I would like to respectfully ask that you remove my name from all references to "kooks" and other abusive and defamatory maligning propaganda posted to your website specifically to damage my business and profession of 30 years+.
I wrote an explanation of why the usenet abusers harass me and ask that you read it and my academically published works and decide for yourselves if I am what these abusers say I am. The people who supply you "kopok" information do so on anonymous basis, while I openly discuss my points of view on usenet and have done so for 9 years.
I am a published author and have my own consulting business and publishing company here in San Diego, and will take all legal action necessary to stop you and your company from using your service as a way to defame others.
Post about being stalked for 9 years: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.astrology/msg/3c1c63f3e35ee818?hl=en
Links to my academic articles:
http://astroconsulting.com/FAQ%C3%82%C2%ADs/fate_vs_free_will.htm http://astroconsulting.com/FAQ%C3%82%C2%ADs/did_the_greeks_invent_astrol%C3%... http://astroconsulting.com/FAQ%C3%82%C2%ADs/arguments_against_the_astrol%C3%... http://astroconsulting.com/FAQ%C3%82%C2%ADs/art_evolution_in_greece_and_%C3%... http://astroconsulting.com/FAQ%C3%82%C2%ADs/arabic.htm
Thank you for your attention.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. (C) 2005 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603 Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/ Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/ http://home.earthlink.net/~arcturianone/
Edmond, which article is this in?
Sarah
On 5/5/05, Astrological Consulting arcturianone@earthlink.net wrote:
I would like to respectfully ask that you remove my name from all references to "kooks" and other abusive and defamatory maligning propaganda posted to your website specifically to damage my business and profession of 30 years+.
I wrote an explanation of why the usenet abusers harass me and ask that you read it and my academically published works and decide for yourselves if I am what these abusers say I am. The people who supply you "kopok" information do so on anonymous basis, while I openly discuss my points of view on usenet and have done so for 9 years.
I am a published author and have my own consulting business and publishing company here in San Diego, and will take all legal action necessary to stop you and your company from using your service as a way to defame others.
Post about being stalked for 9 years: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.astrology/msg/3c1c63f3e35ee818?hl=en
Links to my academic articles:
http://astroconsulting.com/FAQ%C3%82%C2%ADs/fate_vs_free_will.htm http://astroconsulting.com/FAQ%C3%82%C2%ADs/did_the_greeks_invent_astrol%C3%... http://astroconsulting.com/FAQ%C3%82%C2%ADs/arguments_against_the_astrol%C3%... http://astroconsulting.com/FAQ%C3%82%C2%ADs/art_evolution_in_greece_and_%C3%... http://astroconsulting.com/FAQ%C3%82%C2%ADs/arabic.htm
Thank you for your attention.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. (C) 2005 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603 Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/ Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/ http://home.earthlink.net/~arcturianone/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm assuming:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt.usenet.kooks
Clearly mentions him.
"Subscribers to the group regularly hand out awards in various categories, most notably the "Kook of the Month Award", by regularized voting processes. Notable past winners include Archimedes Plutonium, Sollog and Edmond Heinz Wollmann (who was "honored" as the "Kook of the Millennium")."
Is currently protected from vandalism. ----- Original Message ----- From: slimvirgin@gmail.com To: "Astrological Consulting" arcturianone@earthlink.net; "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 8:51 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Abuse of your services
Edmond, which article is this in?
Sarah
On 5/5/05, Astrological Consulting arcturianone@earthlink.net wrote:
I would like to respectfully ask that you remove my name from all
references to "kooks" and other abusive and defamatory maligning propaganda posted to your website specifically to damage my business and profession of 30 years+.
I wrote an explanation of why the usenet abusers harass me and ask that
you read it and my academically published works and decide for yourselves if I am what these abusers say I am.
The people who supply you "kopok" information do so on anonymous basis,
while I openly discuss my points of view on usenet and have done so for 9 years.
I am a published author and have my own consulting business and publishing
company here in San Diego, and will take all legal action necessary to stop you and your company from using your service as a way to defame others.
