This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cberlet (talk | contribs) at 21:48, 12 May 2008 (typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:48, 12 May 2008 by Cberlet (talk | contribs) (typo)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Request for Comment: Validity of sources
This is a dispute about the validity of information sourced to Discover The Networks.
- Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
- User:Hipocrite has taken it upon himself to comb through the encyclopedia and delete any references sourced to DTN. Hipocrite claims that DTN is in violation of the guideline WP:RS. The only evidence presented by Hipocrite is here where he states "I looked at the website, and determined it was not a reliable source." I posit that until we have reached a consensus about the reliability of said source, Hipocrite should cease his deletion of sourced material from this and many other articles. Cheers. L0b0t 15:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest that editors job is to evaluate the reliability of sources, and the barrier to entry for sources about living people a reasonably high one - a high one that is not lept by sites that gather their information from anonymous tips presented via web interface. I also suggest that no good-faith edit is ever vandalism, but labeling such is not a good faith edit. I further suggest that stalking good contributors like myself from article to article using edit summaries of "rvv" to revert all of their changes is a violation of WP:STALK. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- The information at DTN that I saw was well-sourced, with easily corroborated facts as far as I know. To prove the site is unreliable would require a minimum of one example where it presented any information that was known to be erroneous, false, or unreliable. Not just because you don't like the information. Do you have even one example? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, much of the information on DTN about PRA and Chip Berlet (me) is false, defamatory, and churlish. I have responded to specific falsehoods here. Attempts to get DTN to remove the false claims have been met with silence. See also "The Art of the Slur: From Joe McCarthy to David Horowitz, by Aaron Barlow, The Public Eye Magazine - Fall 2006: "...it was Horowitz who actually codified lying, making it into a tactic rather than just a careless mistake."--Cberlet 18:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- As to the accusation of violating WP:STALK, I had noted the following at : Hipocrite said "I'm reviewing your edit history also. So are scores of other people. If, while doing such, we find errors in articles you have contibuted to, we're gonna fix them." Sauce for the goose... (I don't see it on the current page, but it should be in the History. I gotta run.) Andyvphil 00:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- In a recent AfD for Common Dreams Newscenter several (?) conservative editors claimed that DTN wasn't a RS, and IIRC, argued against linking to it as well. - FaAfA 23:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- At I see Hipcrite and MortonDevonshire rejecting your claim that the article on Common Dreams at DTN counted towards CD's notability. They were wrong. Is there anything at you wish to identify as being in error? Andyvphil 03:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Recent edits are not appropriate
The recent edits add material that has been cherry-picked to imply a criticism of PRA that is not accurate. Most of the quote deals with two other organizations. This is biased POV and should be removed.--Cberlet (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)