Classical music | ||||
|
It is requested that one or more audio files of a musical instrument or component be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and included in this article to improve its quality by demonstrating the way it sounds or alters sound. Please see Wikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request. |
Copied from User talk:Hyacinth
[Snip]
The reason for simply including text from Public Domain (PD) sources and not quoting them is that the often archaic or floury Edwardian wording can be updated in the usual Wikipedia way -- something that can not be done if it is quoted.
[Snip]
-- PBS ( talk) 07:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
@ User:Hyacinth While I disagree with you about the quotation, I understand your argument in favour of it. However I do not understand why you made this edit (Revision as of 02:03, 14 June 2020) which changed an inline citation into a general source. An edit, that as I understand, it goes against the Verification policy and the Plagarism guideline. Could you please explain your reasoning for the edit. -- PBS ( talk) 07:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
3O Response: As I look at the article, there are 7 citations to Encyclopedia Britannica in the article, none of which are presented as quotes. Running the
Earwig copyvio detector shows the large block of text copied verbatim. Although citing a public domain source is not copyvio, I thought that it would constitute plagiarism to present the source material as the editor's own writing without framing it as a quote or with in-text attribution. However, to my surprise,
Wikipedia:Plagiarism § Public-domain sources indicates that this is okay (assuming that EB itself is neutral and that its summary of expert opinion of 1911 still holds today). I am always overcautious with attribution, though, and if I'd added the material I would have presented it as a quotation, or more likely I would have paraphrased it.
I'm going to mention a couple other related issues. This article seems to suffer from a problem common in smaller articles, where editors have directly added material to the lead. It is better to instead expand the body of the article and then, when that is stable, to adjust the lead to summarize the body. There really shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't in the body of the article, and quotations are to be avoided in the lead (quotations represent a single source and can give undue weight). Another issue are the length of the quotations. Although it doesn't apply to public domain sources, fair use rules say to not quote more than 10% of a source (this quotes/uses 245 words from a 1200-word EB article). The quotation from Musical Instruments is also very long, and I don't feel that either of those should be in the lead. I feel that a lot of the lead material should be moved down to the body, then the lead rewritten concisely so that it has no quotes or repetition of content. (Feel free to submit it to
WP:GOCER for copy edit once the content is stable.)
This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps. –
Reidgreg (
talk)
14:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Classical music | ||||
|
It is requested that one or more audio files of a musical instrument or component be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and included in this article to improve its quality by demonstrating the way it sounds or alters sound. Please see Wikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request. |
Copied from User talk:Hyacinth
[Snip]
The reason for simply including text from Public Domain (PD) sources and not quoting them is that the often archaic or floury Edwardian wording can be updated in the usual Wikipedia way -- something that can not be done if it is quoted.
[Snip]
-- PBS ( talk) 07:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
@ User:Hyacinth While I disagree with you about the quotation, I understand your argument in favour of it. However I do not understand why you made this edit (Revision as of 02:03, 14 June 2020) which changed an inline citation into a general source. An edit, that as I understand, it goes against the Verification policy and the Plagarism guideline. Could you please explain your reasoning for the edit. -- PBS ( talk) 07:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
3O Response: As I look at the article, there are 7 citations to Encyclopedia Britannica in the article, none of which are presented as quotes. Running the
Earwig copyvio detector shows the large block of text copied verbatim. Although citing a public domain source is not copyvio, I thought that it would constitute plagiarism to present the source material as the editor's own writing without framing it as a quote or with in-text attribution. However, to my surprise,
Wikipedia:Plagiarism § Public-domain sources indicates that this is okay (assuming that EB itself is neutral and that its summary of expert opinion of 1911 still holds today). I am always overcautious with attribution, though, and if I'd added the material I would have presented it as a quotation, or more likely I would have paraphrased it.
I'm going to mention a couple other related issues. This article seems to suffer from a problem common in smaller articles, where editors have directly added material to the lead. It is better to instead expand the body of the article and then, when that is stable, to adjust the lead to summarize the body. There really shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't in the body of the article, and quotations are to be avoided in the lead (quotations represent a single source and can give undue weight). Another issue are the length of the quotations. Although it doesn't apply to public domain sources, fair use rules say to not quote more than 10% of a source (this quotes/uses 245 words from a 1200-word EB article). The quotation from Musical Instruments is also very long, and I don't feel that either of those should be in the lead. I feel that a lot of the lead material should be moved down to the body, then the lead rewritten concisely so that it has no quotes or repetition of content. (Feel free to submit it to
WP:GOCER for copy edit once the content is stable.)
This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps. –
Reidgreg (
talk)
14:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)