This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bramble window (talk | contribs) at 08:11, 24 September 2014 (←Created page with 'Logged in to help try fix the badly broken Sarkeesian articles, and other Misplaced Pages areas afflicted with extreme imbalance. By broken, I mean the link between th...'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:11, 24 September 2014 by Bramble window (talk | contribs) (←Created page with 'Logged in to help try fix the badly broken Sarkeesian articles, and other Misplaced Pages areas afflicted with extreme imbalance. By broken, I mean the link between th...')(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Logged in to help try fix the badly broken Sarkeesian articles, and other Misplaced Pages areas afflicted with extreme imbalance. By broken, I mean the link between that article and the known reality, rather than the article's strict adherence to the letter of the law.
My personal feeling is that since self-published sources have begun to dominate popular culture Misplaced Pages's restriction on coverage of such sources belongs to a bygone era. Nevertheless, while that restriction remains part of the rules, I'll follow it.
We have a massive public debate going on, with one side of the debate publishing exclusively through self-published sources, and the Misplaced Pages-approved sources (who have anything to say on the matter) exclusively on the other side, and in no mood to provide any kind of balance.
As a result, Misplaced Pages's coverage of the debate is useless, and directly contrary to the known facts. Only one side's view can be given under Misplaced Pages's restriction on coverage of self-published sources. The notion of a single category called "self-published source" that ignores whether the self-published source is read by one person or 5 billion says to me that a radical re-think of the near-blanket ban needs to be started.