Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

Hi there,

I notice that unfortunately many people have filled Goodreads with false or completely corrupted quotations from some key works of universal literature, especially those coming from the East (e.g. Lao Zi and Rumi seem to be the most affected ones).

As an example, I have noticed the Lao Zi quotations come from a pop version of the Tao Te Qing that I used to own,

Tao Te Ching: An Illustrated Journey
Lao Zi translated by Stephen Mitchell

The problem with this book and these quotes is that Mitchell takes pride in not knowing a single word of Chinese,

Source: A Conversation With Stephen Mitchell
http://www.scottlondon.com/interviews...

so these quotes, far from being Lao Zi's quotes or wisdom, are more like Stephen Mitchell's own wishful thinking of what Lao Zi's work had said.

This is really sad, because as human beings we are supposed to be looking to learn from the wisdom of different people and cultures, but instead these types of quotes just enforce our own Western views and project them on what we wish wise Eastern people had said.

The same can be said about the versions used for quotes of Moulana Jalaluddin Mohammad Balkhi (Rumi), which are total and purposed corruptions and destruction of the original meanings for mass consumption (e.g. the Coleman Barks versions), diverting away completely in intention of meaning according to serious academic translations as those by Reynolds A. Nicholson or the original Persian texts.

For a discussion kindly examine this,

Corrections of Popular Versions of Poems From Rumi's Divan
http://www.dar-al-masnavi.org/correct...

Most of the quotes found in Goodreads as the most popular for Moulana Jalaluddin Mohammad Balkhi are found in the discussion above, as blatant and purposed corrupted translations for mass consumption.

As an example,

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/5388...

(see comparison in the Dar al Masnavi website).

All this long introduction is to ask whether Goodreads plans on improving the quality of quotes and is concerned about such issue and correcting the true heritage of key universal literary works, or is it Goodreads philosophy to accept these pop corrupted quotations that really contribute to alienating people and readers from the real knowledge and wisdom which intended to be passed on by the authors.

I suggest the pop versions should not carry the name of such great authors as Lao Zi and Moulana Jalaluddin Mohammad Balkhi, but the names of the translators, who are the real authors of the quotes, and who have seemed to want to give authority to their own thoughts by attributing them to wise men of the East. Imagine if you were in the shoes of those authors :(

Thanks.

So there is no concern about polluting the Internet with false quotes?

It bothers me too, but I don't think you're going to get staff to do anything about it. What happens instead is that a misattributed or completely invented quote will remain under the incorrect person's name, but tags will be added: "attributed-no-source" or "misattributed-oscar-wilde" as if that's supposed to remedy the situation.

If you look at the most popular quotes, many of them have these particular tags attached! It's really quite pathetic.

Perhaps what you should do is on a case by case basis, one quote at a time, post these mistaken quotes in this section and ask for a librarian to correct them.

I guess you're right Lobstergirl. I'm glad I'm not alone in such concern. Will see what I can do about it.

I'm the Librarian who started the "misattributed" tagging system. The intent there is to edit the quote to attach it to the correct author (when that can be known) and tag the *incorrect* but popular attributions so that well-meaning people who ate certain that it was said by Wilde or Einstein or Twain or Roosevelt ("the Internet said so!") have a little bit harder time changing it back again, and even when they do, Librarians may have an easier time re(re-re)fixing it.

If you're interested in assisting with this sort of thing, this is the right group to post in, though we don't generally get paid to do this so it's not a top priority for many. Giving links to any variants, the correct version (if known and existing, which isn't always the case), and ideally any supporting research or documentation makes the task much easier, which in turn improves the odds of a quick turnaround.

BTW, "attributed no source" is for when there's no evidence to prove or disprove the source, and mere deletion will just result in someone coming along and adding it again. At least the tag gives a bit of documentation, allowing the wary to remain wary. That, at least, was my intent when I invented that tag.

Finally, I agree with the idea of Translator attributions, especially in Mitchell's case, but someone reliable has to point them out specifically before anything can be done about them. A new thread in this group would be one way to do that.

Hi Keith,

I appreciate your interest and attempt to solve the problem. I would like to contribute to clean the pollution of incorrect attributions, but just don't see how the current system solves the problem. Most people don't even care about or see the quote tags, and so it does little to stop the spread of false knowledge.

I don't think it would be hard for Goodreads to flag dubious quotes and put them on hold until they can be solidly confirmed from serious sources (i.e. not third party sources or flimsy translations). If what is needed is people to help, count me in.

There are millions of quotes in the database, and that would be several full-time jobs devoted to a task that has no positive revenue impact. Unless you're offering a million dollar endowment to finance those jobs, I don't think the company will be interested. Even if you are making such an offer I still doubt it. Ignorance, being the default condition of every living being, cannot be stopped; it can only be mitigated, and the present workarounds are the best we're likely to get on that score on this site (which, after all, is about books, with the quotes being merely a sideline and side-effect).

