Sourcing guidelines may need revision, especially for the future increase in online news sources. In such case, however, a blog is only as reliable as its author with regard to the subject for which it used as source. The blogs in question for this article, while perhaps reliable on political theory or television, were not reliable with regard to GNAA. It is pretty likely, actually, that they got their information from Wikipedia either directly or through the conduit of other websites. They have no expertise in Internet troll groups.
On 11/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/28/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
Of those that were independent, they fell into three classes: some made only a passing mention of GNAA, some were articles where GNAA was only mentioned in the message board responses at the bottom, and those that were
actually
*about* GNAA were blogs (there were one or two of those). We use plenty of internet sources (not the least of which is IMDb, and I've seen plenty
of
citations to online mags like Salon and Slate), but blogs have been
deemed
below the threshhold.
Which is ridiculous, because blogs are a medium, not a particular source. Banning all blogs as sources is absurd. A much better policy, one which respects the reader rather than treating him like a child, is to source the articles properly. If the source is a blog, the reader can supply his judgment in how much credence to give the source. Similarly with say, the New York Times, CNN, or the Washington Times, or Pravda. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l