Talk:Chris Buors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents

[edit] Removed unsourced quotations

Consult policy re sources. Also, the so-called active webjournal is only an internet clipping service, and so the link to it has been removed. This article has been subject to periodic anonymous slander and vandalism, past and future assistance in monitoring it is appreciated. StrangerInParadise 23:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on the last point. However, I think something else may be transpiring here as regards the other two.

Wikipedia policy opposes the use of usenet or bulletin board clips because of (justifiable) concerns over reliability. The post in question, however, was written by Chris Buors, the subject of this article. It is relevant, as such, as an insight into his opinions.

[These comments were made by User:CJCurrie, and subsequently deleted. A response was already in progress at the time of deletion.]

It is a technical issue, the policy is that CB's identity is not confirmed, therefore as a source it is insufficient. Do I think he made them? Yes. Can we use them on that certainty? No. Will the policy change? Maybe. Should the policy change? I'm not certain. Identities are still problematic.

Additoinally, the question in my mind is whether an internet forum is a town square, or the local pub, and what is one's expectation of privacy. I tend to believe moreso the former, but not mine to rule on just now. Consider, "A public figure commented on a forum, 'We should feed the children of the poor to the rich'. Fuore results in the media". It is the media, not us, who would chase down the figure for comment and confirm his identity. If we presume to do so, by reading the posts and deciding on the credibility of the identity, are we not conducting original research?

StrangerInParadise 23:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Restored MAP

My error, the service is a Published Letters Archive, so appropriate. StrangerInParadise 23:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My response, in its entirety

"StrangerInParadise" has responded to a comment that I posted a few minutes ago, and then deleted after realizing one of my assumptions was incorrect. Here's my revised full response:

I agree with you on the last point. However, I think that something else may be happening here vis-a-vis the other two.

(i) The "policy" that you cite is not policy. The page header makes this quite clear. It is a guideline, but it is not binding. Some details are still being worked out.

(ii) You are correct to say that bulletin board messages are not permitted as primary or secondary sources (under the guideline). This, however, is because of reliability concerns. These concerns are not relevant to the point at issue -- Buors was the acknowledged article on the post in question.

I've asked for clarification on this point at the project site discussion page. On first blush, however, my suspicion is that someone is too narrowly applying the letter of the law while ignoring its spirit.

(iii) I see that the link to Buors's quote about homosexuality has vanished. I also see that the link went dead shortly after the quote was posted on Wikipedia. My suspicion is that these events are not unrelated.

There may be a perfectly rational explanation for this, of course, and it's entirely possible that the truth is something other than "someone is trying to remove all references to an embarassing quote from Buors's past". Some questions seem to remain at present, however. CJCurrie 00:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Responding to your most recent comment:

  • Buors was an acknowledged participant in the message board for an extended period of time, and no-one (to my knowledge) questioned his identity until the present discussion arose. This doesn't strike me as coincidental either. CJCurrie 00:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for the editing collision on the page.

(i) Where did he acknowlege it, exactly.

(ii) They are of concern, see (i). Also, yes, I did mistake the guideline as policy, because of the absolute terms in which it was expressed,

[edit] Bulletin boards and posts to Usenet

Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.

This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them.

(iii) As to the disappearance of the quote, I am certain that these two things are related, though a decent interval passed between them. Other BB quotes are out there, I know because I looked to see whether one could replace the deleted one. Then, I double-checked the guideline (mistaking it for policy), and pursued the present line of edit.

Finally, I'll point out in passing that the all references to CB operating a cannabis compassion club in Manitoba, and suffering incarceration thereby- have been removed. These are well-attested in the press, with several witnesses, mostly those ill people whom he helped. When we finish this line of discussion, I'd like to set about restoring- and elaborating on- those points.

StrangerInParadise 00:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • (i) Where did he acknowlege it, exactly.

