On 5/6/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com (slimvirgin@gmail.com) [050507 05:57]:
I'm struggling to understand why people can't see the difference here between using something as a primary and a secondary source. We can use Usenet as a source of information about itself, and about its awards. What we can't do is use it as a secondary source of information about someone or something else. Even if it's true that
Perhaps because you appear to be alternating between the general case and this specific case and it isn't clear from each message which is the current context. In the general case, of course Usenet content is to be salted appropriately; in specific cases, we use editorial judgement. Case by case.
Look, the only reason I'm going on about this is that it touches on some fairly fundamental issues about sticking to policy, about what counts as a decent reference, and about being fair as well as accurate. It also raises questions about the use of page protection to settle content disputes. So in most of what I write, I'm referring to cases in general, not this specific one, though I may use this one as an example.
David, if you're saying Usenet is sometimes an acceptable source, and that we ought to judge its validity on a case-by-case basis (as a secondary source), I'll have to ask you to show me where in any of our policy documents that is stated or implied, because my understanding of all the relevant policies is that they are worded precisely so that these issues are *not* judged by individual editors on a case-by-case basis. Usenet is only allowed as primary-source material in articles about itself, and then only in very limited ways, carefully worded, balanced by other sources.
In this specific case, not including Wollmann's name would be ridiculous.
I disagree. It wouldn't detract from the article at all to leave his name out. Far more notable people than him have been given various awards by this group.
In addition, if he had not made his name a curse through assiduous effort on Usenet (spamming, personal attacks, abuse of ISP abuse processes to an actually remarkable degree) and outside Usenet (fraudulent behaviour, the attacks and abuse of complaint processes) to such a notable degree that people needed to document it searchably, there would be no negative consequences of bringing up his name at all. You do appear to be ignoring this.
No, I'm not ignoring it. I accept that he's made things a lot worse for himself, and that he was the cause of the whole thing in the first place. I accept that.
Usenet is not a fixed and relied-upon source like a peer-reviewed journal, but in the *vast* majority of cases, people are who they say they are and made their posts.
You can't know this. Most people who post do so anonymously, and even if you know their real names, what does that tell you? They're not credible, published sources just because they post to Usenet.
Sarah