User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-4139960-20130129190934/@comment-26975268-20130722061235: 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: | ||
Bump. Allow me to give some input to feed the discussion. | Bump. Allow me to give some input to feed the discussion. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 6: | ||
After all, we need to create a simple, solid rule. It can't be "sometimes websites can be considered valid, but not always". We can't start forum threads for every single website and every single page on them to determine if they're valid. So, even though I still ''do'' feel like we're missing out on a lot with sections like Torchwood's "jobs", I will grudgingly go with "no websites at all" if that is what the rest feel. | After all, we need to create a simple, solid rule. It can't be "sometimes websites can be considered valid, but not always". We can't start forum threads for every single website and every single page on them to determine if they're valid. So, even though I still ''do'' feel like we're missing out on a lot with sections like Torchwood's "jobs", I will grudgingly go with "no websites at all" if that is what the rest feel. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20130129190934-4139960/20130722061235-26975268]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 23:30, 27 April 2023
Bump. Allow me to give some input to feed the discussion.
I recently revisited the series 2 Torchwood website, which is no longer under the original URL but can still be found here. I would definitely argue that the "jobs" section of the site is perfectly narrative, telling multiple stories from different people's perspectives and overall supplanting information from other media. In fact, notice how you can't even get to the real-world sections of the website from there!
But I suppose some would disagree. Because of the ambiguity of this case, I will (grudgingly — I could fill up half a calendar with that site!) stand by my previous opinion and say that we should not consider websites as a valid source for DWU info. Period.
After all, we need to create a simple, solid rule. It can't be "sometimes websites can be considered valid, but not always". We can't start forum threads for every single website and every single page on them to determine if they're valid. So, even though I still do feel like we're missing out on a lot with sections like Torchwood's "jobs", I will grudgingly go with "no websites at all" if that is what the rest feel.
