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(a)gmail.com <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/05, Delirium <delirium(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l