http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_O%27Reil...8commentator%29

Does BLP apply to wikiquote? I know O'Reilly is a controversial guy but would these entries stay if the subject was, say, George Soros?

Just as important, what is "the falafel thing"?

LOL. However, the main point I'm getting at is how easy it appears to libel someone on wikiquote and how double standards can appear over there too.

Firstly, can this please be moved to the Lounge because it's nothing to do with Wikipedia.

WQ:ISNOT WP. You can't apply the same rules to a dictionary of quotations as to an encyclopaedia. However, we do have very clear rules, given in Wikiquote:Quotability (yes, I know it says it's a draft but we regard it as binding).

If you consider any quote violates these rules, just edit.

What is not in those rules is any test of defamation. While understanding that Wikiquote is separate from Wikipedia, it is not separate from the moral territory of "do no harm". Just because the quote has been verified does not necessarily mean it is appropriate to repeat. WikiQuote is not a revenge platform after all. Clearly, WikiQuote generally avoids the defamation of editors giving commentary, but it is easy enough to just pick someone's famous for 5 minutes faux pas to cast them in an inappropriately harmful way. I'd also question whether a quote that casts the speaker in a bad light falls under that part of policy - indeed most of the quotes seem to fall at the first hurdle of quotability, just a page of things attributed, not "quotes" with the implication of something notable.

As an example of issues which are not covered, we might quote the participants of a recent British Royal family blackmail event (which has been over-sighted on Wikipedia) which could meet all of the criticism criteria above, and yet it would not be appropriate. There are some quotes in there which are purely salacious, and just because a court document claims he said the nipple thing for example, does not make that a reliable source in itself, I would want to see how that was presented (is it denied for example, or recorded and verified?).

Wearing mod hat: this forum is in WikiMedia discussion so it appears that it is appropriately placed (not wishing to be too anal about it).

Which is why I've just nominated it for deletion

Bill O'Reilly lives for controversy to surround himself. Wikiquote is doing him a favor, methinks, by having a controversy-laden article about him.

Still, my favorite Wikiquote of all time is the properly sourced quote about two notable people:

Let's actually do this right now because the last thing I want to do is take a break from fucking your brains out all night to work on your Wikipedia entry

This encapsulates why the quoted person should not have the vested authority or community legitimacy to manage the content on a public encyclopedia, ever. Yet, he does. It's mind-boggling to me.

Possibly this may be true, but without some evidence to back them up, I would say that, like Wikipedia, it is an unwise territory to stray into.

As a wider point, this seems to come back to the USENET is to blame argument, where the moral framework of the Internet is weighed against lulz rather than some vague attempt at civilisation... but then I am old. Again a similar argument to Wikipedia, is the aim to produce something comprehensive in the widest sense, or something to be proud of?

I don't know how I feel about this. If a person's entire made up media persona is to be an inflammatory troll and over the top advocate of hateful language, hateful politics, and to demean anyone but white Christians, and all his commentary and notable quotes reflect that, how is it biased on a Wikiquote article? That's like saying the Martin Luther King Jr. article is imbalanced if it has no negative quotes that reflect badly on him.

The troll's media career spans back to the 1970s--why not just add non-hateful quotes to balance it out?

Besides all this, that page is currently the 185th Google result for "Bill O'Reilly" (with quotes), after such gems as this and this. I'm also not aware of any sites that scrape Wikiquote. Wikiquote's capacity to do harm is, in general, orders of magnitude below Wikipedia's, and in this case is more or less non-existent.

There's an inconsistency here. The blurb at the top says "This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles."

So there is, but does it matter? <Reaches for moderators' rule book> Nope, nothing in here. More than my job's worth, mate. Thank goodness nobody is mixing it up with a Wikia site.

I say, if it's all under the control of the Dark Lord of the Wiki, Darth Jimbo, it's fair game on here.

Take a look at these as well:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Icke
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

Dawkins' looks fine to me, though I've only skimmed it. Robertson's is pretty clearly slanted - I'm sure the man said quite a number of non-batshit insane things in his life - but that brings up the question of whether Wikiquote should only reflect the weight given in reliable sources (I have no idea what Wikiquote's policy is on this or almost anything else); there's no doubt that these are his most famous quotes, and probably the ones people are looking for when they visit his entry. That said, snide editorializing like "in a slightly more whimsical mood" shouldn't be there. Perhaps I'll make my first Wikiquote edit shortly. Icke's is almost unreadable, so I haven't bothered to evaluate its neutrality.

Do feel free to register and read all our policies.

Inevitably, any Wikiquote page is incredibly slanted. Lewis Carroll's entries are dominated by the Alice books; there is little or nothing from his mathematical work, his diaries or his published letters, each of which is far larger in volume than the Alice books. Wikiquote should contain what is quotable, not a random selection of phrases.

What's WQ's policy on misattributed quotes? i.e. something that someone didn't say, and it's known that they didn't say it or maybe even known who did, but everyone says they said it; people who are known for saying many witty things - like Mark Twain or Winston Churchill or Ben Franklin - attract a lot of these.

"What tremendously easy riddles you ask!" They go in the Misattributed section, as here: Ann Taylor.