http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070916-leaked-media-defender-e-mails-...
"MediaDefender's damage control program went into full swing shortly after that. When Douglas pointed out that information about MiiVi had been added to the MediaDefender Wikipedia page, Saaf decided that he wanted it taken down. "Can you please do what you can to eliminate the entry? Let me know if you have any success," Saaf wrote. "I will attempt to get all references to miivi removed from wiki," developer Ben Ebert replied. "We'll see if I can get rid of it.""
(courtesy Mathias)
- d.
On 2007.09.17 16:19:44 +0100, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com scribbled 15 lines:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070916-leaked-media-defender-e-mails-...
"MediaDefender's damage control program went into full swing shortly after that. When Douglas pointed out that information about MiiVi had been added to the MediaDefender Wikipedia page, Saaf decided that he wanted it taken down. "Can you please do what you can to eliminate the entry? Let me know if you have any success," Saaf wrote. "I will attempt to get all references to miivi removed from wiki," developer Ben Ebert replied. "We'll see if I can get rid of it.""
(courtesy Mathias)
- d.
Well, the nice thing is that given recent coverage, we certainly don't need to worry about not having well-edited articles on them...
Of course, all this merely raises the problem that leaked emails are hardly a RS until they get quoted by somebody and are alchemically transmuted into RSs.
-- gwern SAMCOMM ladylove Poe of 757 detection rita 5ESS sigint Fedayeen
On 9/18/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, all this merely raises the problem that leaked emails are hardly a RS until they get quoted by somebody and are alchemically transmuted into RSs.
Which is, of course, now being debated on the MediaDefender talk page... :)
Of course, all this merely raises the problem that leaked emails are hardly a RS until they get quoted by somebody and are alchemically transmuted into RSs.
There is no such thing as a "reliable source". The reliability of a source depends on what it is being used as a source of. The leaked email, whether direct or quoted, is not a reliable source for anything contained in it. The article that quotes the email, however, is a reliable (primary) source for the *claim* that the email was leaked. All we have to do is prefix the appropriate sentences of our article with "So-and-so claims that", and the sources qualify as reliable.