User talk:RogDel/Notability as a source of quotes

Return to "RogDel/Notability as a source of quotes" page.

ExercisesEdit

  • Find an example of a person who could be considered highly notable as a source of quotes but is non-notable on Wikipedia. ~ RogDel (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Figure whether the Sacred Space column of The Times of India is a secondary or a tertiary source of quotations. While on the one hand, the fact that it is devoted exclusively to the citation of quotations makes it look like a tertiary source of quotations, on the other hand, the fact that it comes in the form of articles, and not a book of quotations, makes it look like a secondary source. It seems indisputable that it could normally be considered a (moderately) reliable source though. ~ RogDel (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    • My opinion: it could be considered a tertiary source of quotations, since the former fact logically outweighs the latter. In what form it comes, whether regular articles or a single book, appears to be relatively trivial. ~ RogDel (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Work out the mathematical formula for determining quotability of an otherwise objectively non-notable quote whose author is notable, either as a source of quotes or on Wikipedia. ~ RogDel (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Example: "Never attribute to malice..."Edit

This example in the current version of the essay is indeed a famous aphorism, popularly known as Hanlon's razor, but the purported author is not notable as a source of quotes. The unsourced attributions cited are not even reliable evidence that someone named Nick Diamos is actually the original author. Robert Heinlein's 1941 story "Logic of Empire" is credited by many sources (including Ralph Keyes, The Quote Verifier: Who Said What, Where, and When, p. 7) with the original inspiration for this modern, somewhat sassy variation on an admonition that has been around for centuries.

This example illustrates very well, I think, the error of relying on trivial sources to establish notability. There is only one citation given in all of the essay's examples that appears to be reliable evidence of the fame of a quote (but is not, by itself, evidence of the fame of the person as a source of quotes). Do you know which one that is? ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The thing is that the sources that may have erred would normally be considered reliable on a place such as Wikipedia. Anything can make mistakes, and this time these sources may have made a mistake. The Times of India (TOI), for example, is normally considered a reliable source on WP, but that doesn’t mean TOI is flawless. And the fact that TOI may make mistakes does not imply that it cannnot usually be considered a reliable source or a source to establish notability. A person may have significant coverage in only a couple of sources viz. The Times of India and Daily News and Analysis (DNA). And suppose both of them, as a rare case, erred about certain facts regarding the person’s life. Does that make that person non-notable? It doesn’t. The point is that the source that can normally be considered reliable on WP can also normally be considered reliable on WQ. (And it is precisely because a same source cannot normally be less reliable about citation of quotations than it is about other things. If there are considerable chances that quotations are misattributed then there are roughly equal chances that virtually any other things are misstated or misreported.) And I think virtually all of the sources cited in the essay's examples can normally be considered reliable on WP, and likewise on WQ. If the sources that may have erred cannot normally be considered reliable on WP, then I would admit I erred in considering them as reliable. But as of now, I don’t think they are not normally considered reliable. And it may be that none of the persons is famous as source of quotes; all of them though appear notable (worthy of notice) as source of quotes. Fame and notability are different things, aren't they? ~ RogDel (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
The cited attributions do not have to be sourced, because we believe we can rely upon the (non-primary) sources. When TOI, for example, says that an actor was born on 14 March 1965, for example, do we consider it essential to go and check with the hospital where the actor was born for mentioning his date of birth in the WP article on him? We don’t; because we believe the source (TOI) to be reliable. It would certainly be better that the attributions are sourced, just as it would be better if we go and check with the hospital. But we don't have to for our purpose because we consider the (non-primary) source normally reliable. In case of Nick Diamos, if we can come to the conclusion that the (non-primary) sources are likely to have erred in attributing that quote to him, we, as a result, may no longer consider Nick Diamos notable (since his other quote seems to be cited in only one reliable source which is neither tertiary nor, perhaps, highly reliable; or maybe it is, in fact, highly reliable). But till then he can be considered notable, since till then the sources can be considered reliable (because such sort of sources are normally considered reliable). ~ RogDel (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment on Note 3Edit

Disagree with note 3. If there is no WP page for the author, then it is not sufficient that he be quoted in just "a published secondary source", as the note suggests. (By that criteria, even I could have a WQ page myself, as I have given interviews to several newspapers.) So it's actually the exact opposite of what you say. In my opinion, the quotes actually need to be found in multiple different sources, and be quoted widely, in order for their author (who is not notable enough to have a WP page) to be considered notable/quoteworthy enough to have an article on WQ. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
You have given interviews to several newspapers but have you been cited as a source of quote/s. If you've, you too may be notable on WQ. Also, at least one quote by every person in the Examples is notable in itself. (Remember, Wikipedia requires multiple sources for NPOV purposes.) And the persons are also notable as source of quotes, the sort of notability which should be of prime importance for Wikiquote. ~ RogDel (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
How do you establish if a person is "notable as source of quotes"? In my opinion, for a person who does not have a page on WP to be notable enough "as source of quotes" to have an article on Wikiquote, his quotes must be found in multiple different sources, and be widely quoted, as explained above. It is not enough for them to be cited in only one or two (even if reliable) sources, or shouldn't be. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
If a quote is cited evidently as a quotation in a secondary published source which is highly reliable and independent, there should be no reason why it can't be considered objectively notable. If a person is cited as a source of quote in a secondary published source which is highly reliable and independent, again there should be no reason why s/he can't be considered objectively notable for WQ. Wikiquote is primarily for quotations, not for biographies; it requires neither significant coverage nor multiple sources. However, if the secondary source is not highly reliable (or the tertiary source is not at least moderately reliable), then multiple sources may be required. ~ RogDel (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe many (or most) editors are normally so used to Wikipedia (maybe because it came first and is more popular and prominent) and its notability standards that they seem to have forgot (or have never understood) the basic meaning of notability. ~ RogDel (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I used to interview famous Go players (strong amateurs and professionals) for a popular website about Go: take, for example, this interview. Would it be possible for someone to create a WQ article about Cornel with the quote, e.g., "It is important to play the game with joy and keep studying all the time", by your logic? ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the problem with your example is that the quote didn't appear, I presume, first in a primary source and then in a secondary source, as a quotation. The quote directly appears in an, again I presume, independent source. In other words, in your example, it is not like someone produced an aphorism in a primary published source, and then someone else independent of the author cited it as a quotation in a highly reliable secondary source, so that the quote can be considered notable. Also, http://gosensations.com cannot be considered a highly reliable source, can it? ~ RogDel (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I seem to remember that quotes by Kedar Joshi were added to his article directly from his blog, hence my question. (Maybe once a person is considered "notable as a source of quotes" for WQ, then you can add to his page quotes that are not cited in independent secondary sources?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Each quote by Kedar Joshi here seems to have been cited by reliable secondary/tertiary sources; blog is cited as a primary source, the practice that is encouraged on Wikiquote. (Maybe you can, if you can subjectively determine their quotability) ~ RogDel (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Last modified on 13 June 2013, at 11:00