Nonbinary Wiki:General discussion/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
→Are social networks good for references?
imported>Kaiforest |
imported>Kaiforest |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
:Since there's no participation in this thread, I will remove all references to tumblr and other social networks. --[[User:NeoMahler|NeoMahler]] ([[User talk:NeoMahler|talk]]) 09:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC) | :Since there's no participation in this thread, I will remove all references to tumblr and other social networks. --[[User:NeoMahler|NeoMahler]] ([[User talk:NeoMahler|talk]]) 09:28, 10 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) | 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) | |||
== AFAB/AMAB or the written-out forms? == | == AFAB/AMAB or the written-out forms? == | ||