Delirium wrote:
To be frank, I don't see how your response was at
all a response to my
post. Nobody is proposing that we include Michael Moore's home phone
number in his article, or "every possible iota of information". What
some of us are proposing, rather, is that encyclopedic information that
would otherwise be included in an encyclopedia article on the subject,
such as a website of a famous person that is cited hundreds of times in
academic literature, should not be removed from the Wikipedia article on
the subject solely for reasons that include the word "Wikipedia"
self-referentially in them. If it *isn't* encyclopedic, then remove it
for that reason, which is a completely separate issue.
That's why we're focusing on examples like
michaelmoore.com in this
thread. Random non-notable forums that aren't encyclopedic are
completely irrelevant to WP:BADSITES, since they shouldn't be included
anyway (due to lack of notability / encyclopedic content). The problem
with WP:BADSITES is that it proposes that encyclopedic information that
would normally be included in an encyclopedia should be removed from our
particular encyclopedia. My argument is that if we're removing
information that Encarta would include because of some reason that
doesn't have to do with making a better article, we're doing something
wrong.
Compare to how the New York Times writes its articles: they don't decide
not to cover otherwise newsworthy subjects because of how their
reporters are treated.
-Mark
We don't know what the ''New York Times'' or
''Encarta'' use as their
standards for sourcing (or if we do please send a link). Can anyone
provide a link to an Encarta article that uses as a source a website
that harasses Encarta editors? If we're to compare harassment and outing
issues on Wikipedia to those in the traditional media then the Plame
case may be more relevant.
My proposal is considerably different from "WP:BADSITES". I'm not sure
why folks continue to use that term to describe every single proposal
advanced to resolve this problem, but it may not be the most helpful
plain of engagement. I dub this proposal "WP:COISITES" because it covers
self-published websites that have a conflict of interest with Wikipedia
due to their attempts to coerce WP editors.
Here is a formulation:
"WP:COISITES: Self-published sources, such as blogs, forums, and open
wikis, that are actively engaged in lawsuits or harassment of Wikipedia
or its editors are not reliable sources [unless proven otherwise] and
should not be used as a source or external link in articles."
That text excludes non-self published sources, like the ''New Yorker''.
It allows for some flexibility in special cases. It doesn't deal with
non-article space links at all. Further language would be needed to
define "harassment", and to map out dispute resolution procedures.
What's missing or in error from that proposal?
-Will Beback