Post about being stalked for 9 years:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.astrology/msg/3c1c63f3e35ee818?hl=en
Links to my academic articles:
http://astroconsulting.com/FAQ%C3%82%C2%ADs/fate_vs_free_will.htm http://astroconsulting.com/FAQ%C3%82%C2%ADs/did_the_greeks_invent_astrol%C3%... http://astroconsulting.com/FAQ%C3%82%C2%ADs/arguments_against_the_astrol%C3%... http://astroconsulting.com/FAQ%C3%82%C2%ADs/art_evolution_in_greece_and_%C3%... http://astroconsulting.com/FAQ%C3%82%C2%ADs/arabic.htm
Thank you for your attention.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. (C) 2005 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603 Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/ Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/ http://home.earthlink.net/~arcturianone/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Thanks, David. I have removed Edmond's name from this article, as this appears to be his real name, he says it's affecting his business, and we're using Usenet as our source, which is not allowed to be used as a secondary source on Wikipedia. It may be used as primary-source material for information about itself, but that doesn't cover Edmond. I'll leave an explanation on WP:AN/I for the admin who protected the page.
Sarah
On 5/5/05, David 'DJ' Hedley spyders@btinternet.com wrote:
I'm assuming:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt.usenet.kooks
Clearly mentions him.
"Subscribers to the group regularly hand out awards in various categories, most notably the "Kook of the Month Award", by regularized voting processes. Notable past winners include Archimedes Plutonium, Sollog and Edmond Heinz Wollmann (who was "honored" as the "Kook of the Millennium")."
Is currently protected from vandalism. ----- Original Message ----- From: slimvirgin@gmail.com To: "Astrological Consulting" arcturianone@earthlink.net; "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 8:51 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Abuse of your services
Edmond, which article is this in?
Sarah
On 5/5/05, Astrological Consulting arcturianone@earthlink.net wrote:
I would like to respectfully ask that you remove my name from all
references to "kooks" and other abusive and defamatory maligning propaganda posted to your website specifically to damage my business and profession of 30 years+.
I wrote an explanation of why the usenet abusers harass me and ask that
you read it and my academically published works and decide for yourselves if I am what these abusers say I am.
The people who supply you "kopok" information do so on anonymous basis,
while I openly discuss my points of view on usenet and have done so for 9 years.
I am a published author and have my own consulting business and publishing
company here in San Diego, and will take all legal action necessary to stop you and your company from using your service as a way to defame others.
Post about being stalked for 9 years:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.astrology/msg/3c1c63f3e35ee818?hl=en
Links to my academic articles:
http://astroconsulting.com/FAQ%C3%82%C2%ADs/fate_vs_free_will.htm http://astroconsulting.com/FAQ%C3%82%C2%ADs/did_the_greeks_invent_astrol%C3%... http://astroconsulting.com/FAQ%C3%82%C2%ADs/arguments_against_the_astrol%C3%... http://astroconsulting.com/FAQ%C3%82%C2%ADs/art_evolution_in_greece_and_%C3%... http://astroconsulting.com/FAQ%C3%82%C2%ADs/arabic.htm
Thank you for your attention.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. (C) 2005 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603 Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/ Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/ http://home.earthlink.net/~arcturianone/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David DJ Hedley said:
I'm assuming:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt.usenet.kooks
Clearly mentions him.
There used to be an [[Edmond Wollmann]] article, created back in early January. I cleaned it up to get the worst POV crap out, then supported a VfD which was successful. I'm sympathetic to the idea of removing the reference from the [[Alt.usenet.kooks]] article because it is not essential to the article and, frankly, any kookiness Edmond may ever have possessed is more than matched by others. I speak as the person who first nominated him for KOTM in 1998. However anything of this kind removed from the article would likely be restored within minutes.
Astrological Consulting (arcturianone@earthlink.net) [050506 05:46]:
I would like to respectfully ask that you remove my name from all references to "kooks" and other abusive and defamatory maligning propaganda posted to your website specifically to damage my business and profession of 30 years+. Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. (C) 2005 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603 Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/ Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/ http://home.earthlink.net/~arcturianone/
Actually famous Usenet crank. More coherent than Sollog. Lots of material on skeptictank.com .
