On 8/25/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)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