| Revision as of 00:10, 4 January 2007 editSwatjester (talk | contribs)Administrators27,264 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:35, 4 January 2007 edit undoMetamagician3000 (talk | contribs)Administrators10,852 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| Yes, I agree on all counts above. Newsgroup posts should be allowed as a primary source on the grounds to document that the Great Flame War existed, but should not be allowed as a primary source to claim that Smart is an addicted newsgroup flamer (which doesn't even matter because there is plenty of other material about his contentiousness). Therefore, we can have a sentence or three saying "there was a big flame war on usenet, smart was one of the participants. Blah blah blah a little more exposition, blah blah blah. It's been commented on by various industry sources and has become somethng of a meme." and cite the newsgroups as well as the commentary from gamespy et al, but it prevents and BLP claims of defamation because it does not allow editors to say "Smart is this...." ] ] ] 00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | Yes, I agree on all counts above. Newsgroup posts should be allowed as a primary source on the grounds to document that the Great Flame War existed, but should not be allowed as a primary source to claim that Smart is an addicted newsgroup flamer (which doesn't even matter because there is plenty of other material about his contentiousness). Therefore, we can have a sentence or three saying "there was a big flame war on usenet, smart was one of the participants. Blah blah blah a little more exposition, blah blah blah. It's been commented on by various industry sources and has become somethng of a meme." and cite the newsgroups as well as the commentary from gamespy et al, but it prevents and BLP claims of defamation because it does not allow editors to say "Smart is this...." ] ] ] 00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :Honestly people, I'm the sort of person who is more likely to know something about ] than ], and I'm not familiar with the Usenet posts you're all talking about. But from what has been said of them ove time, I'd say any use should be ''very'' limited, and it may not be necessary or appropriate to use them at all. Rather than stray into the grey areas of original research, I'd rather you say, "Smart is notorious within the gaming community for his contentious role in a lengthy and intense flamewar on Usenet", and then cite an appropriate secondary source for that claim. You can add, "This has become something of an internet meme" adding another secondary source "and has been commented on by ''Foo'' magazine and ''Snark'' magazine" (with appropriate citations). The whole thing can be very brief - just a few sentences - as both of you suggest, to avoid undue weight, and it should not be given undue weight when it is referred to in the lead. All that said, I'm not trying to ''rule'' on this or something. Perhaps the community as a whole needs to look at it. I'm just adding my two cents' worth for whatever value it has, having been briefly involved as a neutral party a few months ago. ] 00:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:35, 4 January 2007
Regarding the use of sources, I'm a bit concerned that insufficient guidance might come out of the case, or that the waters might end up being even murkier than they were. Admins who find themselves from time to time trying to mediate content disputes and to act as a voice of reason could do with a bit more certainty about the application of Misplaced Pages policy in this area. Maybe it means that people like me have to involve ourselves more in relevant policy pages, but my own sense of things was that attempts to construct an interpretation from primary sources would be original research. For example, it is acceptable to use movie X as a source for the fact that the hero of movie X dies in the end (if that is an uncontroversial fact and not something that is reasonably open to interpretation and debate). However, it is not acceptable to use movie X, movie Y, and movie Z as primary sources for the claim (whether stated implicitly in some way or merely insinuated) that director A (who directed them all) is obsessed with death, based on the fact that lots of people die in all these movies. If we want to offer that interpretation, we have to find a body of film criticism in which the claim is made, and we must attribute it to the critics concerned.
It seems to me that the above kind of distinction is not very difficult to understand, or for good-faith contributors to apply. In this case, it would severely limit, if not entirely curtail, the use that could be made of Smart's Usenet's posts as sources. To make any generalisation about their content, it would be necessary to find (and properly attribute) a sufficiently weighty and reliable secondary source.
Metamagician3000 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed on all counts. Would there be general consensus, however, that the Usenet posts might be referenced as one source to merely document the existence and general character of "The Great Flame War?" (I'm thinking of one or two brief sentences - that's all.) I agree that trying to wring detailed information out of the Usenet posts would be folly. But I do believe that simply using them to cite their own existence is rather trivial. There's definitely a fine line we must not cross but I'm sure that good editors can manage to stay on the right side of that line.
- I am also not in agreement that disallowing any mention of the Usenet posts themselves would kill the article as there are other references that are sufficient to acknowledge the existence and general character of these incidents. That, of course, is not a good reason to disallow the use of the Usenet posts but I do not fear for the article's existence without them. --ElKevbo 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree on all counts above. Newsgroup posts should be allowed as a primary source on the grounds to document that the Great Flame War existed, but should not be allowed as a primary source to claim that Smart is an addicted newsgroup flamer (which doesn't even matter because there is plenty of other material about his contentiousness). Therefore, we can have a sentence or three saying "there was a big flame war on usenet, smart was one of the participants. Blah blah blah a little more exposition, blah blah blah. It's been commented on by various industry sources and has become somethng of a meme." and cite the newsgroups as well as the commentary from gamespy et al, but it prevents and BLP claims of defamation because it does not allow editors to say "Smart is this...." ⇒ SWATJester 00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Honestly people, I'm the sort of person who is more likely to know something about Ninian Smart than Derek Smart, and I'm not familiar with the Usenet posts you're all talking about. But from what has been said of them ove time, I'd say any use should be very limited, and it may not be necessary or appropriate to use them at all. Rather than stray into the grey areas of original research, I'd rather you say, "Smart is notorious within the gaming community for his contentious role in a lengthy and intense flamewar on Usenet", and then cite an appropriate secondary source for that claim. You can add, "This has become something of an internet meme" adding another secondary source "and has been commented on by Foo magazine and Snark magazine" (with appropriate citations). The whole thing can be very brief - just a few sentences - as both of you suggest, to avoid undue weight, and it should not be given undue weight when it is referred to in the lead. All that said, I'm not trying to rule on this or something. Perhaps the community as a whole needs to look at it. I'm just adding my two cents' worth for whatever value it has, having been briefly involved as a neutral party a few months ago. Metamagician3000 00:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)