A. In every post that he wrote on the CC forum prior to the recent controversy.

I suppose one could argue that every Chris Buors post which appeared on the forum over the course of almost two years was fraudulent, though I doubt this would pass a "What would a reasonable person believe?" test. CJCurrie 00:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't have to argue it, only to impune the quality of the medium itself. Your restoration quote was literally a quote of a post of a quote from a post attested by an anonymous user. You can assert reasonable certainty that it is valid, I might agree, but are we not then engaging in original research, where months and years later, when asked why we endorsed these statements, we say, "uh, saw it on a bulitin board". Will this quote disappear too before then. This may be why bulitin boards are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.

StrangerInParadise 00:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • (i) No, that's not why the rule was put in place. There's a separate section concerning dead links. In any case, special provisions may be called for when a public figure decides to have potentially embarrassing information removed in the wake of publicity on Wikipedia.
  • (ii) Marc Emery owns the Cannabis Culture board. Chris Buors is the MMP leader, and a leading Emery ally. Would any reasonable person believe that Emery would have permitted a Buors impersonator to use the site for 18 months or so?
  • (iii) The Google cache link on the bio page contains the original post from Buors -- nothing more, nothing less. The cached link on this page includes an acknowledgement from Buors himself. CJCurrie 00:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

(i) That is precisely why the rule is in place, that it cannot be verified. You have quoted an anonymous user in restoring that quote. I beleive you, but that is beside the point. The question is whether it is a medium of record, and in the case of bulletin boards, I am not prepared to assume- against guidelines- that this is so.

(ii) Quite reasonable, and (iii) virtually the entire thread is "Buors" arguing about what precisely he meant. See (i).

StrangerInParadise 01:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Concerning (i): The cached site referenced in the actual article is not the same as the cached site referenced on this page. The former is Google's verbatim transcription of Buors's original post, not a "quote of a quote". CJCurrie 01:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible page interference

http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=prince&Number=1172534&Forum=All_Forums&Words=faggot&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=1week&Main=1172368&Search=true#Post1172534

[edit] Freeze on reversions pending discussion re Buors' CC quote

I suggest we resolve this discussion on the talk page, rather than through an edit war, which is certainly against policy. I point out that you have linked a quote post of a quote of a post. Let's suspend edits on the quote for now.

  • (i) This is because the original quote post was deleted, (ii) I'm certain I'm not the only person who read the original version, so questions of reliability can be set aside on that front, (iii) I've made a request for comment at the Canadian Wikipedian's site. I'm willing to wait until someone else weighs in. CJCurrie 00:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, meanwhile, do you have any objection to restoring the compassion club references? StrangerInParadise 00:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • None. CJCurrie 01:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion re Buors' CC quote

(I've formatted the discussion a bit, to consolidate it on this page, and separate it from the agreement above, please advise at my talk page if there are any issues with this -Stranger)

About a month ago, an anonymous poster added three unflattering quotes from Buors on the article page. I didn't like the way this was done -- the three quotes were lined up one after an another, and were obviously posted with the defamatory intent. The only problem was, at least two of the quotes were accurate (I couldn't find a reference for the third). What's more, the quote on homosexuality struck me as entirely relevant for the page, coming from a public figure.

I recognize that Buors may not want the quote retained, but this ultimately isn't my concern -- I can't think of a more divisive social topic in Canadian politics today, and any public comment on the subject by a party leader has to be considered "fair game" for inclusion. (I did, however, try to mitigate the intentions of the original poster.)

There is no doubt in my mind that the quote is reliable, nor that it is relevant. Attacking the CC's reliability because the original post has been deleted does not strike me as a cogent objection -- especially when the Google cache is still available. Similarly, I can't see the "expectation of privacy" comment holding water on a public discussion forum. (Note that these statements are not made with hostile intent.)

-CJCurrie, Clipped in from User_Talk:StrangerInParadise after Ground Zero's comments, but written before Stranger's below

I'd have to side with CJCurrie on this one. A guideline is not a policy. Since it is not an accepted policy -- or a "rule" -- it cannot be enforced rigidly. A guideline means that there should be some flexibility in applying it. CJCurrie has made a reasonable argument for not applying it in this instance, i.e., that there is good reason to believe that the Chris Buors posting on the bulletin board is the real one, so I think that this is fair game. Any source can be impugned. Anyone can argue that someone may have been misquoted by the CBC or the Globe and Mail, or that the comments were taken out of context by the National Post. After all, the Toronto Star famously took comments by Kim Campbell in the 1993 election so far out of context that there could be no doubt that the reports' intention was to miscontrue and distort the remarks. Ground Zero | t 14:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion, Ground Zero. I'll acknowedge again my error in calling this a policy, and refer you above for my explanation. To save my hands a bit, and anchor the discussion here where it belongs, I'll clip a line of argument I left at CJCurrie,

I agree that the quote is both reliable (for our personal certainty) and relevant (for our personal certainty). With the prohibition on original research, the medium of record question remains: if this is a certainty, and relevant, the press should follow up, and put the question to him. It is not ours to unearth the tapes and break the big story. If this is a heated argument down-the-pub, and it has a webcam and, for the amusement of its patrons, tapes (today), someone has to confirm the identity. Is that us? Someone has to analyse the tapes- context, completeness- is that us? The Google cache is only slightly less transient than a deletion. Posts are editable for hours by posters and forever by moderators, with no expectation of completeness or permanence. I will welcome clear guidance on this.

Also, in the phrase, Buors has been accused of homophobia as a result of comments that he made on a public message board in 2004., accused by whom should we say (if the passive voice were unavailable)? people? anonymous BB account holders? other noted persons? the gang on the thread that night? do the accusors themselves have encyclopedic standing, i.e. does Wikipedia care that they accuse? If left in the passive, do we conclude for ourselves as editors that any reasonable person would see them as homophobic, which CB denies in the thread. (By way of concession, I'll point out that the CC forum only allows registered users to post).

For the convenience of editors new to the discussion, here the paragraph in question,

Buors has been accused of homophobia as a result of comments that he made on a public message board in 2004. He claimed that he has had "no respect for homosexuals" since an experience of sexual harrassment in his youth, and also wrote, "I don't care what they do to each other. I don't want them such diviants [sic] in my social circle....if that makes me a bigot, hand me a medal. I'll proudly wear it.” [1] These comments notwithstanding, he has also argued that the state should have no right to oversee consensual private activities between adults. [edit #27280385]

StrangerInParadise 16:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Responses:

(i) I have removed the sentence beginning with, "Buors has been accused of homophobia", from recent edits. In its most recent form, the disputed passage reads as follows: In 2004, Buors claimed on a public message board that he has had "no respect for homosexuals" since an experience of sexual harrassment in his youth. He also wrote, "I don't care what they do to each other. I don't want them such diviants [sic] in my social circle....if that makes me a bigot, hand me a medal. I'll proudly wear it.”[4] These comments notwithstanding, he has also argued that the state should have no right to oversee consensual private activities between adults.

So, that part of your objection is no longer relevant.

(ii) The "media of record question" still strikes me as a red herring. Buors made his comments about homosexuality in the summer of 2005, made follow-up comments at the time, and has discussed the subject again in recent weeks. At no time did he, or anyone else in the discussion, suggest that the quote could have been altered. Such speculation has only emerged in the course of the present discussion, and I cannot believe that this argument is unrelated to the goal of removing Buors's comments from the public record.

(iii) The Google cache is a snapshot of the original post at a particular moment in time, and cannot be altered by the moderator or another editor. If anything, it's more reliable than an active message.

(iv) The "down-the-pub" comparison does not hold water. If Buors wanted his comments to remain private, he should not have made them on a public-access bulletin board. Wikipedia's prohibition against "original research" does not prohibit research concerning the public statements of public figures, nor the printing of the same. The bulletin board, in this instance, is a relevant primary source -- every bit as much as a media scrum, a CPAC panel discussion, an open-access nomination meeting, etc. The fact that the mainstream media did not highlight his remarks is neither here nor there.

CJCurrie 19:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, here's the relevant cache link: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:LFKNFncX3rwJ:www.cannabisculture.com/forums/showflat.php%3FCat%3D%26Number%3D1095371%26page%3D0%26view%3Dcollapsed%26sb%3D5%26o%3D%26fpart%3D12%26vc%3D1+%22Chris+Buors%22+%22The+movies+with+my+cousin%22&hl=en CJCurrie 20:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the source is verifiable. The rule against bulletin board postings is meant to prevent third parties from spreading rumour and innuendo, it was never meant to prevent linking to statements made by the subject of the article. If you look at our articles at Category:Usenet people they are almost all based on such posts. That said, Wikipedia is not the place for original investigative reporting. I would like to see some evidence that others have noted and had problems with his remarks before they are given such prominence in the article. - SimonP 20:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

On the latter point: http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=wwwactive&Number=1173421&Forum=All_Forums&Words=faggot&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=1week&Main=1172121&Search=true#Post1173421 CJCurrie 20:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[Note: The following paragraph was added after SiP's response, listed below.]

Concerning the first point, I'm not certain that seeking out information available in the public realm falls into the category of "original investigative reporting". If I were conducting private interviews for this purpose, that might lead to valid objections; I don't think that quoting public statements should fit into the same category, though.

The issue at stake is one of reliability, not of original research -- and I've already addressed this concern. CJCurrie 21:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Counter-responses:

(i) Noted, happy to move on. Certainly just prior to my raising the issue, so unprompted, spontaneous agreement. We like that.

(ii) It is a serious question, for the reasons I have listed. It is to us to pour over the jagged corpus of a BB site to authenticate the integrity of the citation, and is it still then a primary source. Whatever interests lie elsewhere, I am making the argument, and have no interest in the outcome, apart from clarification of the issue.

(iii) How long does Google make such links available, and is it then a medium of record? I'm not looking to impugn the permanence of the entire internet, but this does not seem like a "hard point" for a citation.

(iv) The issue is not whether you and I agree he made them, but whether it is a medium of record. In this case, all the posts could disappear, or be changed entirely, without notice, and no one would have done wrong, as they were not for publication. A journal or news agency could not do the same.

Guidance on this issue will be welcome, particularly inlight of the categorical terms in which current guidance excludes it, Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. Are you certain enough here to make a change, and how then would you formulate it?

StrangerInParadise 21:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Counter-counter responses:

(ii) I'm standing by the "any reasonable person would conclude" argument, based on my rationale above.

(iii) The Google cache doesn't need to remain active forever. If enough users can verify its existence now, this constitutes sufficient evidence.

(iv) See (iii). CJCurrie 21:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm also reiterate the point that the "categorical terms" listed above are not policy. Even as guidelines, they only exist due to issues of reliability which are not relevant to the present discussion. CJCurrie 21:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, then how do you answer my question, formulate for me the Currie rule, so others needn't be in doubt nor fear they are engaged in original research. Or, is this a one-off? StrangerInParadise 21:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Sigh ... usenet and bulletin board posts can be used on biography pages when the subject can be reliably identified as the author. This isn't the "Currie rule", it's standard practice and common sense. CJCurrie 22:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The prohibition on use of bulletin boards as primary and secondary sources refers mainly to factual and biographical information; frex, we couldn't use a third party's bulletin board post as the sole source for information like his birthdate or the timing of specific career accomplishments. It does not exclude the possibility of Wikipedia discussing a verifiable controversy that arose from the subject's own postings to a bulletin board. (Compare, for example, Malcolm Azania -- the stuff about the infamous Usenet post has to be allowable as a source in that case, because that post and the extended offline controversy that arose from it is one of the key reasons why he's notable enough to merit an article in the first place.)

I have no quarrel with your notion of common sense. I've re-read the guidance, the "refers mainly to factual and biographical information" qualification is not there, should it be? Standard practice may have outpaced policy and guidelines, how is this to be addressed? StrangerInParadise 00:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC) 23:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the guidance should be interpreted with reference to its stated intentions -- ie. preventing unreliable sources from getting through. If this concern is overcome, there is no reason to disqualify the source. CJCurrie 00:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm with CJCurrie on this; it does constitute a public statement by the subject and is therefore permissible Wikipedia content. The cited policy does not disallow discussion of a verifiable controversy around an article subject's own public statements just because they were first posted to a bulletin board; all the stated criterion means is that we can't use biographical information from a bulletin board post as the main source for verifiable facts like his birthdate, or the number of votes he garnered in a particular election, without independent confirmation from more authoritative sources. It is not a blanket prohibition against ever citing bulletin board posts as a source; in this case the bulletin board post itself is the crux of a valid and verifiable controversy pertaining to the subject...and because it is the very heart of the issue, it has to be an allowable source. Bearcat 23:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[Addressing both Bearcat and CJCurrie] In the case of Malcolm Azania, the press broke the story, verifying facts and creating a citational anchor, Wikipedia did not. I'm pointing out that by crossing this line, the notion of medium of record becomes problematic, and should be addressed more formally than an admonition to use common sense. StrangerInParadise 23:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia did not "break" this "story" either. The post was lying in plain view on a public forum for a few months before it was referenced here, and had previously been a source of discussion on the CC. The "story" was amplified after its reference on Wikipedia, but this is not the same thing.

I don't know what else I can add as to the "medium of record" concern. Any reasonable person would identify Buors as the author, which is all that really matters on this point. CJCurrie 00:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is in no sense the "citational anchor" in either case, and I fail to see how you could possibly interpret my comment as suggesting that it was. In both cases, we're simply reporting on a controversy that already happened on the public record, not creating the controversy ourselves. Bearcat 01:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand: I said that, in Azania, the press created a citational anchor, so the example does not apply to this case, in which the forums- which I question as a medium of record- would not suffice, per stated guidance. CJCurrie says, not unreasonably, to examine the forum and use common sense; I am arguing that more formal guidance is needed. StrangerInParadise 02:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Your own quote was: In the case of Malcolm Azania, the press broke the story, verifying facts and creating a citational anchor, Wikipedia did not. I still fail to see how the situations differ, other than the scale of followup coverage. Bearcat 04:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

For everyone's benefit, and possibly to draw closure to this discussion, could you please remind everyone why you're questioning the media of record? CJCurrie 02:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Also of interest

http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=wwwactive&Number=1173261&PHPSESSID=&fpart=8#Post1173261 CJCurrie 21:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Straw poll down-the-pub, what's yer point? StrangerInParadise 21:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The CC is the only pub I know of with regular transcriptions ... CJCurrie 22:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC) [joke]

Yes, we cherish the time we spend together. :) StrangerInParadise 00:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Summary by CJCurrie

User:StrangerInParadise has brought forward two arguments against including the disputed quote in the article.

The first objection -- that the argument constitutes original research -- has been refuted. The disputed quote was not invented by Wikipedia, nor was Wikipedia responsible for introducing it to the public domain. It had been available on a public medium for several months before its inclusion here, and was a source of controversy upon its initial appearance.

The fact that the mainstream media did not publicize the story is irrelevant. Buors's statement was the source of controversy in a public forum and among an interested public; the difference is of scale, not of type.

The second objection -- that the source is not reliable -- has also been refuted. Buors's authorship of the quote is beyond question, and no longer seems to be a point at issue. The fact that it was originally posted on a public access bulletin board is irrelevant. The fact that the original post has been deleted is also irrelevant: it was seen by many witnesses, and a Google cache "snapshot" still exists as evidence.

StrangerInParadise can repeat the phrase "medium of record" as often as s/he likes, but this won't change the point at issue.

Finally, to respond to a question raised on the CC: this article is a biographical piece on Chris Buors, not simply a study of his role in the cannabis movement. If it were the latter, the disputed quote would not be relevant -- but it's the former, and it is.

My agreement with StrangerInParadise was to defer from returning the quote until the discussion had been resolved on the talk page. Of the three Wikipedians who have weighed in the subject, two are in favour of returning the quote outright while another reserved judgement. I believe the latter's objection has now been answered, though I will not presume to speak for him. No one has favoured suppressing the quote outright.

I believe there are sufficient grounds for returning the quote, and I will do so upon concluding this message. CJCurrie 03:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Summary by Stranger in Paradise

I am mildly dismayed at the haste with which this was brought to summary (74 minutes after being asked for a summary comment, after I was off to bed, tsk, tsk). No harm done. I am also disappointed that my position was not quite summarized as I would like, though appreciative of the in absentia attempt. However, I have no specific objection to the article's restored language- nor will, I am sure, the subject- though some small expansion might be in order.

A summary of my argument, for those kind enough to have participated,

  • I demur completely on whether we agree amongst ourselves, today, that the discussed quote was actually made by the article subject, and whether it was cited in good faith. For the record, these issues have never been called into question.
  • Also for the record, I am arging solely for myself as an editor on behalf of Wikipedia, as indeed we all are. We are all amici curiae.
  • The question of whether an internet forum is a medium of record is far from resolved. In the case of a journal, a newspaper, or even a blog, there is a considered act of publication, a citational anchor that is created and can be referenced. In the case of a forum, no such anchor is created, nor is there an obligation of preservation.
    • The guidance, while only guidance, is categorical in its prohibition against citations of internet fora.
    • Where you might cite,

      Chris Buors, "Cannabis as effective as 'modern' painkillers", Letter to the Editor, The Windsor Star, Friday, 26 Aug 2005[2]

      ...and have a sense of referential permanence (and clear intent to publish) because the Star has undertaken that obligation as a medium of record, a citation of

      Chris Buors, "Re: I Call Bullshit On Addictions", Cannabis Culture Forum, Post #1122101, Sat Jul 23 2005 06:18 AM"

      ...is precise, but problematic because the forum has not undertaken that obligation. If it were published in the journal, Cannabis Culture Magazine, this would be different. The intent to undertake the responsibility of being a medium of record is clear.
    • An internet forum is a complex hyper-medium subject to change or deletion without notice. While it often contains old content, it often bears no obligation, even implicitly, to preserve for the record that content. It is a means of conversation. Note that capability to alter is different to obligation not to alter.
    • In the case of a Google cache, this becomes even more ephemeral, as the service is, per terms of service, a temporary stop-gap against momentary service outages of the referenced site, not comparable to, say, an archive service. Google stores many web pages in its cache to retrieve for users as a back-up in case the page's server temporarily fails. Google Terms of Service
  • The question of expectation of privacy is not straight-forward. Is an internet forum more like a public square or a public house? When is conversation publication? How is a casual statement made arguendo to be distinguished from settled opinion, where there is no obligation to preserve the integrity of context.
    • That we can see the content of a forum for now is analogous is no more intent to publish than the pub landlord leaving the door of his gaff open, letting the (often heated) conversation drift outside.
  • Citation in the absence of a citational anchor is original research, as it creates reliance upon the editor as to its existence. While editors are called upon to evaluate sources, the absence of a proper citational anchor creates reliance upon the editor that the citation made today was of a quote made by the subject at the time in the context on the forum. Does the editor, by the act of citation, create the anchor? In doing so, he engages in original research.
    • That you or I could see the post before it is removed is down to the pub landlord not shutting the door to his gaff. That you or I can see it after is down to the transient echo after he did. So the editor runs from one reflecting wall to another, capturing transient echos on tape before they disappear, and saying, "here it is, the very same quote!". OK, we believe him, well done, but his certification of the tape is creating a citational anchor, and so original research. Alternately, we say the wall is a medium of record?
    • Our pub landlord can soundproof his gaff, the forum operator can place "do not index" tags on forum pages, but should they have to do so before we cease to view them as a media of record?
    • In the case of Malcolm Azania cited above, the press broke the story, verifying facts and creating a citational anchor, Wikipedia did not. We are not investigative journalists, it is not down to Wikipedia to break the story of what happened in the CC Forum when.

Moving forward, I propose that,

  • the quote, as reintroduced, stand for the time being
  • the discussion on this point be moved to a subpage
  • the matter be refered to the relevant policy pages for comment, and policy and guidance be clarified and updated accordingly.

StrangerInParadise 15:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Responses to Summary by Stranger in Paradise

I disagree with SiP: the citational anchor is created by the CC Forum. Its existence has been verified by CJCurrie, and now by me, and by any other Wikipedia editor who confirms that s/he has reviewed the original link. If that link disappears in the future, our verifications now that it did exist will be sufficient.

As far as expectation of privacy, I cannot believe that a political figure would expect any privacy when posting comments in an internet forum. If he regrets now those comments, he can issue a retraction and apology like any other public figure would do. That would not make the comments disappear or provide justification for removing them from this article, but would temper an interested party's interpretation of them, and would merit mention in the article.

Finally, while the "guidance... is categorical in its prohibition against citations of internet fora", it is only guidance. If it were accepted by the Wikipedia community as a policy, then it could be enforced. It has been written in categorical terms because it was written by someone who wants it to be policy. The fact that it has not been accepted as policy provides strong reason for us to treat it as a recommendation only, i.e., one that can be set aside if valid reasons for doing so are provided. I believe that CJCurrie has provided those reasons. Ground Zero | t 16:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"If that link disappears in the future, our verifications now that it did exist will be sufficient." That is very novel territory, re verifiability, which is a policy. The whole point is that verifiability continues, not that editors on sworn affirmation have confirmed that an irreproducible result was once true. StrangerInParadise 17:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we've more-or-less reached closure on this controversy, but to respond to a few specific points:

(i) An internet forum is a complex hyper-medium subject to change or deletion without notice. While it often contains old content, it often bears no obligation, even implicitly, to preserve for the record that content.

True enough, and this is a valid argument for exercising caution when referencing such sources. It does not, however, have any relevance to the quote under discussion -- the Google cache clearly indicates that Buors's initial post was not subsequently altered.

(ii) Wikipedia does not (to my knowledge) have an official policy concerning the testimony of editors as to the accuracy of information from dead links. In the absence of such a policy, the statements of administrators would seem to set the bar of reliability fairly high. In any event, the question is irrelevant as long as the Google cache exists.

(iii) The "citational anchor" for this story is not Wikipedia, and no public figure can be said to have an "expectation of privacy" when posting under his/her real name on a public message board. The "pub" parallel simply doesn't hold water.

(iv) I've already responded to your comments concerning policy, and I have nothing to add now. If you wish to request further consideration of the issue from other Wikipedians, that's your prerogative. CJCurrie 21:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Unless there is some serious doubt that Buors made the comments in question, I think it's fair game to include them. Given the ephemeral nature of the internet, best to cite a url link and date. Just because something disappears from the internet doesn't mean it falls out of reality - if enough editors have seen it rather than it being one person's word then we can credibly include it. Original research has to do with personal theories and analysis. A quotation on a website is a fact, not a matter of original research. Homey 22:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

If an artifact disappears from the internet, along with all references to it outside of Wikipedia, yes, it does fall straight out of reality. Wikipedia does not archive unsourced artifacts. The good word of reputable editors of good will does not suffice to anchor something into reality (my point re Ground Zero's comment above). There is a much deeper issue here, being obscured by the work-a-day question of whether to include this quote. There is existing policy explaining that artifacts are to be published elsewhere, then referenced in Wikipedia. This is why.
To expand the formalism of the above argument, a citational anchor is created when an artifact is placed in a citable repository, the repository is a medium of record. If I cite Dickens, Homer or Bukowski, their texts are in the Library of Congress. It will not change or drop out of reality any time soon. An internet forum is different. It is not a repository, not a medium of record, unless it undertakes to do so.
Is the CC Forum an artifact? Yes. Is it a proper citational anchor- a repository- for artifacts contained therein? No. Is Google cache? No. Is Wikipedia? Absolutely not!
StrangerInParadise 01:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ChrisBuors.jpg

Image:ChrisBuors.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)