use - ensuring that any such quote is in compliance with the WP:NONFREE guideline
  • Editorial - determining what style guidance we wish to give editors regarding the use of the parameter, accepting compliance with WP:NONFREE as a minimum condition

A discussion about the Fair Use aspect began, appropriately enough, at the NONFREE talk page. However, that discussion quickly extended to editorial issues, which, as Masem pointed out, more properly belong at CITE. That discussion is here

Existing guidance

The current guidelines suggests use of the quote parameter in the following cases:

  • If the source is an e-book that does not provide page numbers, the citation should include information that enables readers to locate the source material within the e-book, such as chapter number, paragraph number, or a short quote from the source itself.
  • In the case of non-English sources, it may be helpful to quote from the original text and then give an English translation. If the article itself contains a translation of a quote from such a source (without the original), then the original should be included in the footnote.

However, this limited guidance does not include all examples, nor give any general guidance on the use of the parameter.

Proposed guidance

I think it would be useful to have a section on the use of the quote parameter, containing a general statement of use, followed by examples of proper usage, and examples where the use would be discouraged.

I'm not yet ready to craft an introductory sentence, but I'll make a list of examples, culled primarily from the discussions, and see if readers are willing to weigh in on whether these are all acceptable uses of the parameter. I'll try to give each a short description, and will start with the two examples in the existing guidance.

Sample supported uses

  1. E-Book If the source is an e-book that does not provide page numbers, the citation should include information that enables readers to locate the source material within the e-book, such as chapter number, paragraph number, or a short quote from the source itself.
  2. Non-English In the case of non-English sources, it may be helpful to quote from the original text and then give an English translation. If the article itself contains a translation of a quote from such a source (without the original), then the original should be included in the footnote.
  3. Fact Support (online) Including a relevant quote helps the reader ensure that a basic fact is supported by the source. While a diligent reader can go to the source, a single sentence or two quoted may be sufficient to support the claim. In addition, while the original material may be online at the time the footnote was added, link rot occurs, and the quote will help ensure that the supporting material is easily found.
  4. Fact Support (not online) Including a relevant quote helps the reader ensure that a basic fact is supported by the source. While a diligent reader can go to the source, if the source is not an online source, then tracking down the source may be difficult. While WP:V does not require "ease of access", it is a benefit to the reader to provide the relevant material in the article, as long as it complies with WP:F.
  5. Controversial Fact Support It is not necessary, nor desirable, to support every cited fact with a quote. While the facts should, in general, be referenced, in case there is a question, in many cases, there is no controversy, and the reference without a supporting quote may be sufficient. For example, in most cases, a birth date or location is uncontroversial, and a simple citation is sufficient. In other cases, there may be a controversy about the date or location, and the inclusion of a relevant quote may be a service to the reader.
  6. Opinion Support In many cases, an opinion about an entity is expressed, and editorial considerations support the use of a paraphrased summary, rather than the inclusion in the article of a direct quote. In these cases, the inclusion of a relevant quote in the footnote will help assure readers that the paraphrase is an appropriate summarization of the source.
  7. Decorative a source may contain an interesting anecdote that doesn't merit inclusion in the article directly, because it would interrupt the flow of the article. Including the anecdote in the footnote provides a service for the interested reader.

Caution - my inclusion of an item in this list does not mean I support it, I am attempting to cover the examples I have seen, to get a consensus on their use. It addition, it is unlikely we would include all such examples; three of the "fact" items represent broader and narrower usages, and we should determine how broad the support should be.

