[WikiEN-l] CITE nazis

[stevertigo]

-- David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> e.g. the War on Blogs, wherein some editors have got it into their
> heads that ALL BLOGS ARE EVIL AND MUST NEVER BE USED IN REFERENCES
> rather than e.g. regarding them as, say, lesser sources than
> peer-reviewed academic papers and assuming the reader can read. The
> response to crap sources is to say "those are crap sources, cut it
> out" rather than countering foolishness with foolishness.
> 
> On non-contentious topics, the right way to do it would be to shift it
> to the talk page for discussion and an attempt at sourcing, e.g. the
> stuff on the early [[Casio Exilim]]s being crap in low light is
> observed by a pile of Exilim owners (e.g. me) but I can't find a good
> source - so out it goes as original research, but it's on the talk
> page should I or someone find something verifiable showing this to be
> an issue.
> 
> On contentious topics, there is good reason to be hard-arsed about
> sources. But that doesn't mean you go overboard and legalistic because
> someone who hates blogs edit-warred that wording into WP:V.

David, one evil does not justify another.

-Stevertigo

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com