[WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

Tue Nov 28 22:54:05 UTC 2006

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.