Jump to content

Nonbinary Wiki:General discussion/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

m
imported>Cassolotl
imported>Cassolotl
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}}:::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.]"
:::{{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?
Anonymous user
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.