Forum:Doctorwhospoilers.com is not a valid resource: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (Sorry for having to do this, but I'm being forced to change my sig, and clean up after it, by Wikia Staff) |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{archive|Panopticon archives}}[[category:policy explanations]] | ||
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | ||
Y'know, I don't really go to the series 6 page so much. But some recent technical concerns by [[user:mini-mitch|mini-mitch]] drove me there recently, and I was appalled at what I saw. Do you know we have over 40 citations from doctorwhospoilers.com? Guys, that site is in no way valid under [[tardis:resources]]. All links to it ''must'' be removed, and the site should be explicitly blacklisted in our resources policy. It's not a reputable news outlet. (As things stand, the policy simply doesn't list doctorwhospoilers.com as an acceptable website. We should probably go stronger and specifically deny it.) It's very clear that it's one fan maintaining the site, so it's in no way a peer-reviewed publication. And he explicitly says at the bottom of the front page: | Y'know, I don't really go to the series 6 page so much. But some recent technical concerns by [[user:mini-mitch|mini-mitch]] drove me there recently, and I was appalled at what I saw. Do you know we have over 40 citations from doctorwhospoilers.com? Guys, that site is in no way valid under [[tardis:resources]]. All links to it ''must'' be removed, and the site should be explicitly blacklisted in our resources policy. It's not a reputable news outlet. (As things stand, the policy simply doesn't list doctorwhospoilers.com as an acceptable website. We should probably go stronger and specifically deny it.) It's very clear that it's one fan maintaining the site, so it's in no way a peer-reviewed publication. And he explicitly says at the bottom of the front page: | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
'''Every single item on the series 6 page which derives from this site, or any site like it, should be immediately removed from the wiki.''' | '''Every single item on the series 6 page which derives from this site, or any site like it, should be immediately removed from the wiki.''' | ||
Remember, just because you can find ''a'' reference on the internet doesn't mean it's a ''good'' reference. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | Remember, just because you can find ''a'' reference on the internet doesn't mean it's a ''good'' reference. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}'''19:02:01 Mon '''28 Mar 2011 </span> | ||
:There has been thing i noticed on that site. Like 'Fan X has stopped this' and it become major news on the site. It should be used of two thing: rumours and casting, which of course mention an official source, or back up on. I don't think everything should be removed. Series 6 should remain as it is, and from now on(or from Series 7 (if there is one)), we then take a tougher view on sources. [[User:Mini-mitch|Mini-mitch]]\[[User talk:Mini-mitch|talk]] 19:14, March 28, 2011 (UTC) | :There has been thing i noticed on that site. Like 'Fan X has stopped this' and it become major news on the site. It should be used of two thing: rumours and casting, which of course mention an official source, or back up on. I don't think everything should be removed. Series 6 should remain as it is, and from now on(or from Series 7 (if there is one)), we then take a tougher view on sources. [[User:Mini-mitch|Mini-mitch]]\[[User talk:Mini-mitch|talk]] 19:14, March 28, 2011 (UTC) | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
Avoid using non-peer-reviewed sources such as Wikipedia, the Internet Movie Database, or even the TARDIS Index File as cited sources for information such as airdates, casting, etc.|[[tardis:Manual of Style#Sources]]}} | Avoid using non-peer-reviewed sources such as Wikipedia, the Internet Movie Database, or even the TARDIS Index File as cited sources for information such as airdates, casting, etc.|[[tardis:Manual of Style#Sources]]}} | ||
::The site itself identifies as "completely unofficial". Case closed. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | ::The site itself identifies as "completely unofficial". Case closed. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}'''20:35:11 Mon '''28 Mar 2011 </span> | ||
I have to take the blame for this. I was the person that started using D.W.S as a active source, so I apologise, BUT I do have a point to make. Soem of the facts are true, like episode 3's name is ''The Doctor's Wife'' and they have extensive CV sources that notify them when a casting decision is made. Mabye, instead of totally blacklisting it, we should only use casting sources? I know it would be hard and it's breaking the manual of style, but some of the facts are true. --[[User:Ghastly9090|Ghastly9090]] 15:08, March 29, 2011 (UTC) | I have to take the blame for this. I was the person that started using D.W.S as a active source, so I apologise, BUT I do have a point to make. Soem of the facts are true, like episode 3's name is ''The Doctor's Wife'' and they have extensive CV sources that notify them when a casting decision is made. Mabye, instead of totally blacklisting it, we should only use casting sources? I know it would be hard and it's breaking the manual of style, but some of the facts are true. --[[User:Ghastly9090|Ghastly9090]] 15:08, March 29, 2011 (UTC) | ||
