"Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)" wrote
I think we need some input from the Office as to how this situation should be handled on-wiki.
Maybe. But the deletion of a badly-sourced attack piece biography would not be the problem.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 3/26/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)" wrote
I think we need some input from the Office as to how this situation
should
be handled on-wiki.
Maybe. But the deletion of a badly-sourced attack piece biography would not be the problem.
Charles
It wouldn't, but this isn't badly sourced, neither is it an attack page. This is more similar to an article about a criminal - of which we have several. Any of them will consider them attacks, but that doesn't mean they are.
Forums are bad sources because anyone can write in them. If a blog has been established as being written by an authoritive source, it is no longer unreliable and thus it could be used as a source for what the author thinks or says. It's basically no different than citing a website.
Are there actually people who would delete something, say, George W. Bush said, because we cite his personal White House blog as the source?
Mgm