Should Quotes be Attributed?

[Kurkistan]

Nepene has started a "Cosmere 202" thread listing a bunch of quotes from Brandon and other Cosmerical sources. Good idea. I like it. Only problem is, he doesn't provide direct links to any of the quotes he has.

Now, I'm not doubting the guy, and I recognize all the quotes, so I don't have any reason to doubt him, but I find it to be only a positive thing when a direct link to the source of a fact is given. It makes citation easier, it makes figuring out the context easier, and it provides an easy way to find new interviews if you didn't see the quote the first time it surfaced.

Nepene thinks simplicity is king. He is wrong. I think providing as much cross-linkage as possible is vital to keeping current members properly informed as well as making the lot of new members easier. That is all. Don't be swayed by my opinion or anything. :P/>

Discussion:

PSA time: Please, everyone, provide links for all quotes. Not doing so is not only somewhat rude, but also exceptionally counterproductive. For instance:

As we see from NewbSombrero above (he did that while I was typing my post), the answer to Meg's question was literally two lines down from the quote that provoked it.

There are two possible circumstances here:

1) Meg got her abridged quote second-hand from someone who didn't provide a link. If the link had been provided, she could have investigated and seen that there was no contradiction.

2) Meg got the quote directly from the Q&A, but did not realize the import of the last two lines. So it was left to the rest of us to figure it out with no clues. If someone who either hadn't read the original question or didn't have a good memory had seen that quote without any context, they would not have known of how accessible the answer was. As it was, I had to go through half-a-dozen steps to get to the appropriate thread and pull in the link (before I realized Sombrero had already done it). That should not have been necessary.

---

And, as as general rule, it's just a lot better to have as much cross-linking as possible. A good wiki is a dense wiki, and a good theory-based forum is one where every relevant fact or thread is directly attributed and linked to. It's okay if you don't know the exact thread, or simply lack the time, but, as a rule, you should link whenever you can.

</PSA>

P.S. As a fun fact, you can link to individual questions in the WoT Database by adding "#<number>" to the end of the url, where <number> is the number of the question when you look at the interview it originally came from. So if you do a keyword search and find something interesting, then click on the link to the interview it came from, find the interesting passage again, and see what number it is.

P.P.S. Also, this isn't aimed at Meg at all. Sorry if I come across as a bit harsh. I've just been noticing a disturbing tendency away from direct attribution, and it's hard enough to become Cosmere-conversant as it is.

On the lack of links, I am trying to keep the main body of the post very readable to newcomers. Lots of links in it makes it look rather imposing- are you expected to read every link before you go on? I like the stream of consciousness effect, like a very long monologue by Brandon.

^More options are always better, I say. :)/>

Maybe you could throw in a "these links are here for attribution purposes, no need to read them all!" disclaimer in?

http://www.businessinsider.com/too-many-choices-are-bad-for-business-2012-12?op=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two

More options means more confusion. It's good for veterans (aka you) who have the experience to slog through the many options but not so good for newbies. Simplicity is good.

What do others think, especially those who are less experienced with the Cosmere, would you prefer all the links in the text?

^It's more options in the sense of "click on this link to learn more and/or attribute it properly in the future, or just keep reading." 2 < 5.

And frankly, I think that new members or worst-served by not providing attributions. We vets have vague memories of where we first read all this stuff, we've read all the interviews that we wanted to--so don't need a source to find more--and we're better versed at searching the WoT database, this forum, and Googling for Cosmere stuff in general.

Either of us could find a direct link to one of those quotes in a few minutes, while new members are lost in a sad haze of confusion and torment, with no idea of even where to start looking.

Tell you what. I'll start a poll. I'm fairly sure everyone will agree with my side.

[Oh, recursion! :wacko:/> ]

Update: Victory!

Edited March 1, 2013 by Kurkistan

[FlashWrogan]

I voted for links because they are always nice to have, and it doesn't really intrude on simplicity to have just a "Source" link with your quote. It also isn't too hard if you are already taking the time to go find said quote. I did want to go on the record Kurkistan, and tell you that you are being a bit overzealous on this topic.

