User talk:JzG/unreliable sources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi - you've been removing freeper sources from articles, which is fine, but please replace them with a real link or a [citation needed] tag if you can't find a real link rather than leaving them hanging like youve been doing -- or, if the info seems questionable, erase the claim entirely. It's better to have no claim at all than to have one without a source or with a dubious freeper source. Also, by the way, please be judicious about accusing organizations of "copyright violations"; your understanding of fair use may be different from that of others. csloat (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Free Republic analog

I know this may sound petty and somewhat partisan, but (especially since the dispute over the two was the subject of a very high-profile arbitration case), if Free Republic is to be blacklisted, shouldn't its equally BLP-violating mirror image be blacklisted as well? Democratic Underground has 298 links [1], including quite a few article space links and many article talk pages. Horologium (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  • No, not petty at all. Democratic Underground seems to have the same issues: copyright violation, unreliable. I will add it to the list. Guy (Help!) 08:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spartacus links

That's... well, a lot of links. I'm going to see about going through the list of the Spartacus links. Looking over the site, I have trouble seeing whether anything on it could possibly be used for verification of anything on WP. Polemics, fringe theories, etc. And I even have personal affection for some fringe theories but that doesn't mean I can't recognize they are fringe theories and of only marginal use to Wikipedia and not at all as RSs. Thanks for the list. If I come across any similarly unreliable source sites in widespread use, do you want a heads up or should I just pursue them myself? Cheers, Pigman☿ 22:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, maybe it's not all bad. But certainly a mixed bag and certainly promotional to be inserted by the owner. Pigman☿ 23:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] www.hollywoodusa.co.uk

Should this site be on your list: www.hollywoodusa.co.uk

Looks like copied (copyvio) garbage

IP4240207xx (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SourceWatch

We seem to be using *.sourcewatch.org a lot, even on BLPs. Useful as it may be, it's still an open Wiki and has a political bent, to boot. A candidate for your list, I think. <eleland/talkedits> 16:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] http://current.com/

Here is another one: http://current.com/

IP4240207xx (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)