User:Trödel/Quotes

Copyvio Policy from Jimbo - very good sign :)

You should have been blocked for a lot longer than a month, my friend.--Jimbo Wales 17:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Consider a claim: "X is Y"

1. "X is Y"<1> --- that is, we assert the claim, using the authority of
the cite as a reason, with the cite being to, for example, the New York
Times. Usually this is fine if the claim is not really controversial.

2. "According to the New York Times, X is Y" --- we do not assert the
claim, but rather assert something which is much less controversial,
i.e. that the NYT said so, leaving the reader to judge it. This is much
better when the claim is controversial.

3. "X is Y"<2> --- we assert the claim, only this time, the source is
the Weekly World News (a tabloid of perhaps questionable authority).
Very bad.

4. "According to the Weekly World News, X is Y" -- less bad, but
probably still awful in most contexts

And the NYT and Weekly World News are both more or less easy cases. The
difficult cases are partisan publications writing "factually" about
political events, and things of that nature.

- Jimbo Wales

- English Wikipedia <wikien-l@wikipedia.org>

- Date: Aug 16, 2006 12:43 PM

Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
> Once a "citation needed" tag is in place, there's no need to do
> anything in a hurry. The reader is adequately warned, other editors
> are informed.

In many many cases, this is true. But not in all.

The one that is absolutely imperative for all editors is to recognize
that "If this claim would be libellous if false, it is absolutely not
acceptable to simply put a 'citation needed' tag and hope for the best."

It is extremely painful to see those. "Lord John Doe was a porn star in
1943. <citation needed>" In such cases, being a citation nazi is the
right thing to do.

That is not the only case, but that is the one where it is absolutely
imperative.

- Jimbo Wales

- English Wikipedia <wikien-l@wikipedia.org>

- Date: Aug 16, 2006 12:50 PM