- d.
On 5/5/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Actually famous Usenet crank. More coherent than Sollog. Lots of material on skeptictank.com .
I think the point here is that WP policy states that we must used only reputable or credible published sources as secondary sources, and Usenet doesn't count as that. It can be used as primary-source material for information about itself, but it can't be used as a secondary source of information about someone else, especially not when we're using a person's real name (unlike the case of Sollog).
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I think the point here is that WP policy states that we must used only reputable or credible published sources as secondary sources, and Usenet doesn't count as that. It can be used as primary-source material for information about itself, but it can't be used as a secondary source of information about someone else, especially not when we're using a person's real name (unlike the case of Sollog).
But the article, [[Alt.usenet.kooks]], *is* about UseNet, so of course it is relevant to use UseNet in that case as a primary source for information about itself. The article simple states the verifiable fact that this usegroup has given out "Kook of the Year" awards to several people.
-Mark
On 5/5/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
But the article, [[Alt.usenet.kooks]], *is* about UseNet, so of course it is relevant to use UseNet in that case as a primary source for information about itself. The article simple states the verifiable fact that this usegroup has given out "Kook of the Year" awards to several people.
And that's fine, Mark. But we can't name the people.
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/5/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
But the article, [[Alt.usenet.kooks]], *is* about UseNet, so of course it is relevant to use UseNet in that case as a primary source for information about itself. The article simple states the verifiable fact that this usegroup has given out "Kook of the Year" awards to several people.
And that's fine, Mark. But we can't name the people.
Why not? We name a lot of people on Wikipedia. Basically, anyone who has achieved any sort of notability, whether good or bad.
-Mark
On 5/5/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
And that's fine, Mark. But we can't name the people.
Why not? We name a lot of people on Wikipedia. Basically, anyone who has achieved any sort of notability, whether good or bad.
Usenet can be used as primary-source material i.e. as a source of information about itself. But as soon as we name John Smith (real name) who has been called X in a Usenet post, that counts as using Usenet as a secondary source. Our policy states that our secondary sources must be credible, reputable, and in some way authoritative: see, for example, WP:NOR. It's admittedly hard to define these terms, but Usenet doesn't count as any of those by any standard, not least because the posts are largely anonymous. So even if we think that John Smith really is an X, we can't repeat it in Wikipedia until, for example, a newspaper repeats the claim. Then we can use it.
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/5/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
And that's fine, Mark. But we can't name the people.
Why not? We name a lot of people on Wikipedia. Basically, anyone who has achieved any sort of notability, whether good or bad.
Usenet can be used as primary-source material i.e. as a source of information about itself. But as soon as we name John Smith (real name) who has been called X in a Usenet post, that counts as using Usenet as a secondary source. Our policy states that our secondary sources must be credible, reputable, and in some way authoritative: see, for example, WP:NOR. It's admittedly hard to define these terms, but Usenet doesn't count as any of those by any standard, not least because the posts are largely anonymous. So even if we think that John Smith really is an X, we can't repeat it in Wikipedia until, for example, a newspaper repeats the claim. Then we can use it.
No, this isn't using a secondary source. If we are stating the fact "[X] has been named 'Kook of the Year' by the UseNet newsgroup alt.usenet.kooks", then we're using alt.usenet.kooks as a primary source for the award. If we were saying "[X] *is* a UseNet kook", then we would be using it as a secondary source to back up that fact. But we aren't saying anyone is a kook---merely reporting that someone else has said so. In short, the article is about the group and what they've said, using their words as a primary source for what they've said.
-Mark
On 5/5/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
No, this isn't using a secondary source. If we are stating the fact "[X] has been named 'Kook of the Year' by the UseNet newsgroup alt.usenet.kooks", then we're using alt.usenet.kooks as a primary source for the award. If we were saying "[X] *is* a UseNet kook", then we would be using it as a secondary source to back up that fact. But we aren't saying anyone is a kook---merely reporting that someone else has said so. In short, the article is about the group and what they've said, using their words as a primary source for what they've said.
