| Revision as of 17:36, 7 March 2008 editIdbyou (talk | contribs)6 edits →Microsoft complaints about IBM behavior← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:25, 7 March 2008 edit undoKilz (talk | contribs)1,368 edits →Microsoft complaints about IBM behaviorNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| :::It doesnt matter. This is Misplaced Pages policy. You cant use the source. It is self published, and about whats happening to itself. It has claims about a third party. You cant use the reference. There is consensus not to use it. Replacing it repeatedly is in violation of wikipedia guidelines. Do not replace it or I will get an admin.] (]) 17:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | :::It doesnt matter. This is Misplaced Pages policy. You cant use the source. It is self published, and about whats happening to itself. It has claims about a third party. You cant use the reference. There is consensus not to use it. Replacing it repeatedly is in violation of wikipedia guidelines. Do not replace it or I will get an admin.] (]) 17:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::: ] I suggest you read ] to learn what the "Gold Standard" is. In terms of sources the best is a news site, or a peer reviewed journal. A site put up without any editorial review discussing things that happened to itself is at the bottom of the list. That is because anyone and any company can put up a site on the web. That doesn't make it the authority or the truth. ] (]) 19:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] is very clear, you can not use self published sources. I think the section needs to be removed as it also has claims against a 3rd party (IBM) ] (]) 17:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | ::::] is very clear, you can not use self published sources. I think the section needs to be removed as it also has claims against a 3rd party (IBM) ] (]) 17:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 19:25, 7 March 2008
Microsoft complaints about IBM behavior
I left the section in and removed the Self published source as this would also remove the original research by Synthesis WP:SYN. Please explain the replacement of the page at Microsoft. It dose not pass WP:SOURCES it is a self published source. It needs a 3rd party reference. Kilz (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is very clear on the use of sources. Microsoft in this instance is not a reliable source. It is writing about itself WP:SELFPUB clearly says it cant be used as a reference when it includes claims about third parties.
- Looking at the section it looks like the remaining section does not have a valid reference either. From Questionable sources, it relies heavily on personal opinions of Microsoft. Since they are about a 3rd party, it also in my opinion is unusable. StVectra (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Microsoft is obviously the most reliable and authoritative source on its views on the matter. These published sources are the gold standard for the Misplaced Pages. Suppressing them amounts to censorship and is against NPOV.--66.116.112.4 (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- It doesnt matter. This is Misplaced Pages policy. You cant use the source. It is self published, and about whats happening to itself. It has claims about a third party. You cant use the reference. There is consensus not to use it. Replacing it repeatedly is in violation of wikipedia guidelines. Do not replace it or I will get an admin.Kilz (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- 66.116.112.4 I suggest you read WP:VER to learn what the "Gold Standard" is. In terms of sources the best is a news site, or a peer reviewed journal. A site put up without any editorial review discussing things that happened to itself is at the bottom of the list. That is because anyone and any company can put up a site on the web. That doesn't make it the authority or the truth. Kilz (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- WP:VER is very clear, you can not use self published sources. I think the section needs to be removed as it also has claims against a 3rd party (IBM) Idbyou (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)