[Chaos]

The main benefit to the Theoryland Interview Database is that you can get direct links to specific entries. You just can't do it from the search results. Linking to the search results page is useless. You need to go to the specific interview, and then see what # it is. This makes it easier for everyone involved--the wiki, the forums, and everything.

So, do that. Especially in such a quote heavy thread. Certain facts are not intuitive and require citation.

I've been doing a great deal of editing on the Coppermind and cosmere facts always need clear citations. This is no different.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Chaos

[Windrunner]

I always try to just put a source link at the bottom of my quotes. If it's really a direct one, you've gone through the trouble of finding it already. It literally takes like 10 more seconds.

[Kurkistan]

I did want to go on the record Kurkistan, and tell you that you are being a bit overzealous on this topic.

At first I was rather disappointed that fellow forum members would see my efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the 17th Shard community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Sharders who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of "linkedness" that they have adjusted to not having links; and in part of a few veteran Sharders who, because of a degree of Cosmerical and Reputational security and because in some ways they profit by others' ignorance, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses...I have tried to say that we should all provide links for the betterment of the forum. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label...Perhaps the thread, the forum, and the internet are in dire need of creative extremists.

Source

Edited March 1, 2013 by Kurkistan

[happyman]

I'm apparently the only one to vote "other."

I'd say that links are polite! Dropping a lot of references on somebody without giving a link is just lazy. I wouldn't go so far as a make it an official rule, but I think it should be part of the standard etiquette. That way people can exercise judgement about it and we get less wiki-lawyering, more polite requests for links when needed and people responding by actually doing the work.

[Phantom Monstrosity]

Links are nice to have, but nagging people about including them is rude.

Especially when google is a thing.

[Kurkistan]

Just to reiterate, I'm mostly lasering in on more intense discussions where full quotes are provided, or obscure facts. So "Well, we all know that Spook is the Lord Mistborn, so..." needn't be attributed, but "<QUOTE BLOCK OF DEATH>" should be. If you've got it, flaunt it, but I don't think there's a pressing need to hunt down links to common knowledge in casual discussion.

@happyman

This really isn't official, it's kind of bet-settling between Nepene and I, as well as the logical extension of my current link-tastic high horse.

@Phantom Monstrosity

I suppose we simply disagree on where the burden lies so far as quote-courtesy goes.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Kurkistan

[Phantom Monstrosity]

I suppose we simply disagree on where the burden lies so far as quote-courtesy goes.

I've seen people on other forums who cite everything. It gets SUPER annoying.

 

 

EDIT: Months later, people *still* aren't getting the joke. 

Edited June 16, 2013 by Phantom Monstrosity

[Meg]

If someone who either hadn't read the original question or didn't have a good memory had seen that quote without any context, they would not have known of how accessible the answer was. As it was, I had to go through half-a-dozen steps to get to the appropriate thread and pull in the link (before I realized Sombrero had already done it). That should not have been necessary.

(emphasizes mine)

Maybe I misunderstand you but I read this emphasized part as: "Meg gave a quote with no reference."

If I interpreted you right here I've to complain because the "title" of the quote "*arrow* Viper, on 17 February 2013 - 04:27 AM, said:] gives you that reference, that link to the posting were this exact quote come from. The link is hidden behind the . But I think I must have misunderstood you, because I think you know this already.

Then please explain what errors I made. :/

Why I quoted what I quoted (and not more) you can read here.

PS @ theoryland: I really try to use it but sometimes it's annoying to search and note and search and note to get a full link.

[Kurkistan]

Well by-golly you're right. I apologize. That was an error on my part: I suppose I missed it, for one reason or another. That's really no excuse on my part, though. Meg, I am sorry that I unleashed my fiery torrent of pro-linkage in reaction to your post, instead of waiting for a more deserving example.

[Elwynn]

Couldn't disagree with Kurk more on where the burden lies with quotes.

