-----Original Message----- From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 6, 2007 09:11 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattack site link policy
On 06/07/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it's convenient that they could find another source without having to link to the WR thread, but it also seems that the thread is a better source, in spite of the snarky commentary within it.
It can't possibly be a "better source", as none of it is reliable.
Not even the almost blow-by-blow transcript from Brandt of his communications with the various parties?
No, because it's an attack site, and hence per se unreliable...
No, because it's a forum.
Fred
On 06/07/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar@gmail.com]
On 06/07/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it's convenient that they could find another source without having to link to the WR thread, but it also seems that the thread is a better source, in spite of the snarky commentary within it.
It can't possibly be a "better source", as none of it is reliable.
Not even the almost blow-by-blow transcript from Brandt of his communications with the various parties?
No, because it's an attack site, and hence per se unreliable...
No, because it's a forum.
On less contentious subjects, forums as the original source of something are often referenced, though a press link is also a damn good idea, e.g. [[09f9]]. "Press=reliable, forum=unreliable" is the sort of muddled thinking that makes WP:RS a joke, particularly to anyone who's ever been quoted in the press.
The main problem with Wikipedia Review is their known tendency to edit and delete posts to cover their tracks, i.e. that they proceed with malice. So an archived copy would be needed.
- d.
On 0, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com scribbled:
On 06/07/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar@gmail.com]
On 06/07/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it's convenient that they could find another source without having to link to the WR thread, but it also seems that the thread is a better source, in spite of the snarky commentary within it.
It can't possibly be a "better source", as none of it is reliable.
Not even the almost blow-by-blow transcript from Brandt of his communications with the various parties?
No, because it's an attack site, and hence per se unreliable...
No, because it's a forum.
On less contentious subjects, forums as the original source of something are often referenced, though a press link is also a damn good idea, e.g. [[09f9]]. "Press=reliable, forum=unreliable" is the sort of muddled thinking that makes WP:RS a joke, particularly to anyone who's ever been quoted in the press.
The main problem with Wikipedia Review is their known tendency to edit and delete posts to cover their tracks, i.e. that they proceed with malice. So an archived copy would be needed.
- d.
/me coughs quietly and points over to [[WebCite]] and edits linking to archived WebCite copies. Archive-on-demand, yay!
-- gwern SAO Reno Compsec JICS Computer Terrorism Firewalls Secure Internet Connections RSP