Blogs are often self-serving or a platform for fringe opinions. People using self-published sources are usually out to promote their opinion instead of offering an unbiased article. These rules seem pretty clear and non-contradictory to me. Mgm On 10/19/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster(a)gmail.com> wrote:

For example, I would have no qualms about using the Writer Beware blog as a source. It's an important part of the SFWA (Science Fiction Writers of America), a notable organisation in literature. I also wouldn't have problems with the blogs of reputed directors blogging about the filming process of their new work or the blog at the Newsround website. Random "My Life" blogs however, are not acceptable. Unfortunately, the distinction isn't always easy, especially when the notability of the person writing the blog (about themselves) is in question. Self-published books aren't neccesarily bad sources either. I've heard about 2 guys who are writing a jazz encyclopedia and publishing it on Lulu. It might be a self-published source, but it won't promote their opinion. I'd see no harm in using their work as a source and I'm sure I'd have the same feelings with other self-published books. Mgm On 10/19/06, Rob <gamaliel8(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Please see [[Larry Craig]]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig There are rumors being commented about, but not on the mainstream press, based on a blog post and there is a dispute if [[WP:BLP]] should apply here or not. My view is that we need to err on the side of caution and apply WP:BLP. That is why that policy was created. Wikipedia should not be a place to help the spreading of rumors. I do not want an article in the mainstream media that crtitizes our project for doing such a thing. Erring on the side of caution is the responsible thing to do in this case. Your comments in talk page would be appreciated. -- Jossi

On Oct 19, 2006, at 4:30 PM, Rob wrote: If you refer to this: : http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/10/19/publiceye/entry2108678.shtml ... I would suggest you read it. -- Jossi

On Oct 19, 2006, at 4:36 PM, Rob wrote: Sorry, Rob, I missed to notice that you are Gamaliel. Would want to hear other editor's opinions. -- Jossi

On 10/20/06, jf_wikipedia(a)mac.com <jf_wikipedia(a)mac.com> wrote: This is an unusual case. If I may make a brief summary from what I've read: a) Some guy publishes rumours on his blog, and mentions them while on a radio show b) A small newspaper [1] takes the unusual step of running the rumours c) The rumours spiral through the blogosphere d) The mainstream media publishes opinion pieces using the story to comment on the nature of rumours in the new media [2] So the real story is not about Craig at all. The rumours remain rumours - the attention they have received from all parts of the media has been exclusively "Mike Rogers said this". Other people saying that someone said something doesn't really change the fact that only they said it. We could have a sentence in Craig's article saying "in October, Mike Rogers claimed in his blog that Craig was gay". But would that really be responsible? How notable is Rogers? Blogs are acceptable sources *for the opinions only* of notable people, but what good reason is there to publish Rogers' opinion? We could have a paragraph in Craig's article describing the controversy, including how the Spokesman-Review ran the story and the mainstream commentary on the whole business. But would that be appropriate from a BLP perspective? The real story is only peripherally about Craig. My view is that we should have a nice objective paragraph *about the controversy around reporting the rumours* (not about the rumours themselves) in [[The Spokesman-Review]] article, or perhaps the article on Rogers (if he should actually have an article). ---- (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spokesman-Review (2) http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2006-10-19-raasch_x.h…, http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/10/19/publiceye/entry2108678.shtml -- Stephen Bain stephen.bain(a)gmail.com

On Oct 19, 2006, at 6:10 PM, Bryan Derksen wrote: There is no harm in waiting a few days and see what happens with that story. There is no rush, really. -- Jossi

Abigail Brady wrote: <snip> Oh, well that does it then. I'll order a Level 14 Cabalstrike. -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP