[WikiEN-l] Abuse of your services

Sat May 7 07:12:18 UTC 2005

slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:

>On 5/6/05, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>  
>
>>So, to summarize, there is no policy stating that Usenet is forbidden as
>>a source.  Some people (you, for instance) do not consider it to be
>>reputable source, but nothing forbids some other people (me, for
>>instance) from disagreeing.  And, most importantly, there is no policy
>>permitting anti-Usenetters to delete Usenet-based material /just
>>because/ it originated on Usenet.
>>    
>>
>Sean, did you read WP:NOR? For example, see this section
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication.3F,
>though you also need to read the whole thing through. Also read
>[[WP:NPOV]].  Both state that sources must be published by
>reputable/credible publishers.  I believe [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]
>says the same thing, though it's a while since I've read it. We've
>also had this discussion many, many times on this list, and the
>consensus seems to be that WP sources must be published and must be
>credible.
>
This is ever so much policy-geekism.  I certainly don't need to read 
interminable pages of rules to tell me how to apply common sense.  Much 
of this should never be treated as anything more than guidelines.  It 
may be possible to develop applicable techniques to determine whether 
something has been published, the determination of credibility (whether 
of the work or its publisher) is essentially subjective.  It's 
impossible to say that something is credible without expressing a POV.

Ec