On 9/13/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Anthony wrote:
If I wrote on my blog that you eat hobbits, my blog is
a primary source for
"Ken claims Mr. Dalton eats hobbits", but an unreliable self-published
source for "Mr. Dalton actually does eat hobbits". The former is an event
that happened on my blog. The latter is unreliable info about a living
person.
Absolutely true.
But isn't that where original research comes into play? What
is the
purpose of quoting ken's claim about Dalton eating hobbits? If it's
in an article on Dalton, in an effort to show that Dalton might
actually eat hobbits, then the problem is it's a fringe theory,
because Ken isn't an authoritative source. If it's in an article on
Ken, to show how dumb Ken is for thinking Dalton eats hobbits, then
it's original research. Don't quote Ken to make Ken look dumb, quote
an expert who talks about how dumb Ken is.
You're forgetting the context.
You're right, I was.
The argument is that it's okay to let an
administrative action taken against
a user to come up as the #1 Google hit for the guy on the grounds that
Wikipedia is a reliable source for information about itself.
All depends on what the person did. Prank call 911? Leave the poor
woman alone. Try to molest a minor? Have some respect for his human
dignity. That's Jimbo's answer, anyway.