If someone is nice enough to point something out to inform others, or to provide some insight or support for a thought they're expressing, the burden is on anyone who doesn't recognize or understand what the quote is.

After all, like Kurk said above, you already know the quote you're referring to, as many of us who've been around for a while do as well.

The burden is for anyone new to the cosmere or who can't remember it specifically (or in a rare case doesn't believe them/thinks they're making it up), to do the leg work and learn for themselves. Everyone went through it, and you tend to learn extra tidbits on the side of what you're looking for anyways.

It's a tad bit different if you're trying to use a semantic argument, or pick apart a particular sentence to try and find new angles...but I only support linking those because you're going to have to look it up anyways to make sure you get it verbatim.

And like others pointed out, it's freaking annoying to look something up that I already had memorized years ago, just to link it. If you doubt it, or want to dispute it, look it up for yourself. You might learn something in the process.

[Meg]

Well by-golly you're right. I apologize. That was an error on my part: I suppose I missed it, for one reason or another. That's really no excuse on my part, though. Meg, I am sorry that I unleashed my fiery torrent of pro-linkage in reaction to your post, instead of waiting for a more deserving example.

You really worried me. But I didn't feel insulted. So don't worry.

I'm sure you will find a better example. :)/>

[Phantom Monstrosity]

And let me pull a random quote from the thread in question.

"Ok. The gemhearts/stormgems/whatever that are grown inside the beasts in Way of Kings ... is that the same as the way Atium is grown inside geodes in the Pits of Hathsin?"

Let's use google by putting it in quotes.

Oh, look, one result. That was easy.

Now, I personally toss citations in when I feel that they'd be useful, but the idea that I am somehow 'obligated' to do so is souring me on the idea, and probably is going to make it less likely for me to do so in the future.

After all, I registered quite recently - if I could find this stuff on my own, it isn't like it's difficult or anything.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Phantom Monstrosity

[Kurkistan]

And let me pull a random quote from the thread in question.

"Ok. The gemhearts/stormgems/whatever that are grown inside the beasts in Way of Kings ... is that the same as the way Atium is grown inside geodes in the Pits of Hathsin?"

Let's use google by putting it in quotes.

Oh, look, one result. That was easy.

1) Copy text of quote

2) Open new tab on browser, paste in quote, put quotation marks around it.

3) Get specific link to an unrelated post in the same thread

4) Scroll around until you find the right post

This is all especially problematic in the age of mobile browsers, where copy-pasting and whatnot is that much more difficult than just tapping on a link.

Multiply this for potentially dozens of people.

Vs.

0) Original poster just pastes in the link too

1) Click on link

It's also infinitely more difficult when people paraphrase, though I suppose then it's harder for the original poster to provide the link as well--though still probably easier than it is for a newbie to find it.

Then you get into paraphrasings and "as you knows" and, before you know it, something has entered into he realm of "general knowledge", and yet finding the actual link which it is based on is nearly impossible if you didn't know it in the first place. And, even if you can find it with your Google-fu, it's still a lot of unnecessary work for a lot of people.

Now, I personally toss citations in when I feel that they'd be useful, but the idea that I am somehow 'obligated' to do so is souring me on the idea, and probably is going to make it less likely for me to do so in the future.

I know this is ultimately just an opinion poll, and you're free to act and think as you choose, but what are you saying here? Do you intend to stop doing something for the simple reason that someone asked you to do it?

Couldn't disagree with Kurk more on where the burden lies with quotes.

If someone is nice enough to point something out to inform others, or to provide some insight or support for a thought they're expressing, the burden is on anyone who doesn't recognize or understand what the quote is.

After all, like Kurk said above, you already know the quote you're referring to, as many of us who've been around for a while do as well.

The burden is for anyone new to the cosmere or who can't remember it specifically (or in a rare case doesn't believe them/thinks they're making it up), to do the leg work and learn for themselves. Everyone went through it, and you tend to learn extra tidbits on the side of what you're looking for anyways.

