Forum:Rumours and their sources

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Rumours and their sources

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

I think it is time we officially decide what websites we can and can't use for rumours.

There is a confusing over what counts as a valid source for rumours and what doesn't. There are a couple of things we need to look at regarding rumours.

Firstly: The original source. If any site, weather it be Doctor Who TV, Doctor Who News, Digital Spy, Twitter, Gallifrey Base, the Sun etc report a rumour that comes from another source (i.e they are not starting the rumour, they have heard the rumour elsewhere (i.e 'The Daily Mail' are reporting means the Daily Mail would be the original source)) then the original source in which the rumour comes from must be the one that is cited.

Secondly (and mot importantly): What 'original sources' should we be allowed to site. Original source would be where the rumours started. We should come up with a clear list of what websites we should be allowed to cite for rumours. I propose the following be allowed:

• Any BBC website (BBC, Doctor Who, Torchwood etc).
• Newspapers (The Scotsman, Daily Star, The Sun etc).
• Other news websites (Digital Spy, Google news, Sky news etc).
• Social media pages ((Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc) Must be officially recognised and Doctor Who related).

We should then decide on:

• Fan based Doctor Who website (such as Doctor Who TV, Gallifrey Base, Doctor Who News etc).
• Social media pages of fans ((Again, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc) with filming pictures, videos etc).
• SFX, Radio Times, TV guides etc.
• TV/Sci-fi websites.
• Image sites, such as Flickr etc.

Anything else I've missed? I think it is important we do this, so rumours don't go OTT and people add random rumours and unrelated topics. It will also stop fan-based rumours and ideas creeping into the wiki. Let us discuss. MM/Want to talk? 14:39, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

I think if we use fan sources, we should cite at least 5-10 of them to show that it was wide spread and relevant. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 20:30, November 8, 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that T:RW SRC already covers all this. Is there some way in which you feel it's insufficient?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  17:18: Fri 09 Nov 2012

We probably need to fully sort our use of Twitter and social media policy that we discussed in Forum:Using official twitter pages as a source?. I was intending to get to when I had more time (after November) and write a policy based on that discussion and a less extreme version of Wikipedia's policy that CzechOut linked to on that discussion. --Tangerineduel / talk 05:47, November 12, 2012 (UTC)

I just think we have a list, in black and white, on what websites we can and can't use. People may have different opinions on what 'fan forums', unofficial material' and 'good sources' are. There still is a bit of a grey area, and we need to wipe this out. MM/Want to talk? 12:59, November 14, 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of practicality, who's going to maintain the list? There are a growing number of DW websites all the time. Is someone going to be "on watch" to label every new DW site? Do we need to strike off those websites as they go down? It seems to me that a more practical approach is simply to go with parameters in the policies and give a few durable examples. Then, if new sites spring up, we can have Panopticon threads to highlight them as good or bad sources.

In order to bring T:RW SRC into better harmony with the new T:NPOV, I've rewritten T:RW SRC today and gone into greater detail about some points. Hopefully it's not quite as vague.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  23:15: Fri 16 Nov 2012