On 06/07/07, Fred Bauder
<fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
From: James Farrar
[mailto:james.farrar@gmail.com]
>On 06/07/07, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/5/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 7/5/07, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)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