In a message dated 10/7/2008 11:54:28 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, arromdee@rahul.net writes:
By the same reasoning used for spoilers, we don't have a source which states that an article needs copyediting or that it is class B. (Remember that Wikipedia itself isn't a reliable source.) Making that decision ourselves is original research.>> -------------------------- We are allowed to make meta-decisions as editors. Those decisions aren't OR, only in-article-content-decisions would be OR, not about-article-content-decisions.
Will Johnson **************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
We are allowed to make meta-decisions as editors. Those decisions aren't OR, only in-article-content-decisions would be OR, not about-article-content-decisions.
What if the result of the about-article-content decision is placed inside the article's content, thus making it in-article-content too?
Of course, you can just say "no, that's not OR either". However, David Gerard can't.
2008/10/7 Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
We are allowed to make meta-decisions as editors. Those decisions aren't OR, only in-article-content-decisions would be OR, not about-article-content-decisions.
What if the result of the about-article-content decision is placed inside the article's content, thus making it in-article-content too?
That would be self-referential and against policy. Why would anyone want to do that anyway?
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Thomas Dalton wrote:
What if the result of the about-article-content decision is placed inside the article's content, thus making it in-article-content too?
That would be self-referential and against policy. Why would anyone want to do that anyway?
Really? It's against policy to put somethiing in an article saying "This article may contain unverified claims", for instance?