Right, I agree. But then there's no need to name the award winners. As soon as you do that, you're reporting that X was said about John Smith. You're not commenting on the truth of it, but you're repeating the allegation. Therefore, it must have been published by a credible, secondary source. That's our policy.
Mark, I've removed the name again. Now that the problem has been pointed out to us, we're on very sticky ground inserting the material back into the article. Perhaps we could discuss this instead either here or on WP:AN/I? If I'm the only person who thinks it should be removed, then obviously I'll abide by the majority view, but I'd like to see what a few others think first.
Sarah
This fellow is one of the pure ones. A wee bit of research shows he's been threatening to sue anyone who suggests he is anything other than brilliant for a decade or so.
If we're going to have an article on alt.usenet.kooks, it makes sense to report on what they do...
jpgordon
On 5/5/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/5/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
No, this isn't using a secondary source. If we are stating the fact "[X] has been named 'Kook of the Year' by the UseNet newsgroup alt.usenet.kooks", then we're using alt.usenet.kooks as a primary source for the award. If we were saying "[X] *is* a UseNet kook", then we would be using it as a secondary source to back up that fact. But we aren't saying anyone is a kook---merely reporting that someone else has said so. In short, the article is about the group and what they've said, using their words as a primary source for what they've said.
Right, I agree. But then there's no need to name the award winners. As soon as you do that, you're reporting that X was said about John Smith. You're not commenting on the truth of it, but you're repeating the allegation. Therefore, it must have been published by a credible, secondary source. That's our policy.
Mark, I've removed the name again. Now that the problem has been pointed out to us, we're on very sticky ground inserting the material back into the article. Perhaps we could discuss this instead either here or on WP:AN/I? If I'm the only person who thinks it should be removed, then obviously I'll abide by the majority view, but I'd like to see what a few others think first.
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/5/05, Josh Gordon joshua.p.gordon@gmail.com wrote:
This fellow is one of the pure ones. A wee bit of research shows he's been threatening to sue anyone who suggests he is anything other than brilliant for a decade or so.
If we're going to have an article on alt.usenet.kooks, it makes sense to report on what they do...
Josh, the problem is that we could use Usenet to ridicule any number of people simply by creatring an article about a Usenet group, and then saying we're only reporting what it does.
The problem is not only whether we'd be sued (though that's a consideration), but also a question of fairness. WP articles should strive to be well-referenced, balanced, fair, and encyclopedic. Repeating a claim that a named individual was called a kook by a bunch of anonymous Usenet posters is none of those things, and if he says it's hurting his reputation and business, we ought to respect that and just get rid of it. When it's repeated by the New York Times, we can stick it back in again.
It starts to look like bullying, whether the kook award was justified or not.
Sarah
On Thu, 5 May 2005 slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/5/05, Josh Gordon joshua.p.gordon@gmail.com wrote:
This fellow is one of the pure ones. A wee bit of research shows he's been threatening to sue anyone who suggests he is anything other than brilliant for a decade or so.
If we're going to have an article on alt.usenet.kooks, it makes sense to report on what they do...
Josh, the problem is that we could use Usenet to ridicule any number of people simply by creatring an article about a Usenet group, and then saying we're only reporting what it does.
The problem is not only whether we'd be sued (though that's a consideration), but also a question of fairness. WP articles should strive to be well-referenced, balanced, fair, and encyclopedic. Repeating a claim that a named individual was called a kook by a bunch of anonymous Usenet posters is none of those things, and if he says it's hurting his reputation and business, we ought to respect that and just get rid of it. When it's repeated by the New York Times, we can stick it back in again.
It starts to look like bullying, whether the kook award was justified or not.
I'm siding with Sarah on this one. A post to Usenet should NEVER be used as sole proof for anything.
While there is an awful lot of valuable information on Usenet, far too often false information is contributed to a Usenet group out of a desire to defraud, to slander, in humor, or simply out of boredom. As an example, ISTR a post somewhere stating that I once supported myself selling drugs while in college -- & no, it's not true, so all requests for illicit substances will be deleted unread! ;-)
Usenet is often little more than idle gossip traded by computer users waiting for their programs to compile -- & I challenge anyone to offer a simple rule to determine which posts are unsuitable for citation, & which are. (I suspect that any such argument will simply be a reprise of the recent discussion over which pictures are suitable for children, except that Wikipedia has no way to turn off Usenet citations.)