You should have stopped with the apology.----[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]]--<small>[[User talk:Skittles the hog|Talk]]</small> 15:53, March 29, 2011 (UTC) | :You should have stopped with the apology.----[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]]--<small>[[User talk:Skittles the hog|Talk]]</small> 15:53, March 29, 2011 (UTC) | ||
::Oh, some facts are true on ''any'' site. A 10-year-old experimenting with web design might well create a ''Doctor Who'' site which asserts a true fact about the show. But we still don't use such a site as a reference. In the cases you give, above, the thing you would site is the '''actual CV''', not someone's ''report'' of the CV. Put another way, there's ''never'' a reason to cite DWS directly, but it's certainly possible that DWS might ''lead'' you to a source acceptable to our MOS. And there's no reason to apologise. It's an understandable mistake. But if you could please start removing your mistaken citations, that'd be great. :) {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}'''16:12:29 Tue '''29 Mar 2011 </span> | |||
:::It's impossible. I tried it last night and gave up. We should stop using Doctorwhospoilers from now on, and leave the current references as they are. If we have a Series 7, then we can take a much tougher look a references. If we were to remove the site form Series 6, we can't do it until we have sources for all the cast members. Rumours should stay as they are, as long as the source mentions an official site. In Summer, after part one of Series 6 is air, then we may discuss the references then. [[User:Mini-mitch|Mini-mitch]]\[[User talk:Mini-mitch|talk]] 16:27, March 29, 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::Hardly, I just removed a bunch of references from the cast section. You could undo this and either find proper references or insert the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> template. Obviously the latter would be a bit stupid as it will clog up the page. You can't just leave these references in; they directly defy policy.----[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]]--<small>[[User talk:Skittles the hog|Talk]]</small> 16:38, March 29, 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::We're not looking to removed the source, but to replace it. I'm all basically saying is we '''stop''' adding the source from Doctorwhospoilers, and try to replace what we have with a proper source. If not just use the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>.{{Unsigned|Mini-mitch}} | |||
::::::I don't know who your we is. From what I can see '''community''' policy dictates their removal. Replace them if you wish, but don't leave them hanging around.----[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]]--<small>[[User talk:Skittles the hog|Talk]]</small> 17:03, March 29, 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I'll remove the Doctorwhospoiler references from them all. Add the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> and then find sources. I can start today, but I might need tomorrow as well. I'll add the <nowiki>{{insuse}}</nowiki> template to the page during this time. [[User:Mini-mitch|Mini-mitch]]\[[User talk:Mini-mitch|talk]] 17:07, March 29, 2011 (UTC) | |||
Sounds good, but I doubt you'll be able to find valid references for them all.----[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]]--<small>[[User talk:Skittles the hog|Talk]]</small> 17:10, March 29, 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 03:33, 28 August 2012
Y'know, I don't really go to the series 6 page so much. But some recent technical concerns by mini-mitch drove me there recently, and I was appalled at what I saw. Do you know we have over 40 citations from doctorwhospoilers.com? Guys, that site is in no way valid under tardis:resources. All links to it must be removed, and the site should be explicitly blacklisted in our resources policy. It's not a reputable news outlet. (As things stand, the policy simply doesn't list doctorwhospoilers.com as an acceptable website. We should probably go stronger and specifically deny it.) It's very clear that it's one fan maintaining the site, so it's in no way a peer-reviewed publication. And he explicitly says at the bottom of the front page:
This site is based upon the information from a number of sources, but primarily from the 'Infinte Quest' section of Gallifrey Base.
and
This site should be in no way, shape or form be considered anything approximating the merest hint of the possibility of being official or complete.
Here's what can happen by using this site. TardisFan1975, a hypothetical user of Gallifrey Base, gets drunk one night in his native Arkansas. He decides he's gonna have a bit of fun. So he logs into Gallifrey Base, posts a rumour that he's entirely invented. It spreads across other threads, as things are wont to do on GB. The dude running doctorwhospoilers.com picks up on it, because it's trending across several threads. He's a busy guy. He's got no time to go check out how the rumour originated. He just accepts, because it's spreading like wildfire, that there must be something in it. So he puts it up on his site. We then quote doctorwhospoilers.com and — like bad, bad magic — a drunk guy in Arkansas has managed to affect our content. And, worse, we're passing it on to other people.
