Template talk:Cite newsgroup
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] "id" attribute
I've tried using this template, but when the message ID parameter is used, it shows up inside quotation marks before the title, which doesn't look right. What's going on? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Citation warning incorrect
The warning given in this template about the use of usenet postings is incorrect. The exact text of from WP:RS is:
[edit] Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet
Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment. For exceptions, see the section on self-published sources.
[edit] Self-published sources
A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own name or known pen-name and not anonymously.
However, editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.
In general it is preferable to wait until other sources have had time to review or comment on self-published sources.
Reports by anonymous individuals, or those without a track record of publication to judge their reliability, do not warrant citation at all, until such time as it is clear that the report has gained cachet, in which case it can be noted as a POV.
[edit] Self-published sources in articles about themselves
Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is one of the following:
- relevant to the person's notability, or, if the material is self-published by a group or organisation, relevant to the notability of that group or organisation or
- not contentious, such as basic biographical information. All information of a self-published nature should be looked at with a critical eye.
it should also be:
- not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;
- about the subject only, and does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
- subject to verification by other sources.
Self-published material should always be reported as the POV of the publisher, and not as general fact, until such time as there is independent corroboration of that material. The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all.
In general, if a self-published source is reliable, then other reliable sources will cite it, until then, it should be avoided.
One of the problems with such a simplistic re-statement of this rule in this template is that it eliminates Usenet as a source of signficant cultural and historical milestones. One primary example of this is Rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated and other Babylon 5 related articles. Straczynski (the creator and executive producer of the show) used Usenet as a self-published forum in which to detail many aspects of the show's creation and day-to-day operations which are not collected anywhere else. This is a 12-year-span (so far) of postings from the creator of the franchise, detailing everything from set design to the mechanics of finding and hiring actors. This is a primary source, and it is also a self-published source. It fits well into the guidelines for "Self-published sources in articles about themselves", and I don't think that this template should seek to re-write that policy in a vacuum.
All that said, I haven't gotten around to re-writing the article that I linked to, above, using the new ref-style citations anyway, so it's a moot point there. Still, Usenet is a cultural resource, which should not be ignored in terms of citations, though obviously it is a source which must be more carefully scrutinized than some. -Harmil 16:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Remove the template from this template. There is no consensus for lots of things on WP:RS. — Omegatron 17:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] auto url
I have added a feature to have it automatically link to dejagoogle using the 'selm' feature if the id is given and the url is not. Should the "(Google Groups)" text be made less obtrusive now that it's going to go in whether the gg url is given or not? —Random8322007-01-26 19:59 UTC (01/26 14:59 EST)
[edit] Non-standard news: URI?
Is there an RFC that describes the use of USENET URIs with the four slash format news:////<message id>? According to RFC 1738, the two forms are:
news:<newsgroup-name> news:<message-id>
I've also checked the later RFCs, but didn't see any changes to that. Failing a reference to a standard, is there a browser/newsreader combination that this actually works with? AndroidCat 05:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I notice that the template has been changed to news:// (from ////), however this still doesn't conform to RFC 1738. Samples of valid news URLs:
news:alt.scooter news:ec2b8$43d0311b$cf700415$10003@PRIMUS.CA
It's possible that some software bends the standard and wants the protocol:// format but I haven't tested for that. AndroidCat 06:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- You are right about syntax, but it is better to read draft-ellermann-news-nntp-uri-10.txt instead of old RFC 1738. According to the URI syntax double slash is a part of server name, so it is needless here. (Hmm, forgot, to sign...) --Andrzej P. Wozniak (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hide the access date
We have a consensus that access dates for online copies of offline sources, while helpful as a comment in the source, should be hidden from the reader. While newsgroups are online sources posts have an "official" post date after which they typically don't change. Therefore, I believe the updated policy applies here as well. Could somebody who is competent to adapt the citation templates please do so? The idea is to keep the access date as a template parameter but remove the code that displays it. Thanks, --EnOreg (talk) 09:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Object. In that conversation, there was mention of the value of the date for when the content may change. There was also mention of content that was likely to become unavailable. I think mailing list content is more likely to be ephemeral than physical content, so do not see any consensus to remove the parameter from this template at this time. --Karnesky (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
