Forum:Doctorwhospoilers.com is not a valid resource
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
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 /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">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 /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">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)
