On 5/30/07, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene(a)vanderpijll.nl> wrote:
jayjg schreef:
I'm not interested in generalities and
slippery slope arguments,
though, I'm looking for specifics. When would it be beneficial to
Wikipedia to link to WR?
If that's the source for a claim in on of our articles?
But it can't be, because it's not a reliable source.
To name one concrete example: our [[Criticism of Wikipedia]] contains a
rather short paragraph on "Copyright issues" containing weasel words
like "A significant number of people... have comment that... some
articles are copyright violations." This claim is entirely unsourced
(the cited source only speaks about our problem with images).
From what I can tell, far too much of that article
consists of
Original Research based on non-reliable sources or none at all. The
fact that somebody posts something critical of Wikipedia on a website
doesn't mean its suitable for inclusion in this article.
The only attempt of a numerical study of our copyright problem that I
know of, was the one published by Daniel Brandt ("1 to 2 % of
biographies on wikipedia are plagiarized"). This would be a good
addition to the article, but it would need a link to Brandt's website
(wikipedia-watch), which is the only place that the methodology of the
study is described.
No, it would be a terrible addition to the article, because it
wouldn't comply with [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]].
(I presume wikipedia-watch is on your short list of attack sites; if
not: what if he had published the results on WR? DB is a frequent
contributor.)
It would be the same. People can publish anything they like on their
personal websites, blogs, message boards - and they do. Very little of
it can be put into Wikipedia articles, because it doesn't comply with
WP:V and WP:RS.
Jay.