765,429
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 04:35, 28 August 2012
, 28 August 2012Sorry for having to do this, but I'm being forced to change my sig, and clean up after it, by Wikia Staff
m (Sorry for having to do this, but I'm being forced to change my sig, and clean up after it, by Wikia Staff) |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::I reckon use a twitter page as a source for something that it could hold credible information for. Eg. Steven Moffat's twitter could be used as a source for, say, personal details of Moffat's childhood, but not something such as the next 2Entertain DVD release. Get the idea? '''[[User:Tardis1963|<span style="background:#0E234E; color:white">Tardis1963</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:Tardis1963|<span style="background:#0E234E; color:white">talk</span>]]''' 08:53, December 28, 2011 (UTC) | ::I reckon use a twitter page as a source for something that it could hold credible information for. Eg. Steven Moffat's twitter could be used as a source for, say, personal details of Moffat's childhood, but not something such as the next 2Entertain DVD release. Get the idea? '''[[User:Tardis1963|<span style="background:#0E234E; color:white">Tardis1963</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:Tardis1963|<span style="background:#0E234E; color:white">talk</span>]]''' 08:53, December 28, 2011 (UTC) | ||
==Reviving== | ==Reviving== | ||
This never got a definitive answer. Kicking back up the list for more comments before I archive and codify it. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | This never got a definitive answer. Kicking back up the list for more comments before I archive and codify it. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}19:33: Wed 02 May 2012 </span> | ||
:I'd go with Tardis1963's suggestion. | :I'd go with Tardis1963's suggestion. | ||
:For Doctor Who-related info it has to come from "Official" Twitter accounts, and only these. | :For Doctor Who-related info it has to come from "Official" Twitter accounts, and only these. | ||
:For personal information about real world people it can come from ''verified'' Twitter accounts. | :For personal information about real world people it can come from ''verified'' Twitter accounts. | ||
:Is having two rules for different information too complicated though? --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 15:41, May 3, 2012 (UTC) | :Is having two rules for different information too complicated though? --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 15:41, May 3, 2012 (UTC) | ||
::Tricky, this, cause Moffat lies. With his twitter account. Like everyone. And there are only 140 characters. So misinterpretations are more the norm than the exception. Twitter is kinda like reading tea leaves in a cup that's actually made for espresso, isn't it? {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | ::Tricky, this, cause Moffat lies. With his twitter account. Like everyone. And there are only 140 characters. So misinterpretations are more the norm than the exception. Twitter is kinda like reading tea leaves in a cup that's actually made for espresso, isn't it? {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}03:42: Fri 04 May 2012 </span> | ||
:::Well, that's why I said we keep the personal Twitter pages for personal information like; when they were born or what their favourite story is or stuff like that. | :::Well, that's why I said we keep the personal Twitter pages for personal information like; when they were born or what their favourite story is or stuff like that. | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
:::("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.) | :::("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}} | :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}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}19:45: Fri 04 May 2012 </span> | ||
