Guy Chapman wrote
I'd like to know whether it's worth the effort - in other words, is it OK to link an attack blog if it is mentioned elsewhere, albeit as a bit of local colour in the election coverage? I note that the blog is not linked from the Times article from which the text is sourced.
The defaults are that blogs are not reliable sources, and that we do not link to attack sites. You need to justify your characterisation of the blog as 'attack site'. The other party needs to justify this site as a reliable source. It is conceivable that both of you have adequate warrant for these claims.
Selectively linking to partisan sources is possible under policy, but naturally a 'shield' of NPOV must be present in the article.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:26:13 +0000, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
The defaults are that blogs are not reliable sources, and that we do not link to attack sites. You need to justify your characterisation of the blog as 'attack site'. The other party needs to justify this site as a reliable source. It is conceivable that both of you have adequate warrant for these claims.
Sounds reasonable. The blog header is "Anne Milton - Guildford MP (and Dipstick)", which seems to me to be quite a long way from studied neutrality :-) Since the entire thing doesn't really elevate itself above the level of schoolyard name-calling I don't see that it has much relevance at all, but Fys seems to want it in there.
http://www.bloggerheads.com/anne_milton/
Guy (JzG)