[WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

[Christopher Hagar]

Sourcing guidelines may need revision, especially for the future increase in
online news sources. In such case, however, a blog is only as reliable as
its author with regard to the subject for which it used as source. The blogs
in question for this article, while perhaps reliable on political theory or
television, were not reliable with regard to GNAA. It is pretty likely,
actually, that they got their information from Wikipedia either directly or
through the conduit of other websites. They have no expertise in Internet
troll groups.

On 11/28/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/28/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Of those that were independent, they fell into three classes: some made
> > only
> > a passing mention of GNAA, some were articles where GNAA was only
> > mentioned
> > in the message board responses at the bottom, and those that were
> actually
> > *about* GNAA were blogs (there were one or two of those).  We use plenty
> > of
> > internet sources (not the least of which is IMDb, and I've seen plenty
> of
> > citations to online mags like Salon and Slate), but blogs have been
> deemed
> > below the threshhold.
>
>
> Which is ridiculous, because blogs are a medium, not a particular source.
> Banning all blogs as sources is absurd. A much better policy, one which
> respects the reader rather than treating him like a child, is to source
> the
> articles properly. If the source is a blog, the reader can supply his
> judgment in how much credence to give the source. Similarly with say, the
> New York Times, CNN, or the Washington Times, or Pravda.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>