User:JzG/unreliable sources
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Some unreliable sources that have been inappropriately used in BLPs and other sensitive articles. Note: I will sometimes unlink these in debates and Wikipedia space - this is to reduce the link count to manageable levels in order to focus on the encyclopaedia as a venue for spam. External links are only ever a convenience, and the convenience of being able to click through to a site which is not a reliable source, in discussions not directly related to the site itself, seems to me to be of considerably less importance than the issue of spam and unreliable sources in the encyclopaedia itself.
- 911truth.org (127 links as at 22 March 08)
- YouTube - many copyvios, original research and the like
- chabad.org, vastly overlinked for the authority and focus of the site
- democraticunderground.com Freep's mirror image on the other side of the political spectrum, seems to share some of the same issues, albeit not quite so spectacularly egregious in terms of copyright.
- spartacus, often added by site owner (1,628 links as at 22 March 08)
- 911readingroom mostly copyright violating mirrors of sources that may be valid (26 links as at 22 March 08)
- zionismontheweb.org. Usual problems: spammed by site owner Oboler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) (see www.zionismontheweb.org/internet_warfare/the_role_of_Electronic_Intifada_in_the_Camera_story.htm for confirmation of identity); lack of evidence of editorial oversight or even an attempt at objectivity; hosts copyright content with no evidence of permission. Article was deleted. At best a polemical site unsuitable as a source or external link, at worst, a copyright violating hate site. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Done Stormfront, unbelievably some people have actually cited this as a source. Fuck no.- Done freerepublic.com polemical, tends to host illegal copies of other sources (see L. A. Times v. Free Republic), often linked by Freepers, site is a web forum for right-wingers and is absolutely not a reliable source. Fails WP:RS, WP:C, WP:EL. Opinionated content of no provable authority is especially unwelcome in WP:BLP articles, where many such links appear.
- Done cafepress.com is a source for... what, exactly? Over 300 links as of 20 April 2008, and all of them flogging merchandise. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Done post chronicle copyright violations and inappropriate sources (blogs etc.), often added by WP:SPA speculated to be the site owner, Smokefan2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), based on spamming and creating an article on the site owner, . Site is heavily loaded with ads. Site disclaimer says Many of the stories on this site may or may not contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner [see WP:C#Linking to copyrighted works] [...] The Post Chronicle™ accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or inaccuracies of any story or opinion. [see WP:RS] [...] We run banner advertising in order to cover the operating costs of delivering the material. [also they run AdWords and popups; see WP:EL]. This site is an inappropriate source, much of the content is mirrored from blogs and other similarly unreliable sources, but some is copied from valid sources and may safely be re-attributed to its rightful owner. Some content is generated by "post-chronicle staff", but there is no evidence that this is a significant or recognised news gathering agency, making it no better, as a Wikipedia source, than a blog - a self-published source of no proven reliability.