It's a tad bit different if you're trying to use a semantic argument, or pick apart a particular sentence to try and find new angles...but I only support linking those because you're going to have to look it up anyways to make sure you get it verbatim.

And like others pointed out, it's freaking annoying to look something up that I already had memorized years ago, just to link it. If you doubt it, or want to dispute it, look it up for yourself. You might learn something in the process.

I suppose we have the same philosophical disagreement here as with me and Phantom. I think the burden is on those who have the knowledge and the position; to ease the passage for those who would otherwise have an unnecessarily hard time of it. I don't subscribe to a "hard knocks" outlook on bringing new members up to speed.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Kurkistan

[FlashWrogan]

I feel this is getting blown out of proportion. I think we all agree that giving a source for quotes is a nice the to do/have where it is straightforward and useful. I agree that it does come down to context. If i'm reading a big theory post, I want to see the source for quotes so that I can refresh my memory, look into the context of a quote, and generally delve into the details. On the other hand, if someone is just bringing up a point in a discussion ("hey do you remember that?" or "Brandon has said this before") it doesn't really need to be sourced. Said poster may not remember where it is from, and if it becomes a big deal someone can track down the source and post it.

It comes down to fluidity for me. We are all fans of a piece of work who like to theorize about it and get along pretty well doing it. If someone happens to not provide enough backup evidence and sourcing for a particular discussion, as intelligent people we mention the shortcoming and either the poster or someone else steps in to fill the gap. I think trying to come up with a specific rule/philosophy for sourcing stuff is just going to be a drag on the forum.

Quote and source if you feel like it! Most of us do anyway

[Chaos]

The burden is for anyone new to the cosmere or who can't remember it specifically (or in a rare case doesn't believe them/thinks they're making it up), to do the leg work and learn for themselves. Everyone went through it, and you tend to learn extra tidbits on the side of what you're looking for anyways.

But with the description of that post being Cosmere 201, that by default makes it a guide. An assist to someone new to the cosmere, who wants to know things. And me personally, if I was joining the fandom at this point, I would need some assistance. The point of the thread in question is to assist, and so that requires citations. I know that with some esoteric facts, I would like to see where they came from.

I don't feel like saying "you need to just do the work" is very useful for new members of 17th Shard. Let's be honest: it is pretty hard to get a handle on all the facts that came out from all these interviews. We can help some.

Now, to be clear, I do not think every fact in every theory should be cited. But I do think a lot of facts in guides should be, and a lot of more esoteric facts in theories are easy to cite. Honestly, most of the work is finding the quote in the first place, so the citation is the easiest possible thing. I think, Kurk, you might be a little too zealous on this :P/> But, with guides? I think it is entirely reasonable that if you write a guide it should be more cited. In a guide, citations are very useful.

But generally in theories, should everything be cited? Eh, I don't think so. That is up to the discretion of the theory author.

Google works okay in this case with blocks of quotes, but I know I've had conversations with Windy that depended on a fact that we couldn't quite remember where it came from, and that search was very hard.

Does that seem reasonable? Guides need citations. Theories need citations for esoteric facts, but ultimately it is up to the author. And you should be expected to produce citations when prompted.

I think in all things there needs to be a balance when it comes to theories. But if I'm writing a guide, that's different.

EDIT: Also, good on you Nepene for adding citations. Thank you.

Would you guys like a guide explaining how to cite from the database? I realize my previous post didn't make as much sense as it should.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Chaos

[Kurkistan]

Yeah, I probably got a bit too into it. I hereby declare myself to be chillaxing on the issue. Chaos (as is annoyingly usual for him ) just about said it perfectly.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Kurkistan

[Meg]

But generally in theories, should everything be cited? Eh, I don't think so. That is up to the discretion of the theory author.

I'm sorry, this "discretion"-point was mentioned before but I don't understand it :/.

