Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:09, 4 May 2008

Sexology and sexuality Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Shrew's fiddle appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 May 2008 (check views). A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2008/May.

This articles is just a rearrangement and clever rewording of one of its sources. When you write an article, it should be a synthesis and compilation of knowledge from various sources, not just an expansion and twisting of a source with a few additions.

The Shrew's Fiddle

Original:L "This device was used as a punishment for women caught fighting or bickering."

Ours: "It was originally used in the 18th century as a way of punishing women who were caught arguing or fighting."

Original: "A woman could be restrained in a single fiddle. Using an attached chain, she would be led around the streets by the aggrieved husband or made to stand in public view. She could also be birched or flogged whilst in the restraint.

Ours: "Some versions of shrew's fiddles had a chain at the "Neck" of the fiddle which could be used to drag the victim from place to place.

It was first used to punish women who were caught fighting or arguing with other people. The husband of the woman would sometimes be birch or flog his wife as further punishment. "

Original: "A double fiddle was used to restrain argumentative and fighting women. They would be restrained face-to-face until they had resolved their differences."

Ours: "This forced the two people to talk to each other. They were not released until the argument had been resolved."

You can't just take all the text of another web page and expand and rearrange it a bit and call it an original article.

Would an admin also delete this page? --Blechnic (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

The text of the source is available under the GFDL. This means that it can be freely used without copyright problems anywhere, whether it be in print, television, or here on Misplaced Pages. In the future, I suggest that you review the licenses that contributions are released under before making such allegations. There's nothing wrong with having this text here, at least not in the sense of copyright. The article could do with some major expanding, but that's not the issue here. Celarnor 07:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So the other author of both of the websites used, which are not "reliable" in any sense, has licensed it to be used by anyone anywhere? Doesn't Misplaced Pages usually note that in articles? --Blechnic (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please link here to their copyright releases. Thanks. --Blechnic (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the copyright on the second page: "All content and images, unless otherwise noted, is copyright Erik Rühling, and may not be reproduced or used without permission." This doesn't seem to say GFDL anywhere. --Blechnic (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What are these copyright violations you are accusing of having occured here? None of the text is directly copied from any location you are stating.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, birched and flogged are commonly used in English, both, one after the other. So, I guess you're right, it isn't copied, and this isn't an article that uses two primary sources which are stores that sell Shrew's fiddles, that found a clever way to get on Misplaced Pages's main page. That's an effective adversiting dollar. Now reliability and verifiability is so pointless on Misplaced Pages and especially the main page that you're adding sources you can't even read to support this article. --Blechnic (talk) 07:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There has clearly been some copy-pasting but the information is so generic and short, I find it hard to tag it as a copyvio. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quite a bit of copy-pasting, and I don't think that "birch and flog" is all that generic. But, I will be sure to let copyright violations on Misplaced Pages stand, even though I find a lot more blatant and obvious than this. It's clear Misplaced Pages wants copyright violations, and doesn't want users to be nasty and point them out. --Blechnic (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You can find Wipipedia's license here. They clearly state that all contributions to the project are made under the GFDL`. Celarnor 08:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I can copy from the New York Times, paste it on Misplaced Pages, and it's covered by that license? I bet that's news to a lot of people, in addition to being wrong. --Blechnic (talk) 08:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Other sources

Found through Google news archives link. They're pay sites, but if anyone has access to Lexis-Nexis, or something similar, the 1st 3 at least, appear to contain some relevant info. R. Baley (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I do think this article can be sourced (not my line though). Please be wary of using sales sites for information, which they may embellish (or at times make up from whole cloth) to stir up an illusion of authenticity or whatever. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but it's the news archive, one of would be refs is the Sacramento Bee. . . R. Baley (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried looking in JSTOR, but that got me nowhere. However, normal Google searching afforded me the three sources that I have since introduced into the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Professor's personal blog

Does not qualify as a reliable source. It's a bit tiresome how many administrators and bullies it takes to go after one editor. --Blechnic (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wrong source. This is the City of Vienna's advertising bureau? And you're granting it credibility for research in torture devices how? I'm open to persuasion on this one. --Blechnic (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with a history prof's personal vacation blog on an edu site for a blurb about an obscure but verifiable variation on the stocks. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You're starting to become disruptive and have already broken the 3RR rule!, I see nothing wrong with the source. Bidgee (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, after all, he's a noted expert on torture devices this computer science professor. No, he's not, and it's not sourced, or referenced or anything. It's clearly just an essay and meant as such. --Blechnic (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm disruptive? I've been personally attacked by multiple users because I disgreed with the sources which have all now been removed? Since everyone agreed and removed them, how does that qualify as disruption? --Blechnic (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Have I attacked you? Anyway, even if he's a computer science prof the page looks credible and helpful enough to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you attacked my view on WP/AN/I. However, one does not establish credibility by what "looks credible," one offers arguments and supporting evidence as to why it's credible. You agree it's a professor's vacation blog. Blogs are not considered credible sources on Misplaced Pages. See WP:Verifiable:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable."

--Blechnic (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's more, just in case you want to debate the site because he is a professor:"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

It's been thought out and rejected by the community. --Blechnic (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Largely not acceptable. Meanwhile it's not a blog, not quite self-published, it's a professor's pages on an edu site. For this insignificant topic, I find his credibility and his account acceptable when combined with other sources. Let it go. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition to Amazon, this is what else is being advertised on the Vienna cc website, at the very top of the page people will click on when they click on your source: ExpediaGuides.com, RingtonesFinder.net, hotel-austria.com, NexTag.com, booking.com, DateHookup.com. You called it a blog above, are you changing your mind now? "I'm ok with a history prof's personal vacation blog Bold texton an edu site for a blurb about an obscure but verifiable variation on the stocks." What other sources are you combining it with? I invite you to let it go, with all the respect you've offered me in inviting me to let it go. --Blechnic (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The credibility of these sources is not in any way, under any policy on Misplaced Pages, verified, and the tag belongs. --Blechnic (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Start-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles