Nonbinary Wiki:General discussion/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
m
→Are social networks good for references?: Oops typo
imported>Cassolotl (→Are social networks good for references?: Response!) |
imported>Cassolotl m (→Are social networks good for references?: Oops typo) |
||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
:::I don't know how to measure the notability of a blog though. I mean, Nonbinary Stats is clearly a good source. But what about [http://queerquerys.tumblr.com this one]? --[[User:NeoMahler|NeoMahler]] ([[User talk:NeoMahler|talk]]) 14:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC) | :::I don't know how to measure the notability of a blog though. I mean, Nonbinary Stats is clearly a good source. But what about [http://queerquerys.tumblr.com this one]? --[[User:NeoMahler|NeoMahler]] ([[User talk:NeoMahler|talk]]) 14:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC) | ||
{{ping|NeoMahler}} | :::{{ping|NeoMahler}}I don't think the abuse filter should be there at all, just because to my mind it's not the fact that it's from Tumblr that makes a source unreliable/bad. If there is a warning when adding links, it should say "make sure that the source is reliable. [Link to page about what makes a source reliable.]" | ||
:::The LGBTQ+ Advice blog might be a good source for the use and definition of a word if it's a secondary source, meaning it has to be saying "this reputable person worth interviewing says the word means [this]," as opposed to a primary source, "I/we say the word means [this]." But unless they are somehow providing reliable information that a term is being used by a significant number of people it can't be used to justify the inclusion of the term in the wiki in the first place, if that makes sense? | :::The LGBTQ+ Advice blog might be a good source for the use and definition of a word if it's a secondary source, meaning it has to be saying "this reputable person worth interviewing says the word means [this]," as opposed to a primary source, "I/we say the word means [this]." But unless they are somehow providing reliable information that a term is being used by a significant number of people it can't be used to justify the inclusion of the term in the wiki in the first place, if that makes sense? | ||