[WikiEN-l] Abuse of your services

Thu May 5 21:02:26 UTC 2005

This fellow is one of the pure ones. A wee bit of research shows he's been 
threatening to sue anyone who suggests he is anything other than brilliant 
for a decade or so. 

If we're going to have an article on alt.usenet.kooks, it makes sense to 
report on what they do...

jpgordon

On 5/5/05, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 5/5/05, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> > No, this isn't using a secondary source. If we are stating the fact
> > "[X] has been named 'Kook of the Year' by the UseNet newsgroup
> > alt.usenet.kooks", then we're using alt.usenet.kooks as a primary source
> > for the award. If we were saying "[X] *is* a UseNet kook", then we
> > would be using it as a secondary source to back up that fact. But we
> > aren't saying anyone is a kook---merely reporting that someone else has
> > said so. In short, the article is about the group and what they've
> > said, using their words as a primary source for what they've said.
> >
> Right, I agree. But then there's no need to name the award winners. As
> soon as you do that, you're reporting that X was said about John
> Smith. You're not commenting on the truth of it, but you're repeating
> the allegation. Therefore, it must have been published by a credible,
> secondary source. That's our policy.
> 
> Mark, I've removed the name again. Now that the problem has been
> pointed out to us, we're on very sticky ground inserting the material
> back into the article. Perhaps we could discuss this instead either
> here or on WP:AN/I? If I'm the only person who thinks it should be
> removed, then obviously I'll abide by the majority view, but I'd like
> to see what a few others think first.
> 
> Sarah
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>