Other times, information on Usenet is provided by individuals who are either anonymous or pseudonymous -- thus making them not only unverifiable, but irresponsible because they can't easily be held liable to suit by slander or libel. And until a fairly recent date - 10 or 15 years ago - Usenet's contents were very ephemeral: material posted on Usenet was expected to vanish from record in less than 30, 15 or even a few days. (It's only by accident that Google contains most of its pre-1994 posts, when the old Deja News started archiving Usenet. Before then, about the only news groups that were acrchived were in the comp.sources.* hierarchy; the rest were considered about as interesting as old high school student newspapers.)
And then there is the problem that citing from Usenet lends itself to quoting out of context . . .
However, web pages are another problem entirely, & their material is far more stable, & not subject to the same limitations Usenet is. And ISTR that there is/was a webpage dedicated to recording the unhappy recipients of the KOTM award. Does anyone have that URL -- either current or where to find it on the Wayback Machine?
Geoff
Geoff Burling wrote:
Usenet is often little more than idle gossip traded by computer users waiting for their programs to compile -- & I challenge anyone to offer a simple rule to determine which posts are unsuitable for citation, & which are. (I suspect that any such argument will simply be a reprise of the recent discussion over which pictures are suitable for children, except that Wikipedia has no way to turn off Usenet citations.)
That sounds like a notability argument, which is another matter entirely. There are plenty of non-notable things not worth a mention in Wikipedia. However, I'm not sure the alt.usenet.kooks "KOTM award" is one of them---I had heard of it before coming to Wikipedia, and it's somewhat well-known in the net-culture world. Not quite the [[IgNobel Awards]] --- another set of "anti-awards" --- but not entirely unheard-of either.
-Mark
On Thu, 5 May 2005, Delirium wrote:
Geoff Burling wrote:
Usenet is often little more than idle gossip traded by computer users waiting for their programs to compile -- & I challenge anyone to offer a simple rule to determine which posts are unsuitable for citation, & which are. (I suspect that any such argument will simply be a reprise of the recent discussion over which pictures are suitable for children, except that Wikipedia has no way to turn off Usenet citations.)
That sounds like a notability argument, which is another matter entirely. There are plenty of non-notable things not worth a mention in Wikipedia. However, I'm not sure the alt.usenet.kooks "KOTM award" is one of them---I had heard of it before coming to Wikipedia, and it's somewhat well-known in the net-culture world. Not quite the [[IgNobel Awards]] --- another set of "anti-awards" --- but not entirely unheard-of either.
That was not my intent: by saying "idle gossip traded by computer users waiting for their programs to compile" I was trying to emphasize the fact many -- if not most -- Usenet users did not take their posting seriously, thus if a Wikipedian documents an assertion with only a cite from a Usenet post, it is the same as saying "It must be true; I read it on the Internet" -- a comment that allows me to elicit peals of laughter from librarians for some reason.
Because Usenet, Slashdot, blogs & similar fora allow anyone to post about anything -- they do. Discussion threads can lead all over the place, & a thoughtful contribution can be followed by an off-topic vulgar insult. If a Wikipedian cites something that she/he saw on Usenet, how can the user be sure that the original statement was made by a qualified expert & not just another opinionated & uninformed loudmouth?
Stan perhaps made my point better later in this thread:
Another way to think about this is how you would write up policy. Would you declare "Usenet is not credible"? Some of the postings to it are authentic and authoritative though, so you'd have to introduce some way to distinguish. "No naming of non-notable people?" Then you're just in the never-ending argument about notability. "Have a sense of decency?" Nice, but too subjective for WP editors to use, given how many of them seem to fall outside the three-sigma range for human behavior... :-)
The easiest test for reliability of any information posted on Usenet is to quote it at second hand -- from a book, magazine or website that has quoted it. In other words, someone else has bet their own reputation on the specific post as being credible. And in my experience, everything that is credible on Usenet eventually appears in another place. Which leads to another test: if a post gets explicit confirmation outside of Usenet, the post should be cited _if_ it is integral to the article. An example would be a link to the original Usenet post about the Pentium bug, which IIRC was first announced on Usenet -- but had been confirmed by countless other reports.