Keith wrote: "BTW, "attributed no source" is for when there's no evidence to prove or disprove the source, and mere deletion will just result in someone coming along and adding it again."

I think this is okay as a temporary measure, but if no source can be found for a particular quote, and when the entire internet is complaining that a quote has been falsely ascribed to a particular person, it should be deleted.

For example this notorious quote never said or written by Marilyn Monroe which has been liked by 131,726 people....

“I'm selfish, impatient and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out of control and at times hard to handle. But if you can't handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best.”
― Marilyn Monroe

....should just be deleted.

The burden should be on those who believe it to be a real quote, to find the original source of it. Where and when did MM say or write this? If you can't document it, it should get deleted.

Bear in mind that quack publishing companies, and quote websites, are scraping sites like Goodreads for their quotes. False quotes like the many we have are going into published books. They are reappearing on these quote websites, perpetuating the falsehoods. These fake quotes now appear in hundreds of actual books, plus print-on-demand books and self-published books. Don't underestimate people's willingness to use GR as a source of material to publish for monetary gain.

Among the remaining problems are that quotes with 100,000+ likes can't even be deleted by a Super (IIRC), QotD can't be so much as edited, and misquotes that are that popular will be back—with no attribution and no notes—before you even bat an eye. At least if we retain the quote with tags or comments about what's wrong with it, we contribute in some more tangible and lasting way to data integrity; deletion will only make the matter worse without massive staff dedicated entirely to that task.

"The burden should be on those who believe it to be a real quote, to find the original source of it. If you can't document it, it should get deleted."

Absolutely agreed.

The problem is Goodreads doesn't care about the truth and honesty as much as it cares about monetization.

As it stands and as you point out, Goodreads is contributing to the spread of falsehood and misunderstanding in our world.

There are quotes I can't even edit in order to add tags notifying people of the falsehood. For example this one never said or written by Churchill,

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/222-...

The "edit" button isn't even there, so what does Keith's method have to offer?

Germán wrote: "For example this one never said or written by Churchill,

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/222-...

The "edit" button isn't even there, so what does Keith's method have to offer?"

Well, it looks like someone managed to delete or merge that one before I even got to see it, so... Win?

It wasn't me or anyone who is constantly and exhaustively paying attention to these things, simply some of the 20 new views who looked at this discussion since I posted.

I imagine you realize how incredibly inefficient and ridiculous it is to have to post each of these quotes here and pray to the gods for someone with higher powers to take action.

I do want to say I appreciate your efforts Keith.

Germán wrote: "... how incredibly inefficient and ridiculous it is to have to post each of these quotes here and pray to the gods for someone with higher powers to take action."

Yep, and considering that there is absolutely no business justification for it whatsoever (i.e., it does not and will not provide any revenue), we could be happy that they allow us to curate and correct this material at all. I reiterate my point about endowment: I'd take the job myself, but someone would have to come up with $50,000 a year for me to do it full time. If that's you, PM your offer letter to my account here. ;-P

I'll do it for $45,000. And a T-shirt.

No business justification?

Right, because tons of people don't end up in Goodreads when Googling for quotes from famous people. Especially fake ones. And, sure, we are far from the day when large amounts of traffic can be monetized...

Seriously? You are either too naive or dishonest.

And I'll go with dishonest, since it's yourself there saying it takes some budget to stop the spread of falsehood. Which, if we forget about monetization, again can only mean money is more important than truth to the people you vehemently defend.

Requesting corrections to quotes is appropriate in this group. Discussing whether a requested correction can be done is appropriate in this group as well.

Attacking our volunteer librarians is not.

rivka wrote: "Attacking our volunteer librarians is not."

And where were you to point that out when your volunteer librarian attempts to dismiss an important discussion with dishonest+sarcastic remarks right after I express appreciation for his efforts?

Sorry, didn't know it was inappropriate to respond to dismissive and useless comments with some plain facts.

Germán wrote: "rivka wrote: "Attacking our volunteer librarians is not."

And where were you to point that out when your volunteer librarian attempts to dismiss an important discussion with dishonest+sarcastic re..."

Wow, why so aggressive? I don't see anything in Keith's comments that warrants calling him dishonest. I think his comments are realistic, or at worst, cynical. I also don't see him "vehemently defending" Goodreads.

You call it an important discussion. I call it fruitless, because there is no point whatsoever in having this discussion in this group. No librarian, super or not, can change the way GR chooses (not) to deal with quotes.

This thread has ceased to be productive, so I am closing it.

New threads about specific quotes needing correction will be fine. Ones that continue this debate will also be closed.