User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-45692830-20200610235524/@comment-45692830-20200611053155: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
So I took some time to trawl through old threads and found [[Forum:Are Blogs valid sources?]]. There's not that much here different from the actual policy in [[T:UNOFF REF]], but we can make it a little bit clearer as to my argument that the current policy wasn't built to handle the current situation. | So I took some time to trawl through old threads and found [[Forum:Are Blogs valid sources?]]. There's not that much here different from the actual policy in [[T:UNOFF REF]], but we can make it a little bit clearer as to my argument that the current policy wasn't built to handle the current situation. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 4: | ||
But this just isn't the approach taken by About Time or Running Through Corridors, two of the closest analogues. The policy seems designed for a cataloguing, rather than an analysis. Equally, however, it's not the case that the statements made in [[TARDIS Eruditorum]] are those of opinion. While I may object to some bits of scientific inaccuracy in her treatment of alchemy, for instance, I still acknowledge that the particular flaw exhibited is one we'd expect to see in a literary analysis of ''Doctor Who''. It's very much a scholarly work. So it fits none of the categories that currently exist. | But this just isn't the approach taken by About Time or Running Through Corridors, two of the closest analogues. The policy seems designed for a cataloguing, rather than an analysis. Equally, however, it's not the case that the statements made in [[TARDIS Eruditorum]] are those of opinion. While I may object to some bits of scientific inaccuracy in her treatment of alchemy, for instance, I still acknowledge that the particular flaw exhibited is one we'd expect to see in a literary analysis of ''Doctor Who''. It's very much a scholarly work. So it fits none of the categories that currently exist. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20200610235524-45692830/20200611053155-45692830]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 23:46, 27 April 2023
So I took some time to trawl through old threads and found Forum:Are Blogs valid sources?. There's not that much here different from the actual policy in T:UNOFF REF, but we can make it a little bit clearer as to my argument that the current policy wasn't built to handle the current situation.
Blogs are generally invalid sources for statements of fact, except when: [...] they are independent of the BBC, but take a scholarly approach, using sources deemed acceptable by tardis:resources (nevertheless all such statements should be specifically footnoted or classed as the opinion of the researcher inline)
But this just isn't the approach taken by About Time or Running Through Corridors, two of the closest analogues. The policy seems designed for a cataloguing, rather than an analysis. Equally, however, it's not the case that the statements made in TARDIS Eruditorum are those of opinion. While I may object to some bits of scientific inaccuracy in her treatment of alchemy, for instance, I still acknowledge that the particular flaw exhibited is one we'd expect to see in a literary analysis of Doctor Who. It's very much a scholarly work. So it fits none of the categories that currently exist.
