Delirium wrote
We consider notable people's blogs reliable sources on their personal views, and it seems like saying "just register your disagreement here and we'll cite it" isn't any worse than the more roundabout "okay, start a blog, then post your disagreement there, and then we'll cite that".
But no better, really. In a general Internet-philosophical way, blogs = opinion dumps; and there doesn't seem to be an adequate reason to duplicate that functionality?
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
Charles Matthews wrote:
Delirium wrote
We consider notable people's blogs reliable sources on their personal views, and it seems like saying "just register your disagreement here and we'll cite it" isn't any worse than the more roundabout "okay, start a blog, then post your disagreement there, and then we'll cite that".
But no better, really. In a general Internet-philosophical way, blogs = opinion dumps; and there doesn't seem to be an adequate reason to duplicate that functionality?
I suppose not, but at the very least if that's the accepted way of registering objections, we should probably say so. "Want to note your disagreement with something in a Wikipedia article on you? Register a livejournal account and post a complaint, and we'll probably cite the fact that you denied the allegation."
I was just thinking that this is needlessly roundabout, and we could just have them send the complaints directly, and cite "though Joe Smith denies the allegations.<ref>some OTRS-like database, mail #392</ref>" instead of going through the extra livejournal step. The current approach tends to make it much easier for the class of people who already run blogs to get their objections noted than the class of people who don't, which seems weird.
-Mark