Forum:What makes a rumour?
I have just recently removed a rumour from the series 7 page (which I did add a while ago), after rereading the source. The rumour was about Jack's return - which the website Doctor Who TV posted - the official source (a interview with Zip2 (or something similar)) and Doctor Who TV posted it, then add their own thought about it being a Series 7 return, which I added to the page.
I have removed as, it's not actually a rumour, it's just Doctor Who TV's own opinion. A rumour should be something that is reported by the media or hinted at by the BBC (including Matt Smith etc).
Let's take the Jack example:
- If a website reports 'Will Jack return in Series 7?' and then goes onto describe the possibility that Jack could return, without having cited a source and is based on guess work - this is not a rumour
however
- If a website reports 'Will Jack return in Series 7?' and has an interview with say John Barrowman or Steven Moffat and they both hint towards it, or they have a link to a site with the interview - then that is a rumour.
Basically, we need to define what a rumour is and where they come from - DoctorWhoTv which we do link to a lot on this, is reliable and usually have cited where they got a 'rumour' from, but do tend sometimes to presume what something means (such as the Jack case) - so should keep using Doctor Who TV or do we just use BBC announcements and reliable newspapers? MM/Want to talk? 17:39, October 28, 2011 (UTC)
- T:SOURCES kinda answers all your questions, really. If the source isn't valid under T:SOURCES, then it can't be used. (DoctorWhoTV is not a valid source under that policy, by the way.) Basically, it has to have made it to one of the national papers, a reputable periodical, or a peer-reviewed website (that is, a website with a well-linked editorial board and editorial structure comprised of multiple individuals), for it to be included. Blogs don't cut it. Even doctorwhonews.com isn't technically good enough under the policy, but every story that goes up on doctorwhonews.com has a link to the original source. It's the original source we should be citing, not, as we so often do, doctorwhonews.com
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 18:57: Fri 28 Oct 2011
- As CzechOut says we need to find the original source, most/some blog sites will cite their original source and that's what we need to seek out.
- I think in your example, if the information needed to be presented, it should be in its original context, not extrapolated by a blogsite.
- DoctorWhoTV is a place to start looking for information, but we need to go back to the interview, press release or article that contains the information, not an interpretation of that information. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:05, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
