No subject

Original Research based on non-reliable sources or none at all. The
fact that somebody posts something critical of Wikipedia on a website
doesn't mean its suitable for inclusion in this article.

>
> The only attempt of a numerical study of our copyright problem that I
> know of, was the one published by Daniel Brandt ("1 to 2 % of
> biographies on wikipedia are plagiarized"). This would be a good
> addition to the article, but it would need a link to Brandt's website
> (wikipedia-watch), which is the only place that the methodology of the
> study is described.

No, it would be a terrible addition to the article, because it
wouldn't comply with [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]].

>
> (I presume wikipedia-watch is on your short list of attack sites; if
> not: what if he had published the results on WR? DB is a frequent
> contributor.)

It would be the same. People can publish anything they like on their
personal websites, blogs, message boards - and they do. Very little of
it can be put into Wikipedia articles, because it doesn't comply with
WP:V and WP:RS.

Jay.