On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 00:14:32 +0000, David Boothroyd
<david(a)election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >I should like to clarify the issue in this
dispute. The question is
> >not whether the blog is a 'source'; it is clearly not a source for
> >anything other than what is said on the blog. The issue is whether or
> >not to mention it in the article
>Er, no. The issue is whether to *link* it in the
article. That is
>rather different.
No, not just that. I understand your position to be
that the blog is
worthy of mention in the text but not worthy of a link. However, there
are other actors in this drama, who are the people who wish to have
all mention removed. They are the people I was reverting when you
blocked me for 3RR.
Actually my position is that we should not link to attack blogs. If a
criticism is noted externally it may be relevant for inclusion, but
since coverage of this in the linked source is a single para in a
local colour story, it's certainly not unambiguously relevant for
inclusion.
Mention of Tim Ireland does not automatically mean we should link his
attack blog.
You will note that the parties who want the whole thing removed appear
to be in abeyance.
It is not necessarily the case that the correct result lies at the
midpoint between include both and remove all, which is where it
currently stands, but it would not be a big surprise to find it was
so.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG