441
edits
Nonbinary Wiki:General discussion/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
→Are social networks good for references?
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
I have removed all references and added an [[Special:AbuseFilter/1|filter]] to warn users that add links to tumblr. --[[User:NeoMahler|NeoMahler]] ([[User talk:NeoMahler|talk]]) 11:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC) | I have removed all references and added an [[Special:AbuseFilter/1|filter]] to warn users that add links to tumblr. --[[User:NeoMahler|NeoMahler]] ([[User talk:NeoMahler|talk]]) 11:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC) | ||
:Obviously content referencing ''only'' tumblr or social networks isn't ideal, but at the moment the vast majority of information about nonbinary identities can be found in personal conversations (unciteable), on social networks, and in articles where a reporter is interviewing a single nonbinary person, which doesn't seem any more of a reliable source than social networks. It's still totally dependent on that one person talking getting their info right. If we don't allow citing social networks, that's leaving out a lot of primary source material, most particularly for terms that were coined on tumblr. Leaving them out just makes this resource less complete; I think a better solution would be a warning at the top of the article saying it cites a social network. --[[User:Kaiforest|Kaiforest]] ([[User talk:Kaiforest|talk]]) 12:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC) | :Obviously content referencing ''only'' tumblr or social networks isn't ideal, but at the moment the vast majority of information about nonbinary identities can be found in personal conversations (unciteable), on social networks, and in articles where a reporter is interviewing a single nonbinary person, which doesn't seem any more of a reliable source than social networks. It's still totally dependent on that one person talking getting their info right. If we don't allow citing social networks, that's leaving out a lot of primary source material, most particularly for terms that were coined on tumblr. Leaving them out just makes this resource less complete; I think a better solution would be a warning at the top of the article saying it cites a social network. --[[User:Kaiforest|Kaiforest]] ([[User talk:Kaiforest|talk]]) 12:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC) | ||
::{{ping|Kaiforest}} that's a good argument. The problem with social networks is that while they are a good source for us because all these words to describe gender identities are relatively new, they can also be "abused". If we agree on allowing tumblr links, we should try to establish some sort of criteria to be sure that the tumblr blog used is notable in some way. I have no idea on how to do this, though... what do you think about making the abusefilter just to encourage the user to look for other sources and add the warning you say on top of the article? (The abusefilter currently warns the user saying that tumblr is not allowed, tags the edit as "tumblr link" but doesn't prevent the user of performing the action). --[[User:NeoMahler|NeoMahler]] ([[User talk:NeoMahler|talk]]) 12:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
== AFAB/AMAB or the written-out forms? == | == AFAB/AMAB or the written-out forms? == | ||