Sean Barrett (sean(a)epoptic.org) [050507 07:27]:
slimvirgin(a)gmail.com stated for the record:
>David, if you're saying Usenet is sometimes an
acceptable source, and
>that we ought to judge its validity on a case-by-case basis (as a
>secondary source), I'll have to ask you to show me where in any of our
>policy documents that is stated or implied, because my understanding
>of all the relevant policies is that they are worded precisely so that
>these issues are *not* judged by individual editors on a case-by-case
>basis. Usenet is only allowed as primary-source material in articles
>about itself, and then only in very limited ways, carefully worded,
>balanced by other sources.
Frankly, an unthinking no-tolerance policy that
material in, frex,
sci.space.moderated is somehow untouchable is a stupid policy, and I for
one will be bold and continue to ignore it.
Indeed. For example, it is *impossible* to tell the story of
[[Scientology]] over the last decade without reference to Usenet. The CoS
has made
groups.google.com unreliable, but the relevant posts put on the
Web are frequently (and properly) used as Wikipedia sources.
- d.