[WikiEN-l] blogs vs websites - (was Bauer DRV question - history)

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

"James Farrar" wrote
x 
> On 27/03/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
> <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > "Denny Colt" wrote
> >
> > > I am wondering why the 'blog' aspect itself has this dirty Scarlet Letter
> > > connotation...
> >
> > If you want to use a blog as a source, the burden of proof lies with you to substantiate its reliability. The low barriers to access for blogging mean this is the only sane approach.

> OK, fine; that seems reasonable. It's no excuse for a speedy deletion
> in the current case, though.

Disagree. Articles on living people containing statements likely to damage their way of making a living have to get across some high hurdles. Anything apparently defamatory hardly needs an 'excuse' for zapping. We have a policy on this, which insists on reliable sources. We also discourage the importation into Wikipedia of quarrels from the rest of the Internet (a growing problem). We also discourage under teh heading of 'conflict of interest' various kinds of campaigning; and a recent Arbitration shows that this type of reasoning is likely to be used on material from 'activist' websites. So, even setting aside the issue of whether the blog references in question can be made to stand up, deleting the article (pro tem) is not something I'd want to criticise. Getting potential defamation off the live part of the site gives one a chance to go more properly into the issue. Articles can be restored, you know.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam