[WikiEN-l] Reliable sources for deaths

[Daniel R. Tobias]

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 18:53:21 -0400, Gwern Branwen wrote:

> Here's what I wonder: how do we apply WP:V to *tweets* in a few
> decades? 

A problem with tweets, even "official" ones, is that Twitter is a 
relatively informal medium compared to most of the others that are 
used as sources.

The problems one needs to consider include:

* Is the 'twitterer' actually an official spokesperson, or possibly 
just somebody impersonating one?  Is the account verified?

* Even if it's known to be the true, official account, do you 
actually know who is providing the information there?  Is it the 
celebrity him/herself, or some marketing flack acting on his/her 
behalf?  Maybe the flack is posting stuff in the celebrity's name 
that they themselves don't agree with, or vice/versa, the celebrity 
is acting as a loose cannon and giving his/her top-of-the-head, spur-
of-the-moment views that don't necessarily represent what direction 
their career and works will go when the marketing types get through 
with them?

* Whoever it is that's posting, are they trustworthy for accurately 
representing the true viewpoint of the entity involved, or are they 
prone to kidding around, starting hoaxes, playing devil's advocate to 
get a reaction, stirring up controversies for publicity, slinging 
bullshit, getting drunk and spouting nonsense, etc.?

* If they keep changing their mind and posting contradictory stuff, 
which one should be regarded as official, or should it just be 
reported that they contradicted themselves?  Should their errors, 
typos, misstatements, misunderstandings, etc., be reported?


-- 
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/