Talk:Brain Gym

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Blogs

RI, please don't return material that is sourced only to a blog, especially not when it's critical and can be obtained directly from the Guardian. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate and – to some extent – understand your concern. However, on this issue, I disagree: the link was to the personal website of a well-known, respected journalist who was cited in the article. It led to a collection of his published articles on the subject, complete with publication information. The fact that he uses blogging software makes no difference. It is not exactly encouraged, but permissible according to our guidelines. Calling the addition of such a link "blog spamming" seems quite inappropriate.

Those articles that are in fact available at the Guardian's website can be verified to be verbatim copies, but some of the Guardian articles are only available at the author's website. In addition, the author's website will be updated when new articles are published, and it's good to have that source somewhere, both for the readers of the article and for those wishing to update it. It is very unlikely that WP would expose itself to very much of anything by keeping the link as it was.

Anyhow, I changed the article to only link directly source everything directly from the Guardian. Rl 22:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work, RI, thank you. The problem with the blog is that we're almost never supposed to use blogs as third-party sources, and in this particular case, some editors have been adding it recently to a large number of articles, almost to the point of spamming, so we need to cut down on its use. If the material is in the Guardian or elsewhere, we should link to it directly; if it isn't, we shouldn't be using it. Many thanks again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

At your service. Glad I could help out. Rl 22:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)