Darkfrog24 (talk | contribs) |
Darkfrog24 (talk | contribs) →RfC: Is Westeros.org an expert SPS?: new section |
||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
There's an RS RfC on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oathkeeper#RfC:_Blog_source--usable_for_facts.3F Oathkeeper] talk page. Participation (and fresh voices) would be welcome. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 01:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC) |
There's an RS RfC on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oathkeeper#RfC:_Blog_source--usable_for_facts.3F Oathkeeper] talk page. Participation (and fresh voices) would be welcome. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 01:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC) |
||
== RfC: Is Westeros.org an expert SPS? == |
|||
There is an RfC at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oathkeeper#RfC:_Is_Westeros.org_a_suitable_source_for_this_content.3F Oathkeeper] regarding whether the site Westeros.org meets the criteria for an expert [[WP:SPS|self-published source]] (and is therefore suitable for use on Wikipedia). It is being cited as a source for the statement "This episode was based on [specific chapters of] [specific book]." This article is likely to be affected by the outcome. Participation is welcome. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 23:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:39, 2 September 2014
A Song of Ice and Fire Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Television Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Precedent for GEOS as a source
GEOS has a history of use on Wikipedia as a source for straight numerical facts and broadcast statistics:
Good Night (The Simpsons short)
And those are just three. While I would put the viewer-contributed opinions housed on GEOS in the same category as, say, comments on an article, the straight facts provided in the GEOS episode descriptions meet Wikipedia's criteria.
Here is a link to the FAQ and history of the website.[1] [2] Here is its page on the Game of Thrones series. [3] You will notice that contributing content to GEOS is not like contributing content to Wikipedia or IMDB. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS…is that your argument here? Because if you look at the lower left corner of the website, it identifies itself as "GEOS is fan-owned, and fan-run". It is by definition unusable as a source. Sorry; I was excited by the usefulness presented by the infograph. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Just because it's written by volunteers doesn't make it unreliable. The part that random people sign in to add are the survey responses, and that's not what's cited here.
- If unreliability is really the issue, there's always the novel itself. I'll put in the time if I have a reason to think you wouldn't just come up with yet another excuse to hit the delete button, as I have on other articles.
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't seem to apply here, no. That policy is about article deletion and the inclusion of information. I'm talking about the credibility of a source. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please stop re-adding a contentious source during the discussion. Re-add it after the discussion when there's a consensus for it. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that the source is reliable. Also see WP:BURDEN and WP:QS. DonQuixote (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well it's a little hard to do that when I get the impression that JS or yourself would dismiss anything on any excuse. This is like dismissing an article because the comments are unreliable. I didn't cite the comments; I cited the content. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- It would help if you found sources that met the standards of what an encyclopedia requires rather than the standards of a blog. It would also help if you start from sources and reflect what they have to say rather than starting from a thesis and trying to find sources that support your thesis. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source and should be treated as such when writing articles. DonQuixote (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- The problem, DQ, is that there seems to be a big gap between meeting Wikipedia's standards and meeting yours. Don't disown your own views by pretending they're "what an encyclopedia requires." Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- It would help if you found sources that met the standards of what an encyclopedia requires rather than the standards of a blog. It would also help if you start from sources and reflect what they have to say rather than starting from a thesis and trying to find sources that support your thesis. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source and should be treated as such when writing articles. DonQuixote (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well it's a little hard to do that when I get the impression that JS or yourself would dismiss anything on any excuse. This is like dismissing an article because the comments are unreliable. I didn't cite the comments; I cited the content. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please stop re-adding a contentious source during the discussion. Re-add it after the discussion when there's a consensus for it. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that the source is reliable. Also see WP:BURDEN and WP:QS. DonQuixote (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
RfC on Oathkeeper
There's an RS RfC on the Oathkeeper talk page. Participation (and fresh voices) would be welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Is Westeros.org an expert SPS?
There is an RfC at Oathkeeper regarding whether the site Westeros.org meets the criteria for an expert self-published source (and is therefore suitable for use on Wikipedia). It is being cited as a source for the statement "This episode was based on [specific chapters of] [specific book]." This article is likely to be affected by the outcome. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)