Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Daily Mail (Score 1) 70

However, Wikipedia policy doesn't say, "No citations to unreliable sources allowed anywhere" It's more "mark it as unreliable if you really need to use it".

I think the expectation is that people use "this has sat in the article for a month without a reliable citation" as an excuse to remove a contentious claim from an article.

Comment Re: the aim is to reach consensus of opinion (Score 1) 70

By teaching the controversy. If one set of reliable sources says one thing, but another set of sources of comparable reliability says something else, the article can mention disagreement on facts. But editors must be assess "comparable reliability" carefully to avoid giving undue weight to fringe viewpoints.

Comment Paragraph-by-paragraph verifiability (Score 1) 70

There are other guidelines dealing with material within an article

Very true. But each paragraph of an article also has to be verifiable. Otherwise, a paragraph supported solely by unreliable sources should be removed. This goes double if the subject is a living person. As Wikipedia:Verifiability puts it: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced."

Comment Notability would ban that subject in the 1st place (Score 4, Informative) 70

An editor I met at a recent London "Wikimeet" said he'd used the Daily Mail as a source in the last week, as it was the only source available for the subject he was writing about.

According to Wikipedia's notability guideline, if no reliable sources can be found about a subject, any article about it would fail Wikipedia's verifiability policy. For this reason, the subject shouldn't have an article in the first place. That's what Wikipedia means by "non-notable": there is no way to make a verifiable article about the subject.

Comment This is clickbait... (Score 1) 349

So the real purpose of the article? Create a trumped up controversy in order to generate hype before the IPO. Everyone is supposed to think the stock is cheap because of the controversy while thinking they are the clever one who sees the business model will work because the consumables are what matter. When everyone is the clever "one" they all buy the stock and the original investors get the profits.

*yawn*

Slashdot Top Deals

No skis take rocks like rental skis!

Working...