|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Mar 11, 2009 11:35:00 GMT -5
As I have never submitted anything myself (though I have been tempted), I figured I would at least look at the submissions page to see what it's like. I noticed that the area to enter the name of the source was labeled "Board" instead of "Source", which got me thinking. I know that the most frequent locations of fundie quotes are from forums and message/bulletin boards (no those are not two/three phrases for the same thing), of which YouTube comments are a sub-set, but recently I've seen an increase in submissions from other types of locations. There have been submissions from online news sources where the quote is from the actual article itself, visual submissions (which I am personally against, but that's me), blog entries, book and movie reviews, and even statements of purpose on personal and organizational websites. If I remember correctly, I think I even saw a couple submissions where the words were transcribed from YouTube videos.
So my question is, should we put some sort of guideline on what types of submissions and from what sources are acceptable for FSTDT and its sub-categories, or do we even care where it comes from so long as it fits the purpose of the site? I don't know that Distind will take code-related action if a consensus is reached, but if nothing else it can give those who are active in PubAd some additional guidelines to consider when they are trawling through submissions.
If there are any other rules specifically for quote origins that you think a submitter ought to consider when selecting a quote (such as an idea for a specific length limit or what have you), please share.
(BTW, the reason "Pieces of Legislation" is up there is because the times I considered submitting something were times when I was looking up a bill that was about to go for vote in some branch of state government or another. I was looking at it via the government website, not a blog or a news outlet, so it wouldn't have fit under either of those categories. The reason I didn't submit them is because I didn't think they would be accepted due to everything seeming to come from a forum or board of some sort.)
|
|
|
|
Post by crazalus on Mar 11, 2009 11:43:44 GMT -5
Hmm... nice spread of choice there...
I agree with the nay for visual mediums, but have a yay for the other 5 specific sources mentioned.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Mar 11, 2009 12:02:59 GMT -5
Yes, Crazalus, I felt the visual mediums could either leave too much to interpretation or be too much of a hassle for people to run through in order to either verify the quote or discover the context (let alone figuring out if it was a poe!), even though some of them can be quite fitting. While a comic may portray something particularly fundie, racist, or conspiracy theorist, the comic alone is out of context enough that the sincerity of the statement(s) cannot be validated. This is also why excerpts from books, quotes from movies and video games, and song lyrics should not be used, even if the words are found transcribed on the internet. Now, I know there are some exceptions out there, such as Chick Tracts, but I really don't think those gorram books need to be submitted here.
Also, an image cannot easily be source-verified as original content or in context. For example, there was an image posted on the old boards that various people had various interpretations of, and when it was submitted to RSTDT, it had an accompanying joke under it. While the two made sense together, the picture could have originally been something other than what it was presented to be, but there wasn't really a way to verify that.
Speaking of verification, how are we supposed to search for repeated images in the archives? Additionally, if two transcribed quotes from the same person in a YouTube video are submitted separately, would it be considered a repeat since one would have to sit through the video in order to find each quote? Where would the line be drawn, and how would we even verify it with the search tool?
Visual mediums just create more problems than the quotes they can provide are worth, in my opinion.
But again, that's just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Mar 11, 2009 14:31:22 GMT -5
I'd rather we accepted only text submissions, really, but that is merely personal preference.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Mar 11, 2009 14:36:59 GMT -5
I'm with you on that one if for no other reason than the capacity to use the search tool to find potential repeats.
|
|
Dan
Full Member
Posts: 228
|
Post by Dan on Mar 11, 2009 14:59:22 GMT -5
I voted against "Online News," because in the vast majority of submissions form news sources, the "quote" is virtually entirely reportage and not what the subject actually said.
For the same reason I invariably opt to delete submissions in PubAd that come from news sources.
In my view, such sources should only be admissable if they come from a transcript of what the fundie has said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Mar 11, 2009 15:26:45 GMT -5
I'm leery even of news submissions that ARE focused on what the fundie said, mostly because there's no way to guarantee it wasn't taken out of context. This IS journalism we're talking about, after all...
Before anyone stomps on me, I took a journalism class, and I know people who majored in it in college. Quote mining is an art they coax you towards from day one due to it selling better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Mar 11, 2009 23:34:22 GMT -5
I'd say that all of the above are valid media for what is desired here.
On the other hand, I can understand the practical difficulties involved in verifying a photo. However, I think that visual media are submitted too rarely for verification to be a difficult task. Perhaps one could require that certain additional information be given for different media.
I think that the most flexible option in quote submission addressing these problems is to have a dynamic form which varies from medium to medium in the information required for a submission. The caveat to such a solution would be its complexity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Mar 12, 2009 1:54:16 GMT -5
Complexity, by definition, requiring additional labor in its implementation, Undecided. Furthermore, the current system of database review is incompatible with visual media. What manner of solution would you suggest for this particular obstruction to functionality? Illustrative details would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 12, 2009 12:47:35 GMT -5
I'm good with leaving out the news sources, but I have no problems if the quote comes from the comments section.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Mar 12, 2009 18:06:16 GMT -5
Visuals are good. Think Jack Chick. That kind of thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Mar 13, 2009 2:25:19 GMT -5
It all depends on how much labour one is willing to undergo.
Firstly, the only issues that come from submitting a post taken directly from a standard forum or blog are those of access: the post might be deleted in the future or access might be restricted to members. Since those issues can only be rectified by copying the information to somplace else and are inherent to all data on the web, they don't really matter.
The real problems arise when the content isn't unambiguously due to one person: should a news article citation reference individuals or a generic group? Who is responsible for legislature? Also, the degree of separation between the actual content and the fundamentalism contained therein matters when considering how appropriate content is for the site.
In other words, I think that content found directly (forums and blogs) and content found indirectly (legislation and news reports) should be treated separately at the very least, the former requiring the usual board and fundie, the latter requiring the news source/appropriate act and the fundie group/legislature. This is exactly what the status quo is. All that is necessary is a radio button choice which would have the effect of changing around the wording of the posts and the submission form. There wouldn't be any more fields: all that would change is the naming.
As to images, the primary problem is context. In this case, I think that the "quote" field should be replaced by the URL of the image and the URL field should be the URL of the context, with the "Fundie" field being the purported artist.
I'm pretty sure that I am dead tired at the moment, so this post probably won't make any sense to anybody who reads it. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Mar 13, 2009 4:53:50 GMT -5
Thanks to you, my brain can now compete in the Olympics. Bravo. However, I'm still not sure exactly what it is you are talking about... so a translation would be nice. Please.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Mar 13, 2009 11:39:08 GMT -5
In other words, I think that content found directly (forums and blogs) and content found indirectly (legislation and news reports) should be treated separately at the very least, the former requiring the usual board and fundie, the latter requiring the news source/appropriate act and the fundie group/legislature. This is exactly what the status quo is. All that is necessary is a radio button choice which would have the effect of changing around the wording of the posts and the submission form. There wouldn't be any more fields: all that would change is the naming. Why the radio button? Seems completely unnecessary. People already treat news/legislation in that way. Do you really think the fundie/quote/board thing would be so confusing as to warrant the naming change? |
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Mar 13, 2009 14:11:18 GMT -5
I don't know what my 3:00 AM self was talking about either. Forgive my convoluted arguments.
|
|
