Sean Barrett (sean@epoptic.org) [050507 07:27]:
slimvirgin@gmail.com stated for the record:
David, if you're saying Usenet is sometimes an acceptable source, and that we ought to judge its validity on a case-by-case basis (as a secondary source), I'll have to ask you to show me where in any of our policy documents that is stated or implied, because my understanding of all the relevant policies is that they are worded precisely so that these issues are *not* judged by individual editors on a case-by-case basis. Usenet is only allowed as primary-source material in articles about itself, and then only in very limited ways, carefully worded, balanced by other sources.
Frankly, an unthinking no-tolerance policy that material in, frex, sci.space.moderated is somehow untouchable is a stupid policy, and I for one will be bold and continue to ignore it.
Indeed. For example, it is *impossible* to tell the story of [[Scientology]] over the last decade without reference to Usenet. The CoS has made groups.google.com unreliable, but the relevant posts put on the Web are frequently (and properly) used as Wikipedia sources.
- d.