[WikiEN-l] Abuse of your services

[slimvirgin at gmail.com]

On 5/7/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> slimvirgin at gmail.com (slimvirgin at gmail.com) [050508 09:45]:
> > On 5/7/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> 
> > > That's why we rely on this thing called "case by case editorial judgement"
> > > to say whether to use them, and readers use a thing called "a clue" to
> > > judge the value of a given source. Your calls for an instant Arbitration
> > > Committee decision in mid-argument on the matter are, frankly,
> > > mind-boggling.
> 
> > Where did I call for an Arbitration Committee decision??
> 
> Ah, you're right, you didn't - instead, you asked for my opinion as a
> member of the arbcom:
> 
>     http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023258.html
> 
> - to which the answer would almost certainly be "you're all adults, work
> this out on a case by case editorial basis rather than by rules-lawyering."
> 
David, I also wasn't asking for your opinion qua member of the arbcom,
and if I gave that impression I apologize. I meant only that, insofar
as you're a member, your opinion about the meaning of policy pages is
important. What I asked was whether you (as an editor) could show me
which Wikipedia policy pages state or imply (or in any way give the
impression) that Usenet is an acceptable source, because my
understanding of all the relevant pages is the opposite, namely that
it would never be an acceptable secondary source. Although now that I
read your post again, you're perhaps agreeing that Usenet isn't
acceptable, but saying that certain Usenet posts might be okay as
source material once posted elsewhere on the Web.

Sarah