The underlying essays (http://tartarus.org/martin/essays/burkequote.html and http://tartarus.org/martin/essays/burkequote2.html) are good ones. As someone who loves both history and quotations, I certainly share with the frustration of Mr Porter about how many quotations are quoted without source.
In the case of the Burke quote, I'm pleased to note that in my WIST quotation database (http://wist.info/burke-edmund/819/) I properly note that this is an unverified quotation; in fact I do so in the context of that quote that may (or may not) be the inspiration for it.
It's for just this reason that I spend an inordinate amount of time trying to find the source (online) for anything I put into WIST — either a link to the actual source text (unless it's widely known) or, at a minimum, a citation of the source. If I can't source it, I note it as "(Attributed)" as a warning sign. I also use "(Unverified)" in some cases where there has been some effort to track it down by experts. Where it's been definitively debunked (as best as such can be), it's "(Spurious)"
When I do look up and find a quotation in the source material I often provide a longer context (multiple sentences) for quotations — and, yes, the meaning is often subtly shaded (if not outright changed) by that context. At a minimum it frequently adds depth of meaning to what was said (if not an additional quotation or two).
Porter suggests some principles for users of quotations which are a good idea, in general, but probably more as ideals that one best simply realize where one's falling short:
Principle 1 (for readers)
Whenever you see a quotation given with an author but no source assume that it is probably bogus.
You certainly shouldn't assume it's authentic, or accurately quoted. That even applies on building inscriptions. Treat it as a jumping-off point to learn more, or simply as a cautionary note.
Unless it's a quote that's been distributed as an Internet graphic. In which case you should believe it implicitly, because It's a Pretty Picture on the Internet!
Principle 2 (for readers)
Whenever you see a quotation given with a full source assume that it is probably being misused, unless you find good evidence that the quoter has read it in the source.
As with the previous principle, I'd rather phrase this as a cautionary warning: don't assume that, even with a citation, that the original author meant the same thing in context.
That said, sometimes inspirational words are of value, even out of context. They just shouldn't be assume to reflect the actual sentiments of the original author.
Principle 3 (for quoters)
Whenever you make a quotation, give the exact source.
Fair enough. I do my best. Sometimes it's not a completely appropriate forum to provide a full footnote (and, honestly, if I can get something down to a chapter number, I don't mind omitting the page number from the book).
Principle 4 (for quoters)
Only quote from works that you have read.
This one I have to disagree with. It's certainly a good idea to quote from material you're familiar with, but hardly practical.
I might throw in a principle myself here: when we're talking about quoting the Bible, most of the above principles apply in spades.
I try to regard quotation collection (and use) as something of an academic pursuit, even as a hobby. There's both the truths (or interest) of the words themselves, but also of the framework they fall into (the people who said them, the era, the source material). Taking shortcuts in the latter tends to reduce the former to Hallmark greeting card babble. In which case, why bother?
Reshared post from +George Wiman
A history teacher schooled on quote accuracy, lives to write about it:
Smoking out the bogus: Martin Porter’s “Four Principles of a Quotation”
Commenter SBH put me on to this interesting set of principles from a mathematician, on bogus quotes, and how to determine that they are bogus, and most important, how to avoid creating a bogus quot…
Another principle: "If someone quotes Twain, Churchill, or Lincoln, assume it's a bogus quote unless you've looked it up. If someone quotes Kennedy, assume he's quoting someone else."
Well, as Mark Twain once said, "Don't believe everything you read on the Internet."
Einstein's another one. He said a lot of things –but a lot of stuff has been attributed to him that he didn't say. A lot of his actual quotes are taken out of context. Finally, as an appeal to authority ("well, if Einstein said it, he's a genius so it must be true"), it's a dangerous move because context, both in the overall writing in and in Einstein's life itself, is very dangerous. When both theists and atheists use Einstein to "prove" their point, it's clearly treacherous territory.
The only time I tend to invoke Einstein is on the state of Israel. On one side, they wanted Einstein to be their first president. On the other, he wholly opposed occupation as the means to an end.
I love it when I learn stuff from people who post on the same stuff I do, as I did here.
It was Lincoln who warned us about quotes on the internet, after he read about what Franklin said, by the way.
(Side note: For some reason your avatar isn’t working at my WordPress site. FYI.)
Well, that’s believable. Franklin said just about everything, usually for the second time.