Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-11/Attestation in academic journals

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Attestation in academic journals[edit]

Status Quo[edit]

  • Leave the attestation-method as it is.

Proposed Change 1: Remove[edit]

  • Remove this attestation-method entirely. (Uses in durably archived journals will still count toward regular attestation.)
  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Ghost of WikiPedant 15:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC). Attestations from academic sources should not be different from other attestations -- Three uses should be required.
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Dan Polansky 16:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support — Beobach 00:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support Mglovesfun (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg I prefer a privilege for citations of use in academic journal articles, but this is still better than the status quo, which allows even a mention, so I'm voting in support.​—msh210 (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yair rand (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg SupportInternoob (DiscCont) 03:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
    Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. Not a preferred option, but neither opposed. DAVilla 19:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Change 2: Require usage and durable archival[edit]

  • Change the attestation-method to "Usage, conveying meaning, in a permanently recorded refereed academic journal article." (This still privileges journal articles over regular text, but only bypasses the "at least three independent instances spanning at least a year" part of the regular attestation method.)
  1. Symbol support vote.svg I prefer more of a privilege for journal articles than this method gives them, but this is still better than the status quo, as it requires a use rather than a mention, so I'm voting in support.​—msh210 (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. Not a preferred option, but neither opposed. DAVilla 19:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Change 3: Require reliable statement of common usage[edit]

  • Change the attestation-method to "Assertion, by a reliable source, of common usage." (I think this is a reasonable updating of the original CFI's "Common usage of the word is attested in a reputable academic work." It changes "reputable academic work" to "reliable source", since the latter is well-explained at w:WP:RS, and changes "attest[ation]" to "assertion", since the former is too overloaded. Oh, but we might want to add some sort of note that this doesn't apply to reconstructed forms.)
  1. Symbol support vote.svg While this method has the problem I mentioned in the BP (journal articles include transliterations without noting them as such, and we don't want transliterations), our current method does, too, and this is better in that it requires, at least, an indication of use rather than any old mention: sufficiently better, IMO, that I'm voting in support.​—msh210 (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Supportlexicógrafa | háblame — 19:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg The other options are, well, options, not to pass judgement, but this one strikes me as the most necessary change, as it should really have been the case all along. DAVilla 03:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support — I believe this best reflects the original spirit of our criterion. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose all[edit]

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Academic journals are in the vast majority of cases published on the Internet only. The above options would exclude them entirely, which is a shame - they are usually very good sources. -- Prince Kassad 17:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    Note that you can vote to keep the Status Quo, if you are happy with it (it's the first option on the page, above Proposed Change 1). — Beobach 18:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    Kassad, I'm not sure that I understand your point. When you say "exclude them entirely", do you mean that the above options would entirely exclude quotations from academic journals or would entirely exclude quotations from web-based cases that cite journals? I honestly don't see any of these options as excluding academic quotations which cite the original source. The options above simply dial down the privileged status currently give to attestations consisting of citations from academic journals (currently, mentions of a term as well as uses are allowed, and currently a single citation is sufficient for full attestation). Nobody wants to prevent attestations which cite academic journals. The purpose of this vote is just to bring such attestations more in line with the regular rules. -- Ghost of WikiPedant 19:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    All options would add the "durably archived" rule to academic journals. However, we only consider two things as durably archived: books and Usenet posts. And I do know that many academic journals are only available on the Internet. -- Prince Kassad 20:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    Proposed Change #3 doesn't add any "durably archived" rule. And obviously Status Quo doesn't. —RuakhTALK 20:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    Ah, I'm sorry, Kassad, I was misreading you. I thought you seemed to be referring to academic cases (which I deal with quite a bit in my work). I read most academic journals through the electronic subscriptions of my university library, and it never occurred to me that some Wiktionarians might not count these as "durable". True, many academic journals are moving to electronic publication only and many of these are accessible only by password, but I think such journals must reasonably be regarded as published in (to use the wording at WT:Attestation) "permanently recorded media" that is no less (and, in most situations, more) accessible than print books, magazines, audios, or videos of verifiable origin (all of which are listed as acceptable at WT:Attestation). -- Ghost of WikiPedant 00:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    Not just books and Usenet, also magazines and newspapers. For other sources, I'm not entirely sure. Nor is anyone, I think. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)



  • Well... Change #1 has 7 votes in support, and there are six votes other votes, but two of those votes are from a user who also voted supporting #1, and one was from a user who specifically abstained on #1 so that really can't be taken as opposing it, so I'm calling this passed. --Yair rand (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
    That's right. 7 / (7+3) = 70% support. —Internoob (DiscCont) 21:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
    I count four voters not supporting option 1 (Lexicografía, DAVilla, Doremítzwr, and Prince Kassad), so it's 7/11<64%.​—msh210 (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
    Except that in your count you're essentially counting Davilla's vote as opposing, even though he specifically stated in his vote that option one is not opposed. --Yair rand (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
    Right.... (Sigh.) If he'd not abstained in a support-only section, his vote would count for option 1 or he'd count as a voter not in favor of option 1. Because of how he voted, I guess he intended it the way Internoob and you interpreted it. (The only way his vote could count, then, would be if option 3 won or "oppose all" did. There's gotta be something unfair about that, but I'm too tired to figure out how. In any event, if there is some unfairness, the only thing to do about it is to discount his vote (i.e., even if option 3 or "oppose" were to have won), so we're left with 70% anyway. (Although the same vote resolution results, I'm mentioning this total discounting as a disincentive to future voters to vote similarly.))​—msh210 (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)