I'll also note that Richard Arthur Norton's argument is intriguing. I was originally supportive of a narrow list of permitted uses, but his argument for a broader usage is quite interesting.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • I'm largely in favor of all of the above. The only thing I think really needs to be added is a notion of how long of a quote is generally acceptable. I realize that adding such guidance is hard, but something like "from non-free sources it is almost always a good idea to quote no more than 50 words or 10% of the text, whichever is smaller". And "even from free sources, best practice is to limit quotes to no more than 100 words" (Note: I'm not hugely attached to any of those values, they just sound about right). I'd also add my voice in saying that I've found quotes in the references to make the article much more interesting/complete. YMMV. Hobit (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find Richard's argument rather alarming from a fair use standpoint. He is arguing that we can adopt the fair use standards of a search engine, which exists specifically to direct people to the original works, whereas by contrast he argues in part that we need the quotes to help people avoid utilizing the original works. ("The New York Times stored all their abstracts at Proquest then they were moved to the New York Times website. All had to be refound and relinked. The Wall Street Journal is now behind a paywall and the quoted original material is no longer available for free. It allows the fact to be found in a long magazine article. A New York Times magazine article can be 10 pages of un-numbered text, a person verifying the fact only needs to cut and paste the quote to find it and be able to read it in situ.") With the Wall Street Journal argument specifically, we would be expressly setting out to harm the market for the original--one of the factors for assessing fair use. Brief quotes can be useful if a fact is or may be controversial, but when information is not controversial (as, say, footnote 1), we are incorporating non-free content where free content can serve just as well, which is straining the bounds of policy. In the case of that footnote, it is also going beyond supporting the fact that it references; it is not building on the content but simply appropriating it for the information. I do not support points 3 or 4 for that reason and certainly do not support point 7. We can't appropriate non-free content for decorative value. It would provide a service for interested readers if we included jpgs of popular songs, too, but our approach to non-free content just doesn't allow it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, you seem to be mixing our NFC policy, NFCC policy and fair use in a few places. The NFCC doesn't apply to raw text. The NFC policy does apply to text, but the only applicable guidance in this situation is that "excessively long" quotes are not acceptable. That leaves us with fair use. Fair use, is, by its nature, not well defined. That said, NFC guidelines are generally extremely conservative so as to fit easily into fair use standards. I don't really see that any of those three issues apply here. Could you clarify? Hobit (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm confused; what makes you think Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria doesn't apply to text? It specifically mentions it: "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, or a similar method." It incorporates by references the terms of the guideline, which require that non-free text "be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea"--all transformative usages. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) One of the points not listed is that a quote serves as part of the identification of the citation.  My sense is that the quote is a function of the citation, not of the article.  So if one source is used dozens of times, it is not my sense that I should try to provide dozens of quotes.  But allowing that I can add a quote, an artistic element becomes how to use it.  As Hobit mentioned, one of the benefits of the quote can be to make the article more interesting.  While a basic use would be instant WP:V verification of material in the article, another use of the quote is to bring in material not mentioned in the article.  It is also worth mentioning that there is a big difference between a quote in the article and the same quote in the citation, the quote in the citation serves more in the role as an advertisement, in that it draws attention to the original author and publisher.  This becomes a win-win-win for the author, publisher, and reader; with the editor getting the joy of knowing good work has been produced.  Further, we have a precedent from Google books.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google books gives us no precedent for doing this for two reasons: first, as a search engine, they have a different function than Wikipedia and so their basis for "fair use" is different than ours, under the first pillar. Second, Google books is not exactly legally cleared in its usage; see [3]. The bulk of copyrighted works displayed on Google are licensed and paid for ([4]), a luxury we don't have. Hoping that copyright owners will actually be pleased if we save people the bother of paying to read their text is not an unheard of argument, but I think it was quite rightly rejected by Commons in their precautionary principle, who list specifically as against their scope such defenses as "“The copyright owner will not mind/should be pleased that we have disseminated his/her work.”" We do not use non-free content where free content serves; our usage must be transformative and not seek to supersede the original. Utilizing a quote in a body of text offers us much more defense than utilizing it to "bring in material not mentioned in the article" and certainly decorative use should play no part in our adaptation of copyrighted content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A most interesting discussion. Generally I agree with much of the above. Here's my two cents but it is in the form of somewhat random musings. I agree with SPhilbrick that a better-worded guideline about the quote parameter |quote= quote goes here might be a worthwhile addition. And I agree with Richard Arthur Norton's general approach to this issue as well. And, I think people understand, correctly, that this is a tough issue with many nuances and facets since we're trying to straddle two competing principles: verifiability and protecting copyrights as per the non-free content rulings. In Wikipedia, we would like to verify facts but at the same time not verify them so much that we plagiarize or steal paid-content from writers who do this for a living. As a result of the ambiguity, I doubt that any kind of hard-and-fast rule is possible, since any particular instance of quoting depends on many variables, such as the context of the quote, the extent of quoting overall within an article, whether the quote serves to verify a fact or whether it is a rip-off of paid material. Looking over the list of "Sample supported uses" above, I am not quite sure what to make of it, in the sense of what is a fact versus what is an opinion, what are e-books versus what are not e-books (since some content may morph between both worlds), which facts are supposedly controversial versus which aren't -- I suppose it might be tough for any of us to nail down what is meant. And I am kind of thinking it boils down to judgment calls, so all I can do at this point is perhaps a few observations from my experience which might help people move this discussion along?