Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Wikipedia Tells Author He's Not A Credible Source On His Novel


BG45

Recommended Posts

An Open Letter in the New Yorker from [url="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia.html"]author Philip Roth. [/url]

Someone posted an interpretation of what inspired his novel "The Human Strain" on Wikipedia, which he states is totally wrong. However, in appealing to the admins, he was told he's not a credible enough source under their guidelines to change the entry (in an encyclopedia where anyone can edit anything).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1347149349' post='2480390']
1. Make a new wikipedia account under a pseudonym
2. Start gigantic flame war in the chat board about the topic
3. ???
4. PROFIT
[/quote]

Good luck backtracing him; he is behind seven proxies!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here I just thought we could cite the New Yorker piece now, it's still the author, but it was published by someone else's company. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1347151884' post='2480398']
Hence why the university where I got my BS gave you an automatic F if you cited wiki for anything
[/quote]

Ditto. Though I was visiting Harvard once and a book on how to cite Wikipedia was prominently displayed in their bookstore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's lots of hypothetical reasons an author might not be a good source on his own work. He might have an agenda (e.g., shaping his legacy or the interpretation of history). He might misremember. He might not be aware of unconscious influences. I have no idea if any of these cases apply to this case, but the author is not the final authority on his own work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1347153297' post='2480406']
There's lots of hypothetical reasons an author might not be a good source on his own work. He might have an agenda (e.g., shaping his legacy or the interpretation of history). He might misremember. He might not be aware of unconscious influences. I have no idea if any of these cases apply to this case, but the author is not the final authority on his own work.
[/quote]

While I agree with this, if the OP is true in stating that the author wanted to correct the false 'inspiritation' for the novel, he should be able to do that... Unless wiki had the false interpretation under a category of 'public reception' or 'public views' or something similar.

If wiki was trying to relay correct information on the novel's inspiration, the author's word trumps anyone else's, because theirs is mere speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1347151884' post='2480398']
Hence why the university where I got my BS gave you an automatic F if you cited wiki for anything
[/quote]

Wikipedia is perfectly good for research, as long as you follow the citations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='emmaberry' timestamp='1347163479' post='2480467']
While I agree with this, if the OP is true in stating that the author wanted to correct the false 'inspiritation' for the novel, he should be able to do that... Unless wiki had the false interpretation under a category of 'public reception' or 'public views' or something similar.

If wiki was trying to relay correct information on the novel's inspiration, the author's word trumps anyone else's, because theirs is mere speculation.
[/quote]
As I understand Wikipedia, it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. Nobody's "word" is sufficient by itself unless you can document it. I guess it's not perfect, but it works for what Wikipedia does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='cmariadiaz' timestamp='1347164318' post='2480476']
I guess now Wikipedia can quote what the author said in the New Yorker!
[/quote]
Probably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1347163946' post='2480473']
As I understand Wikipedia, it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. Nobody's "word" is sufficient by itself unless you can document it. I guess it's not perfect, but it works for what Wikipedia does.
[/quote]

That makes sense, but then wiki must be run by idiots (doh). How can someone besides the author prove a novel's inspiration?

For that matter, how can an author even prove this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...