That's completely unacceptable.
Every single item on the series 6 page which derives from this site, or any site like it, should be immediately removed from the wiki.
Remember, just because you can find a reference on the internet doesn't mean it's a good reference.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 19:02:01 Mon 28 Mar 2011
- There has been thing i noticed on that site. Like 'Fan X has stopped this' and it become major news on the site. It should be used of two thing: rumours and casting, which of course mention an official source, or back up on. I don't think everything should be removed. Series 6 should remain as it is, and from now on(or from Series 7 (if there is one)), we then take a tougher view on sources. Mini-mitch\talk 19:14, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
- I completely disagree. We must stamp this out now. It's black and white. Our manual of style says:
Sources must be verifiable, please do not cite sources such as; fan forums, fan blogs, or other truly unofficial material, this is especially important when citing information regarding living people, upcoming stories, airdates, etc. Such sources are notoriously inaccurate and few if any are edited. Especially with regards to information about upcoming stories and other broadcast matter, BBC announcements should take precedence among all other sources. Officially licensed media such as Doctor Who Magazine, or news sites of long-standing such as The Doctor Who News Page (among others) are acceptable. Reports in major media (i.e. The Times, Associated Press, CNN, Reuters, BBC News etc.) are also acceptable.
Avoid using non-peer-reviewed sources such as Wikipedia, the Internet Movie Database, or even the TARDIS Index File as cited sources for information such as airdates, casting, etc.
I have to take the blame for this. I was the person that started using D.W.S as a active source, so I apologise, BUT I do have a point to make. Soem of the facts are true, like episode 3's name is The Doctor's Wife and they have extensive CV sources that notify them when a casting decision is made. Mabye, instead of totally blacklisting it, we should only use casting sources? I know it would be hard and it's breaking the manual of style, but some of the facts are true. --Ghastly9090 15:08, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
- You should have stopped with the apology.----Skittles the hog--Talk 15:53, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, some facts are true on any site. A 10-year-old experimenting with web design might well create a Doctor Who site which asserts a true fact about the show. But we still don't use such a site as a reference. In the cases you give, above, the thing you would site is the actual CV, not someone's report of the CV. Put another way, there's never a reason to cite DWS directly, but it's certainly possible that DWS might lead you to a source acceptable to our MOS. And there's no reason to apologise. It's an understandable mistake. But if you could please start removing your mistaken citations, that'd be great. :)
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 16:12:29 Tue 29 Mar 2011
- Oh, some facts are true on any site. A 10-year-old experimenting with web design might well create a Doctor Who site which asserts a true fact about the show. But we still don't use such a site as a reference. In the cases you give, above, the thing you would site is the actual CV, not someone's report of the CV. Put another way, there's never a reason to cite DWS directly, but it's certainly possible that DWS might lead you to a source acceptable to our MOS. And there's no reason to apologise. It's an understandable mistake. But if you could please start removing your mistaken citations, that'd be great. :)
- It's impossible. I tried it last night and gave up. We should stop using Doctorwhospoilers from now on, and leave the current references as they are. If we have a Series 7, then we can take a much tougher look a references. If we were to remove the site form Series 6, we can't do it until we have sources for all the cast members. Rumours should stay as they are, as long as the source mentions an official site. In Summer, after part one of Series 6 is air, then we may discuss the references then. Mini-mitch\talk 16:27, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
- Hardly, I just removed a bunch of references from the cast section. You could undo this and either find proper references or insert the {{fact}} template. Obviously the latter would be a bit stupid as it will clog up the page. You can't just leave these references in; they directly defy policy.----Skittles the hog--Talk 16:38, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
- We're not looking to removed the source, but to replace it. I'm all basically saying is we stop adding the source from Doctorwhospoilers, and try to replace what we have with a proper source. If not just use the {{fact}}.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mini-mitch (talk • contribs) .
- I don't know who your we is. From what I can see community policy dictates their removal. Replace them if you wish, but don't leave them hanging around.----Skittles the hog--Talk 17:03, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
- I'll remove the Doctorwhospoiler references from them all. Add the {{fact}} and then find sources. I can start today, but I might need tomorrow as well. I'll add the {{insuse}} template to the page during this time. Mini-mitch\talk 17:07, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good, but I doubt you'll be able to find valid references for them all.----Skittles the hog--Talk 17:10, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
