Talk:Technics and Time, 1
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Possible copyright infringement
[edit]Discussion of this is located at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Can_a_summary_constitute_copyright_violation.3F. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Summarizing my comment from there, why not simply condense the description. It would make abetter and more readable account in any case? DGG (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Condensed the article after lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems which is summarized history. Jeepday (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- The copyright holder has granted permission, here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Multiple issues beyond copyright
[edit]There are several issues with this article in the full 80 kilobyte version,
- There is only one reference and that is a primary reference "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."
- It appears to be original research, as no other source for review of the book are listed.
The Reference use ""ibid" repeatedly which is counter to Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style recommendations "Do not use Ibid, op. cit. or similar abbreviations in footnotes. "Addressed and corrected diff- There are issues of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles with User:Mtevfrog who has repeatedly removed and ignored maintenance templates counter to Wikipolicy including {{copyright}} [1] and {{primarysources}} [2]
- The summary is to long per WP:PLOT and diff
- There may be other issues as well, but these are the ones I have noticed. Jeepday (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've adjusted the footnotes. I'm afraid I can't see how the article is original research. We can explain say what Stiegler says without citing a secondary source, provided there's no dispute about what his words actually mean. This is legitimate use of a primary source to "make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" (WP:PSTS). (I agree that we should also explain what independent sources have said about the book.) EALacey (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- EALacey - Basically my view of original research here is driven by this statement, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors., and I agree that your rational is also viable per policy. It seems we are all in agreement that secondary sources are needed, and if you would like to remove the {{OR}} and leave the {{primarysources}} I can live with that, though I do feel OR is justified. Jeepday (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- We can report what he says, but not at this length. A proper article would not have OR concerns. The correct length is that of [3]. I suppose 2 or 3 extra paragraphs would be appropriate. Wikipedia is not a place for this, any more than for a similarly overdetailed fictional plot. EALacey, how can you justify this much detail? It might perhaps be appropriate for one of Plato's dialogs, but are you claiming = significance? DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Having no response, I am reducing this article to a description of the topics of the book, not a reproduction of the details of the argument. A Wikipedia article needs to include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the book, and wanting to know what it is about. If he then wanted to examine the actual specifics of the argument, he would expect to read the book. The goal of an encyclopedia is to say things in a concise manner DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. As your edits were reverted, the article needs at least to be tagged as said above.(IP contrib.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.34.131.64 (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- My apologies for coming late to this party: DGG, I absolutely agree, and I'm glad to have seen your note here, and your edit in the summary, since I just made a very similar edit. Mtevfrog, DGG was correct, and your edit summary was not, I'm sorry to say. If you want to keep any content here at all you'll have to start adding text that has recourse to reliable sources; otherwise the only policy that applies here is WP:PLOT. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think this edit was reasonable, but I am less sure about this one, which involves a very severe reduction of article content. Surely some kind of compromise or middle ground would have been possible? I think DGG's arguments ("If he then wanted to examine the actual specifics of the argument, he would expect to read the book") are overdrawn. One should expect to find something about the actual specifics of what a book argues in its article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I think a modest expansion of the description might be possible, but I do not think it necessary. For a complicated work, this can be very difficult to do properly without it becoming original research about what to include. Therefore, a good case can be made that for the reader of the article, if they want to go further, they should read the entire argument as the author wrote it. Any more detailed summary would need needs to be done by someone who has read the book, and is aware of the criticism that has been written on it and be able to do it without distorting the author's view, or reformulating it to their personal interpretation. In contrast, for straightforward fiction, or straightforward descriptive non-fiction, an abridgment of this sort can sometimes be done by common sense and a knowledge of the genre, but not here. However, for this reason, I would think it a good idea to give a bibliography for further reading of some of the criticism. However, it ought to be selective, or it is of no help to the reader; thought it might seem that this too involves OR, but (as a librarian) I think there are objective criteria, such as listing the principal or most accessible English work of each of the major people who have written about it, trying to include at least one easily available online--which is the basis by which we do try to select appropriate references. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response, both of you. The bibliography (or "list of secondary sources", whatever it was called), I object to those things more or less on principle, esp. since the editor/creator seems to have made no effort whatsoever to use said sources in any article, as if WP:SECONDARY doesn't exist. FreeKnowledgeCreator, we are simply not here for book reports, as comparable articles should indicate. Being and Time is a little better, though not much; neither is Beyond_Good_and_Evil. Existentialism and Humanism looks much more like a decent encyclopedic article. The Second Sex has too much summary (and all of it with primary references), but from note 96 on it's all secondary, and that's good. At the risk of sounding my own trumpet, Glas (book) uses secondary sourcing throughout, even in the "summary"--after all, as DGG indicates, such summaries aren't like a novel's plot. But if you want a really good one, look at Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- I am not convinced that it necessarily makes a difference whether a summary of a book is based on primary or secondary sources. Quite often, the exact same content can be sourced to either kind of source. Using a mixture of primary and secondary sources is sometimes, but not always, the best option. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- We'll just have to disagree then; DGG and I think it depends on the book, and every philosopher will tell you it is very difficult to give a straightforward and value-free summary of a difficult philosophical work. Besides, the sheer size of it was completely over the top--esp. in an article that cited not a single secondary source. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously it may depend on the book. That was what I meant. Sometimes you would want to base a summary only on a primary source (the book itself), other times, for a more complicated book, such as a work of philosophy, using secondary sources as well may be necessary. This particular article may have been too long previously, but the cut backs were draconian and excessive in my opinion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- We'll just have to disagree then; DGG and I think it depends on the book, and every philosopher will tell you it is very difficult to give a straightforward and value-free summary of a difficult philosophical work. Besides, the sheer size of it was completely over the top--esp. in an article that cited not a single secondary source. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- I am not convinced that it necessarily makes a difference whether a summary of a book is based on primary or secondary sources. Quite often, the exact same content can be sourced to either kind of source. Using a mixture of primary and secondary sources is sometimes, but not always, the best option. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response, both of you. The bibliography (or "list of secondary sources", whatever it was called), I object to those things more or less on principle, esp. since the editor/creator seems to have made no effort whatsoever to use said sources in any article, as if WP:SECONDARY doesn't exist. FreeKnowledgeCreator, we are simply not here for book reports, as comparable articles should indicate. Being and Time is a little better, though not much; neither is Beyond_Good_and_Evil. Existentialism and Humanism looks much more like a decent encyclopedic article. The Second Sex has too much summary (and all of it with primary references), but from note 96 on it's all secondary, and that's good. At the risk of sounding my own trumpet, Glas (book) uses secondary sourcing throughout, even in the "summary"--after all, as DGG indicates, such summaries aren't like a novel's plot. But if you want a really good one, look at Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I think a modest expansion of the description might be possible, but I do not think it necessary. For a complicated work, this can be very difficult to do properly without it becoming original research about what to include. Therefore, a good case can be made that for the reader of the article, if they want to go further, they should read the entire argument as the author wrote it. Any more detailed summary would need needs to be done by someone who has read the book, and is aware of the criticism that has been written on it and be able to do it without distorting the author's view, or reformulating it to their personal interpretation. In contrast, for straightforward fiction, or straightforward descriptive non-fiction, an abridgment of this sort can sometimes be done by common sense and a knowledge of the genre, but not here. However, for this reason, I would think it a good idea to give a bibliography for further reading of some of the criticism. However, it ought to be selective, or it is of no help to the reader; thought it might seem that this too involves OR, but (as a librarian) I think there are objective criteria, such as listing the principal or most accessible English work of each of the major people who have written about it, trying to include at least one easily available online--which is the basis by which we do try to select appropriate references. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)