 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Roles
editOther then Loge, what other Wagnerian roles has he sung exactly? --Reverend Edward Brain, D.D. (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Phony sources
editAs the original author of this article, I was surprised to discover that most of my original material has since been footnoted and credited (in conspicuously cryptic fashion) to sources that did not exist when I wrote it. I was even more surprised, if not appalled, to find that text from this article appeared scarcely altered in The Gramophone's obituary for Philip Langridge:
http://www.gramophone.co.uk/classical-music-news/philip-langridge-has-died-aged-70
Mdleonar (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- If what you wrote were Truths and these same Truths appear in these sources, I dispute the use of the word phony. almost-instinct 09:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Mdleonar, the footnoting is not cryptic. This article uses shortened footnote format with only author and date. The full bibliographic citations are in the Sources section, alphabetized by author's last name. From the last version of the article as edited by you, it had no references whatsoever and was a biography of a living person. Please read WP:BLP. It required the addition of references to support the assertions made. If the sources verify the assertions made, then they are wholly appropriate and indeed necessary, not phony. Voceditenore (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- I apologize if my remarks were inflammatory. It was late at night when I read the Gramophone obit and thought it sounded strangely familiar, and when I revisited the article I encountered footnotes that were, admittedly by necessity, added well after the fact. To my tired eyes, it had seemed like this article had taken on a life of its own. Wikipedia has more broadly articulated enforced standards of citation since I wrote that article--viz. if it's a supportable fact, explicitly support it--and that is a good thing. Had I not set the tone for this discussion by using the term "phony," I might object to the fact that I'm being read the riot act chapter and verse when I did, in fact, see the need for an article and created a stub which is, as evidenced by sources/citations added after the fact, supportible in its entirety, and is, at least by the judgment of writers at The Gramophone, sufficiently well written to form the basis of both the sub-headline and and significant chunks of the body of their obituary.
- Mdleonar, the footnoting is not cryptic. This article uses shortened footnote format with only author and date. The full bibliographic citations are in the Sources section, alphabetized by author's last name. From the last version of the article as edited by you, it had no references whatsoever and was a biography of a living person. Please read WP:BLP. It required the addition of references to support the assertions made. If the sources verify the assertions made, then they are wholly appropriate and indeed necessary, not phony. Voceditenore (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- If what you wrote were Truths and these same Truths appear in these sources, I dispute the use of the word phony. almost-instinct 09:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- On a more theoretical note, "the Gramophone incident" highlights the potential perils of retrofitting Wikipedia articles with citations they pre-date. The text from his article that was incorporated uncredited into The Gramophone's obituary could have subsequently been used to verify itself--what spreadsheet users call a "circular reference." It bolsters the case for working out citations in advance on the Wikipedia side, and foregoing questionable shortcuts on the professional journalism side. It would be more civil to strike the term "phony" from the heading of this discussion, but as I'm not sure if it's good form to do so, I will defer to others' better judgment. Thanks. Mdleonar (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) As for the Gramophone: Wikipedia editors are not permitted to just copy whole slabs of text from other sources, but external writers have much more freedom to do so. In a way, it's a compliment to you that whoever was the supposed author of the Gramophone article thought enough of your words to use them with little change. It's happened to articles I've written, and I was somewhat chuffed; certainly at a personal level, but also in the knowledge that Wikipedia has become for many people the first place to come to for information. We can't expect to have that sort of reputation and credibility without being shamelessly plagiarised. I'm sure students do it every day of the week. I'm surprised at your surprise about this. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm surprised because professional journalists are actively discouraged from utilizing secondary sources whenever primary sources are readily available. It's fundamentally a question of access. There is next to no chance that a Wikipedian(e.g. me) could call a musician of international stature and ask him to reflect on the life and times of Philip Langridge. A writer from a vaunted publication such as The Gramophone can, and should. Thanks. Mdleonar (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. But then, your surprise is really about the propensity of some journalists to be lazy. That shouldn't surprise anyone anymore. For decades now, they've been claiming credit for writing articles that are 100% direct quotes of media releases written by other hands. But those other hands are often completely complicit in this. They will pander to journos by giving them the exact words they want them to write, and the journos happily oblige. For example: when we read "The Minister for Defence said today that he would never apologise for his refugee policy", we're tempted to think there was a press conference, at which the Minister was present, was asked some question about his refugee policy, and inter alia said "I will never apologise", and the journo was there taking notes so he could dutifully report them in his article. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it. But no. It's much more likely that there was no press conference, but simply a media release that said, inter alia, "The Minister for Defence said today that he would never apologise for his refugee policy". The journalist then quotes these exact words, as the Department of Defence assumed he would, and wanted him to, but puts his own name as the author. The Dept of Defence is certainly not going to be taking action against this plagiarism, since this is the way the game is played, and as I said, they're just as much to blame as the journos. And most readers swallow all this, proud of the journalistic standards we've fostered as a society. Please. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- My surprise is more specifically (and unremarkably) in the vein of "I cannot believe it happened to me!" I am well aware of the symbiotic, if not collusive, relationship between newsmakers and news-breakers. I suppose I wasn't thinking in macro-journalistic terms because I'm neither Langridge's publicist nor hopelessly smitten admirer. When I wrote of Langridge in 2006, he was 65 years old and, so far as I knew, in fine health. I was attempting to state a case for his professional importance, and not to shape the tenor and tone of his obituary. As someone whose realization that the Gramophone was not entirely worthy of sacred status was relatively slow in coming, it was a bit deflating to realize that it can, and in this instance did, sink to my level (I kindly pray your indulge my penchant for false modesty). Thanks. Mdleonar (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. But then, your surprise is really about the propensity of some journalists to be lazy. That shouldn't surprise anyone anymore. For decades now, they've been claiming credit for writing articles that are 100% direct quotes of media releases written by other hands. But those other hands are often completely complicit in this. They will pander to journos by giving them the exact words they want them to write, and the journos happily oblige. For example: when we read "The Minister for Defence said today that he would never apologise for his refugee policy", we're tempted to think there was a press conference, at which the Minister was present, was asked some question about his refugee policy, and inter alia said "I will never apologise", and the journo was there taking notes so he could dutifully report them in his article. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it. But no. It's much more likely that there was no press conference, but simply a media release that said, inter alia, "The Minister for Defence said today that he would never apologise for his refugee policy". The journalist then quotes these exact words, as the Department of Defence assumed he would, and wanted him to, but puts his own name as the author. The Dept of Defence is certainly not going to be taking action against this plagiarism, since this is the way the game is played, and as I said, they're just as much to blame as the journos. And most readers swallow all this, proud of the journalistic standards we've fostered as a society. Please. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm surprised because professional journalists are actively discouraged from utilizing secondary sources whenever primary sources are readily available. It's fundamentally a question of access. There is next to no chance that a Wikipedian(e.g. me) could call a musician of international stature and ask him to reflect on the life and times of Philip Langridge. A writer from a vaunted publication such as The Gramophone can, and should. Thanks. Mdleonar (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)