On 5/7/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com (slimvirgin@gmail.com) [050508 09:45]:
On 5/7/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
That's why we rely on this thing called "case by case editorial judgement" to say whether to use them, and readers use a thing called "a clue" to judge the value of a given source. Your calls for an instant Arbitration Committee decision in mid-argument on the matter are, frankly, mind-boggling.
Where did I call for an Arbitration Committee decision??
Ah, you're right, you didn't - instead, you asked for my opinion as a member of the arbcom:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023258.html
- to which the answer would almost certainly be "you're all adults, work
this out on a case by case editorial basis rather than by rules-lawyering."
David, I also wasn't asking for your opinion qua member of the arbcom, and if I gave that impression I apologize. I meant only that, insofar as you're a member, your opinion about the meaning of policy pages is important. What I asked was whether you (as an editor) could show me which Wikipedia policy pages state or imply (or in any way give the impression) that Usenet is an acceptable source, because my understanding of all the relevant pages is the opposite, namely that it would never be an acceptable secondary source. Although now that I read your post again, you're perhaps agreeing that Usenet isn't acceptable, but saying that certain Usenet posts might be okay as source material once posted elsewhere on the Web.
Sarah