Talk:Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Peerage and Baronetage (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


The original name of the book was characteristicks, with a "k".--Stanzilla (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about proper attribution[edit]

I just read this entry all the way through and found it to be delightfully quaint in style. But this raised for me the question of whether it was all actually written by a modern-day Wikipedian, or taken from some old source. I searched for the line "and hence the agreeable feeling with which, notwithstanding all their false taste and their tiresome digressions, they impress the modern reader" in Google books and as you can see, a substantial portion of this article is lifted directly from the 1894 Encyclopedia Britannica.

Now, as this work is clearly long since out of copyright, there is no legal problem here, but there is an ethical problem. While we do have a single footnote to Britannica, to my mind that is not enough. I am unclear at this moment as to what our standard "best practice" is regarding the use of material from old works, so I am not doing anything right away. But soon I think I will add a note saying that much of the article is modified from that work. Is that the right thing to do?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

We have a standard template for this, called {{1911}}; since that is the edition of EB actually referenced, it fits the case. (Much of the 11th edition as actually material written for the 9th or 10th.) Most articles on subjects which were adequately covered then could use one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I added that, although it looks a bit ugly where I put it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)