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting brings prestige. And citing in general, as we realize, brings respect to the quoted source by implying that the source is important, correct, interesting, worthy of attention. It brings eyeballs to the source. Citations work like plumbing valves (wider pipes, greater pressure) bringing greater web traffic. (I worked on an article on Search engine optimization a while back.) It boosts a source's PageRank if the source quoted is viewable online, such as a web-readable newspaper article. I have often quoted The New York Times and Boston Globe and Washington Post in my contributions to Wikipedia articles, and what I notice is that not once -- in over three years of contributing here -- come across a message from any newspaper editor or reporter accusing me of plagiarizing their material or causing them to lose sales or complaining that I have quoted them too extensively. If there had been a complaint, I have not heard them, when it is easy for any reporter or editor from any publication to write on my talk page or even send me an email. Why no complaints? And I suspect the reason is that newspapers and sources in general, including academic publications, books, e-books, websites, YouTube videos on occasion, and more like being cited since it means greater traffic to their websites, greater prestige, perhaps more sales opportunities for them. If citations hurt for-profit media businesses, wouldn't we have got some backlash? And we should realize that many sources work hard to make themselves readily viewable on the web -- this is their decision -- they know what they're doing -- it's a two-way street, in a sense.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making love to an old woman. And by this, what I mean, as you surely guessed, is that quoting a source is akin to making love to an old woman since it's hard to overdo it. Really. Suppose we're writing an article about Flowering plant. Too many quotes? Readers eyes will glaze over. Other contributors will find the overly extensive quoting boring, off-topic, and so there is a built-in tendency within Wikipedia to cut down the clutter for space or editing reasons. Force of reason will naturally keep quoting down to reasonable levels.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judgment call. I think it behooves contributors here at Wikipedia to put ourselves in the shoes of the sources we're quoting and ask: what might the source reasonably feel about our quoting them? Using discretion is important, with a possible guideline being: keeping it short and to the point. That seems reasonable. I like the practice of "one or two short sentences" and removing irrelevant material using "..." in their stead within the quote parameter.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting is advertising. Let me see if I can explain. It comes down to a general problem with the buying and selling of information which I bumped into when I used to be a management consultant, and it's this: how valuable is a specific piece of information X? We don't know X. We know that X is information. We know that we don't know X. We won't know how valuable X is until we learn X, and after we learn X, then why should we pay anything for having learned it? This is a classic problem in marketing research and consulting and it is a doozy. And, to an extent, this issue is present in for-pay media such as newspapers, content such as books, videos -- any kind of information. Newspapers confront this problem by putting their most precious information -- the headline -- in HUGE BOLD LETTERS so that any passing pedestrian might be tempted to read further. Consider movies: how will you sell a movie to the public? And the way the film industry tries to get at this problem is to show trailers -- spliced-together film clips of the movie. I have often seen a movie trailer and gotten a fairly good idea of what the movie was about from start to finish -- for free. What I am saying is that a quote in Wikipedia, even within the quote parameter in a citation or even in an article itself -- is kind of like a film clip of a trailer. A quote is a teaser, a free headline of sorts, a free-promotional giveaway, an advertisement for further information urging a viewer to learn more from the original source (and hopefully buy it there?).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good quotes point readers to the source. And maybe that might be the wellspring of a guideline for quoting in Wikipedia -- that we quote to the extent that it incites a reader to see more of the real newspaper article without giving them the whole content of the article. A quote "works" if it gets a reader to click on the NY Times article online; a quote is "overdone" if it is so extensive that a reader gets the full benefit without any incentive to learn more from the NY Times. Another way to put it is this: quoting is helpful when it steers people to sources; it is harmful when used so extensively that it is as if Wikipedia becomes the New York Times by trying to replace it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More valuable content should be quoted less. Content which we might see as more valuable -- meaning more likely to generate wealth for a medium -- we should use shorter quotes AND give the source greater attention within the articles itself. Particularly: recent content; in-demand content. Less valuable content (ie older) such as dated newspaper reports (eg over 20 years old maybe) I think we can be more liberal with quoting. For example, I noticed in the article Anselm J. McLaurin that one user removed a quote from a newspaper here. Here is the quote: "United States Senator Anselm Joseph McLaurin died suddenly to-night of heart disease at his home in Brandon, Miss. The fatal attack seized Senator McLaurin while he was seated in a rocking chair in front of the fireplace in his library. He fell forward without speaking a word, and life was extinct when members of his family reached his side." I question whether removal of the quote was wise since the information is old and non-commercial. The quote was from an obituary in the NY Times dated 1909. I sincerely doubt that the NY Times cares whether we use the full quote or not. I doubt anybody would pay $3 or more to read a 100+ year old article (although it is possible I may be mistaken about this.) It is helpful for Wikipedia fact-checkers to see the quote since it helps readers verify the accuracy of the Wikipedia article. The big benefit to the NY Times is building a reputation for providing factual information, generally, and Wikipedia quoting this article helps it achieve this purpose.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should celebrate good sources. When I find a particularly instructive article by The New York Times, for example, I put both the name of the reporter and a wikilink to the publication within the article itself -- readable by people -- to acknowledge the reporter's contribution. This brings more readers to both the Wikipedia article about the medium as well as to the content on the web by that medium -- ie both the New York Times Wikipedia article and the online article itself.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poetry. Here is an area where I think we should tread very lightly (and quote less) since it takes a writer much longer to come up with even one line. Here, I am loathe to even quote a full line of a poem, particularly if it is a contemporary poet.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Public domain content. I am not up on copyright law, but there should be something equivalent to the policy on image content, such that if content was written before a certain year (1923?) then there should not be any restrictions on quoting it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope these musings are helpful, but it can get so complicated. I know a general boost to mankind is our ability to share information freely (one of the keys of the dominance of homo sapien sapiens) -- it is also a boost to authors if they can chalk off some specific words as "their own" and sell it, since the possibility of the chalking off motivates them to write some very interesting stuff. The weirdness of these two worlds colliding -- free dissemination of information and copyrights -- you can see everyday in the public library, where people can borrow a book for FREE which has the words COPYRIGHT on the third page. Clearly one of you bright people writing here will someday explain this weirdness to me while keeping a straight face.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]