Trusted
8,412
edits
Mini-mitch (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{archive|Panopticon archives}}[[Category:Discussions without clear resolution]] | ||
<!-- 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 ~~~~ --> | ||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::I reckon use a twitter page as a source for something that it could hold credible information for. Eg. Steven Moffat's twitter could be used as a source for, say, personal details of Moffat's childhood, but not something such as the next 2Entertain DVD release. Get the idea? '''[[User:Tardis1963|<span style="background:#0E234E; color:white">Tardis1963</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:Tardis1963|<span style="background:#0E234E; color:white">talk</span>]]''' 08:53, December 28, 2011 (UTC) | ::I reckon use a twitter page as a source for something that it could hold credible information for. Eg. Steven Moffat's twitter could be used as a source for, say, personal details of Moffat's childhood, but not something such as the next 2Entertain DVD release. Get the idea? '''[[User:Tardis1963|<span style="background:#0E234E; color:white">Tardis1963</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:Tardis1963|<span style="background:#0E234E; color:white">talk</span>]]''' 08:53, December 28, 2011 (UTC) | ||
==Reviving== | ==Reviving== | ||
This never got a definitive answer. Kicking back up the list for more comments before I archive and codify it. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | This never got a definitive answer. Kicking back up the list for more comments before I archive and codify it. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}19:33: Wed 02 May 2012 </span> | ||
:I'd go with Tardis1963's suggestion. | :I'd go with Tardis1963's suggestion. | ||
:For Doctor Who-related info it has to come from "Official" Twitter accounts, and only these. | :For Doctor Who-related info it has to come from "Official" Twitter accounts, and only these. | ||
:For personal information about real world people it can come from ''verified'' Twitter accounts. | :For personal information about real world people it can come from ''verified'' Twitter accounts. | ||
:Is having two rules for different information too complicated though? --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 15:41, May 3, 2012 (UTC) | :Is having two rules for different information too complicated though? --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 15:41, May 3, 2012 (UTC) | ||
::Tricky, this, cause Moffat lies. With his twitter account. Like everyone. And there are only 140 characters. So misinterpretations are more the norm than the exception. Twitter is kinda like reading tea leaves in a cup that's actually made for espresso, isn't it? {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | ::Tricky, this, cause Moffat lies. With his twitter account. Like everyone. And there are only 140 characters. So misinterpretations are more the norm than the exception. Twitter is kinda like reading tea leaves in a cup that's actually made for espresso, isn't it? {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}03:42: Fri 04 May 2012 </span> | ||
:::Well, that's why I said we keep the personal Twitter pages for personal information like; when they were born or what their favourite story is or stuff like that. | :::Well, that's why I said we keep the personal Twitter pages for personal information like; when they were born or what their favourite story is or stuff like that. | ||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
::::I do follow Moffat on Twitter, and the only time he tells the truth is when something has already been announced. I.e a story title. It the BBC announces something, he might back it up. However, most of the time its just teases. People asking him for the truth, they ain't going to get it. [[User:Mini-mitch|MM]]/<small>[[User talk:Mini-mitch|Want to talk?]]</small> 15:28, May 4, 2012 (UTC) | ::::I do follow Moffat on Twitter, and the only time he tells the truth is when something has already been announced. I.e a story title. It the BBC announces something, he might back it up. However, most of the time its just teases. People asking him for the truth, they ain't going to get it. [[User:Mini-mitch|MM]]/<small>[[User talk:Mini-mitch|Want to talk?]]</small> 15:28, May 4, 2012 (UTC) | ||
:This is gonna be a tricky one to write into a clear policy. Not impossible, mind, but just fraught with pitfalls. Cause the thing is, in certain contexts, a "Moffat lie" would indeed be admissible. I mean if we're trying to prove the origin of a myth or give an example of his lying ways, then his twitter account may well be a perfectly valid source. And when you say "official" accounts, are we going to need to create a list of those so that we're clear what's goin' down? Or can we get away with giving a few examples and then hoping that our wide demographic of site editors will know what we mean? | |||
:Here's the contents of {{w|WP:TWITTER}}: | |||
::Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as: | |||
::*the material is not unduly self-serving and exceptional in nature; | |||
::*it does not involve claims about third parties; | |||
::*it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; | |||
::*there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; | |||
::*the article is not based primarily on such sources. | |||
::This policy also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. | |||
:::("Exceptional in nature" here means a claim that is well beyond what would be expected of the person given their other known statements, or a fact that is actively challenged by other sources. Thus, statements on 1 April from ''most'' twitter accounts would likely be seen as "exceptional". Or if Karen Gillan were to tweet now that she's actually '''not''' leaving, we'd have to treat ''that'' as exceptional, since it flies in the face of a ton of other material from reputable news outlets to the contrary.) | |||
:I'm ''not'' advocating a slavish copying of the Wikipedia rule, but it's maybe a starting point. Can we ''start'' with this format and then tweak it, or do we need a great deal more specificity than this? Or, might we have this as the sort of headlining "rule" on the page, with a few examples underneath it. I think what I'm basically trying to figure out is whether we have to list every single twitter account that's acceptable, or can we try to write the policy in a more common sense way? {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}19:45: Fri 04 May 2012 </span> |