About theoryland:

1. http://www.theoryland.com/wheel-of-time-interview-search.php

2. look up for example "Shallan"

3. search through the results

4. finding the quote I searched I have to copy the link-address of the interview in the www....-bar (that is important! ) (http://www.theoryland.com/intvmain.php?i=612)

5. click this link

6. strg+f "Shallan" or read through the interview

7. remember the number of the entry (#2)

8. assemble the result of 4. and 6. (http://www.theoryland.com/intvmain.php?i=612#2)

9. here's my link

It's a real shame that it's so laborious. :)/>/>

edit:

emphasized my own tip because I instantly forgot it:

(you have to throw in #15 at the end of the url for the 15th answer), ...

Edited March 1, 2013 by Meg

[Elwynn]

It comes down to fluidity for me. We are all fans of a piece of work who like to theorize about it and get along pretty well doing it. If someone happens to not provide enough backup evidence and sourcing for a particular discussion, as intelligent people we mention the shortcoming and either the poster or someone else steps in to fill the gap. I think trying to come up with a specific rule/philosophy for sourcing stuff is just going to be a drag on the forum.

Quote and source if you feel like it! Most of us do anyway :lol:/>

Extremely well said.

I was never more proud to be part of 17th shard than when that troll came along and started flaming someone for their opinion, and BAM, by the end of the day had like 20 downvotes and was banned shortly after.

I have a serious love for all the fans here.

But with the description of that post being Cosmere 201...(Chaos' post)

Great points as well. It's actually really hard for me to explain why I feel this way about stuff like this...like with the Cosmere 101 and 201 threads: Personally I don't see a reason to quote any of the stuff at all. Someone new comes along and what...wants to call it all lies while they're trying to learn about it? I think that's where it all becomes pointless and needless for me. Though I may be just lazy at heart. *shrug*

A perfect example I can think of is with Meg, she came along recently and instantly jumped into discussions and providing quotes for people because it was obvious she took the time to read through and learn all about it for herself (whether she did it while lurking or after she joined). And I think that is way more beneficial in the long run to newcomers. But I can see the need for ease of access I guess.

Flash and Chaos said it best, discretion discretion discretion. Personally don't feel the need to most of the time, and don't want to get yelled at anytime I don't.

Great poll by the way Kurk, 2nd only to 'what should we call ourselves' poll, in my mind.

(And yeah, I did that to see if you would feel compelled to cite that poll with a link)

[Kurkistan]

Great poll by the way Kurk, 2nd only to 'what should we call ourselves' poll, in my mind.

(And yeah, I did that to see if you would feel compelled to cite that poll with a link)

You mean this poll!?

Edited March 1, 2013 by Kurkistan

[FlashWrogan]

You mean this poll!?

Actually I think he meant this one

[Phantom Monstrosity]

but what are you saying here? Do you intend to stop doing something for the simple reason that someone asked you to do it?

I'm saying that if people are going to be use nagging as form of negative reinforcement to make me do something, I am going to respond by not doing that thing as a form of negative reinforcement to stop using that strategy.

In other words, I find attempts at pushing me around to be far more irritating than any lack of quotation linking could be.

You structured your poll in a partial manner, and sculpted it to get the results that fit your particular biases. That's something that I find contemptible in politicians (where it's known as push polling), and incredibly intellectually dishonest.

Edited March 2, 2013 by Phantom Monstrosity

[Kurkistan]

Actually I think he meant this one :P/>/>

Wow, I totally misread him. That was odd.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Kurkistan

[Chaos]

I'm saying that if people are going to be use nagging as form of negative reinforcement to make me do something, I am going to respond by not doing that thing as a form of negative reinforcement to stop using that strategy.

In other words, I find attempts at pushing me around to be far more irritating than any lack of quotation linking could be.

You structured your poll in a partial manner, and sculpted it to get the results that fit your particular biases. That's something that I find contemptible in politicians (where it's known as push polling), and incredibly intellectually dishonest.

Sure, but Kurk is relaxing on the whole issue, so you should chillax, too. No harm done, man.

Flash and Chaos said it best, discretion discretion discretion. Personally don't feel the need to most of the time, and don't want to get yelled at anytime I don't.

Hey as long as you can produce citations if someone calls you on it, I'm cool with it