Talk:Susan Tom

message: At 06:08 & 06:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (note: please feel free to add the names of Susan Tom's other children and characteristics, as long as it's not done as an act of vandalism. Wikipedia is rigorous in doing research and removes all "bad" information received. Wikipedia does not tolerate users who add unproven, prejudicial information about people).
Wikipedia lacks a paid staff for research and correction, and virtually all such work is done by volunteers who work on what interests them when they feel like it. The system works surprisingly well, but 
* "rigorous" is an overstatement, 
* the intimation that corrections are prompt is far from accurate, and 
* much  is "tolerated" due to 
** failure to detect it, 
** a policy of extreme caution against alienating possibly well-meaning editors, and 
** various means of circumventing restrictions. 
The survival of the notice on the Susan Tom article for over 21 months is the most obvious evidence that its assurances are ill founded.--Jerzy•t 00:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfounded notice 

message: _ _ I have added a notice to the accompanying article, saying that sourcing is a problem.
There are four sources formally cited for the accompanying article, which has had 8 registered and 13 anonymous ones. At the very least, there is a need to track down for each of the informally cited sources (i.e., those that just say so-and-so "reported that" such and such) 
# whether it can be verified as  having commented on the topic,
# on what specific date, and
# a URL where those are stated and the information they have about the topic can be read.
Verifying that they attest to the facts asserted in our article, and tying each fact to its corresponding source, are further needs, that depend on those pieces of groundwork, which can be done either in the article (with footnotes at the end, and super-script numbers in the text where they appear), or on this talk page (by matching up extracts from the external source and from the corresponding language in our article that they verify).
_ _ That will make feasible a specific assessment of the degree of verifiability of what is presently apparent.  Any remainder may or not be straightforward to trace back to a source, perhaps more detailed and perhaps correcting misstatements in our version.
_ _ IMO, this is especially important in the case of the accompanying article bcz of the note (moved into the previous section of this talk page), which is likely to have had the effect of encouraging contributions made without adding verifying information, and perhaps based on vague recollections or imprecisely set down, all encouraged by the unfounded promise of "rigorous ... research" by others.--Jerzy•t 04:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Susan Tom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101230032359/http://abc.go.com:80/shows/extreme-makeover-home-edition/episode-detail/tom-family/60917 to http://abc.go.com/shows/extreme-makeover-home-edition/episode-detail/tom-family/60917
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified