Re: [WikiEN-l] Reliable sources for deaths

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 18:53:21 -0400, Gwern Branwen wrote: A problem with tweets, even "official" ones, is that Twitter is a relatively informal medium compared to most of the others that are used as sources. The problems one needs to consider include: * Is the 'twitterer' actually an official spokesperson, or possibly just somebody impersonating one? Is the account verified? * Even if it's known to be the true, official account, do you actually know who is providing the information there? Is it the celebrity him/herself, or some marketing flack acting on his/her behalf? Maybe the flack is posting stuff in the celebrity's name that they themselves don't agree with, or vice/versa, the celebrity is acting as a loose cannon and giving his/her top-of-the-head, spur- of-the-moment views that don't necessarily represent what direction their career and works will go when the marketing types get through with them? * Whoever it is that's posting, are they trustworthy for accurately representing the true viewpoint of the entity involved, or are they prone to kidding around, starting hoaxes, playing devil's advocate to get a reaction, stirring up controversies for publicity, slinging bullshit, getting drunk and spouting nonsense, etc.? * If they keep changing their mind and posting contradictory stuff, which one should be regarded as official, or should it just be reported that they contradicted themselves? Should their errors, typos, misstatements, misunderstandings, etc., be reported? -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/