On 8/25/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
"first word" would be an unfortunate selection. Due to WP:NOR and WP:V we are expressly forbidden from being the "chronologically the first to report", although it happens a lot and has resulted in no small amount of problems. (We were technically the chronologically first to report Seigenthaler's 'involvement' in the Kennedy assassination, for example) .. and as you point out that first word can be viewed in that sense.
Any suggestions? Is "first source" better? I can't imagine interpreting "First source for information" chronologically...
The use of the word everything is also a potential source of problems. Wikipedia is not the "inital source one consults" about the rumors that your classmate is HIV+.
Sure it is, you'll also find out that he is gay but has a huge penis...
Of course, we can only protect the stupid from themselves so much and no matter what words we use someone would be able to find a problem... but I think we could do better.
Hit me.
Steve