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.
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.
It's a reliable source for the claim that the action happened, but not a reliable source for the truth of any of the allegations made during that action. And it's *definitely* not a reliable source for the allegations' *notability*. There's already a BLP problem on Wikipedia where someone finds a minor celebrity, digs up an article where they got drunk and went naked in public 20 years ago, and adds it to Wikipedia. We take that out because of BLP considerations, *even if it really did happen*. Not because it's not true, but because it's not notable. An ultimately minor incident 20 years ago shouldn't be posted so prominently on the Internet that the first Google hit for that person shows it. Being sanctioned on Wikipedia is no more notable than streaking in public, and no more worthy of being the #1 Google hit for that person.