But if the material only exists in a Usenet post, then the post should not be cited.
Geoff
Hi!
On Thu, 5 May 2005 15:11:30 -0600, slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Josh, the problem is that we could use Usenet to ridicule any number of people simply by creatring an article about a Usenet group, and then saying we're only reporting what it does.
Well, I have to disagree there - this particular newsgroup was not only made for the explicit discussion of kooks, and a while ago, too. It also takes something to get elected "kook of the year", not to mention "kook of the millenium". So that is decidedly not the same as quoting random posts, which indeed *could* under specific circumstances be unfair and/or lead to legal trouble.
Alex
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Right, I agree. But then there's no need to name the award winners. As soon as you do that, you're reporting that X was said about John Smith. You're not commenting on the truth of it, but you're repeating the allegation. Therefore, it must have been published by a credible, secondary source. That's our policy.
Where do we have such a policy? Primary sources are perfectly fine for verifying allegations made by that source. For example, if a U.S. Congressman were to make a speech in which he alleged something, a transcript of the speech would be a perfectly acceptable source for this---we don't have to cite a newspaper report on the speech instead.
-Mark
On 5/5/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Therefore, it must have been published by a credible, secondary source. That's our policy.
It is?
However, I'm not sure that alt.usenet.kooks itself is of sufficient importance for its opinions to have an article in the first place, but that's a matter for debate elsewhere.
-Matt
Here, Usenet is being used as a primary source: of the opinions of contributors to alt.usenet.kooks. Ed Wollman's posts to Usenet themselves are also primary sources. Note that this is not bringing up someone's name who chooses to remain private.
-Matt
On 5/5/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote: Our policy states that our secondary sources must be credible, reputable, and in some way authoritative: see, for example, WP:NOR. It's admittedly hard to define these terms, but Usenet doesn't count as any of those by any standard, not least because the posts are largely anonymous.
This is very true. There are Sherilyn posts on Google Groups that even I have to look at closely before I can tell if it was I or one of many impostors who wrote them.
On 5/5/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
And that's fine, Mark. But we can't name the people.
If it's a verifiable fact that's germane to the article and presented within the NPOV guidelines, why can't we name them?
slimvirgin@gmail.com (slimvirgin@gmail.com) [050506 06:15]:
On 5/5/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Actually famous Usenet crank. More coherent than Sollog. Lots of material on skeptictank.com .
I think the point here is that WP policy states that we must used only reputable or credible published sources as secondary sources, and Usenet doesn't count as that. It can be used as primary-source material for information about itself, but it can't be used as a secondary source of information about someone else, especially not when we're using a person's real name (unlike the case of Sollog).
Uh, [[alt.usenet.kooks]] is an article about a Usenet group.
- d.
Is this group itself even notable? 5,100 Google hits, and minusing the Usenet indexes, thats not much.
As for mentioning names, I think it is fine, if presented in the right way. Saying "Given the 'honour' of being named 'Kook of the Year'" isn't really the way to put it, as stating 'honour' in quotation marks is NPOV in itself. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Gerard" fun@thingy.apana.org.au To: slimvirgin@gmail.com; "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 9:31 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Abuse of your services
slimvirgin@gmail.com (slimvirgin@gmail.com) [050506 06:15]:
On 5/5/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Actually famous Usenet crank. More coherent than Sollog. Lots of
material
on skeptictank.com .
I think the point here is that WP policy states that we must used only reputable or credible published sources as secondary sources, and Usenet doesn't count as that. It can be used as primary-source material for information about itself, but it can't be used as a secondary source of information about someone else, especially not when we're using a person's real name (unlike the case of Sollog).
Uh, [[alt.usenet.kooks]] is an article about a Usenet group.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l