Bureaucrats, content-moderator, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, threadmoderator
85,404
edits
Forum:Using official twitter pages as a source?: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Using official twitter pages as a source? (edit)
Revision as of 19:45, 4 May 2012
, 4 May 2012→Reviving
Mini-mitch (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
::::I do follow Moffat on Twitter, and the only time he tells the truth is when something has already been announced. I.e a story title. It the BBC announces something, he might back it up. However, most of the time its just teases. People asking him for the truth, they ain't going to get it. [[User:Mini-mitch|MM]]/<small>[[User talk:Mini-mitch|Want to talk?]]</small> 15:28, May 4, 2012 (UTC) | ::::I do follow Moffat on Twitter, and the only time he tells the truth is when something has already been announced. I.e a story title. It the BBC announces something, he might back it up. However, most of the time its just teases. People asking him for the truth, they ain't going to get it. [[User:Mini-mitch|MM]]/<small>[[User talk:Mini-mitch|Want to talk?]]</small> 15:28, May 4, 2012 (UTC) | ||
:This is gonna be a tricky one to write into a clear policy. Not impossible, mind, but just fraught with pitfalls. Cause the thing is, in certain contexts, a "Moffat lie" would indeed be admissible. I mean if we're trying to prove the origin of a myth or give an example of his lying ways, then his twitter account may well be a perfectly valid source. And when you say "official" accounts, are we going to need to create a list of those so that we're clear what's goin' down? Or can we get away with giving a few examples and then hoping that our wide demographic of site editors will know what we mean? | |||
:Here's the contents of {{w|WP:TWITTER}}: | |||
::Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as: | |||
::*the material is not unduly self-serving and exceptional in nature; | |||
::*it does not involve claims about third parties; | |||
::*it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; | |||
::*there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; | |||
::*the article is not based primarily on such sources. | |||
::This policy also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. | |||
:::("Exceptional in nature" here means a claim that is well beyond what would be expected of the person given their other known statements, or a fact that is actively challenged by other sources. Thus, statements on 1 April from ''most'' twitter accounts would likely be seen as "exceptional". Or if Karen Gillan were to tweet now that she's actually '''not''' leaving, we'd have to treat ''that'' as exceptional, since it flies in the face of a ton of other material from reputable news outlets to the contrary.) | |||
:I'm ''not'' advocating a slavish copying of the Wikipedia rule, but it's maybe a starting point. Can we ''start'' with this format and then tweak it, or do we need a great deal more specificity than this? Or, might we have this as the sort of headlining "rule" on the page, with a few examples underneath it. I think what I'm basically trying to figure out is whether we have to list every single twitter account that's acceptable, or can we try to write the policy in a more common sense way? {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">19:45: Fri 04 May 2012 </span> | |||
