From: "MacGyverMagic/Mgm"
<macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:55:16 +0100
Really, the *entire* article was unverifiable?
That is very hard to believe.
Why were those sources called into question if it wasn't the dead tree
thing
cited in an earlier email?
Mgm
Well, most of them weren't independent sources, being links to gnaa.us and
gnaauk.co.uk.
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.
Tony/GTBacchus
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://cl…