Talk:Guerrilla News Network/Archive 1

message: *Just a note that comments should go at the BOTTOM of the page, please, as otherwise the discussion gets scattered all over the place. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

message: This needs to be expanded, with profiles of the editors, some historical information, and a more detailed explanation of the site's/organisation's various features.
Who's removing the Disinformation Accusations section?! I thought we had found some kind of neutral common ground.
This is totally absurd.
-CurtainCall29
Certainly not me.  I was satisfied with the way things were. 
Thankfully, I've saved a copy on my hard drive.  I'll reinstate the disinfo section as soon as I have time to do so. 
Too bad. 
MountainBum83 23:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you do add it back, you might want to find a source that isn't a forum post - that's very, very iffy when it comes to considering verifiability. It would also be good to get some other outside sources into the article, which is lacking in sourcing right now. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I haven't deleted a thing, as you might note from the article history. I came in from another page (I forget what), saw the debate, and noted that section was based on a forum post. According to the verifiability policy I linked to up above, self-published sources are generally not acceptable as good third-party sources; it mentions blogs as being one of the unacceptable sources, and I tend to lump forums into that group. There are no reliable, verifiable third-party sources in the rest of the article. It needs work to meet the verifiability requirements. That's all I'm saying. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the only problems I'd see with those sources is that they both look to be reprints of the forum post, and I'm almost certain that Conspiracy Planet has been rejected as a reliable source in other articles, though I can't find such discussion close to hand. Sunday Magazine, I'm not sure about as a reliable source (mostly since I live in the city it's from, and have never heard of it), but hey, it's better than no sources at all. Good luck with the article - I'll leave you to it. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand 

message: Well, I was just going to monitor this article from the sidelines, but it looks like it needs some more attention with the latest changes. Here are the concerns I, as an uninvolved person, see with this article right now:
*Sourcing. I said it before, I'll say it again - this article needs reliable sources to bring it in line with the verifiability policy. I'm not just pointing out the disinformation section, which I still feel is very, very marginal for sourcing, but the entire article. Where are the reports on GNN itself? Where are the independent reports on the various GNN projects? I see some mentions of reviews, but no links to the original articles. It would be great if the folks who are now involved in the discussion can track some of those down.
*POV: There's quite a bit. I note the long comment from Ian Inaba about the "Mosh Continues" bit - that is entirely POV and should be removed or heavily rewritten, for example (and the numbers cited need to be sourced). Anything that uses the word "our" is unencyclopedic and should be avoided. Please look over the neutral point of view policy.
*Advertising: The long lists of projects do indeed seem to be promo material more than anything else, and should be reduced. 
I'm bringing these concerns up so the editors involved with the article will consider them. If it's necessary, I'll dive in and try to clean some of this up myself, but I'd rather see the folks who are working on the article handle that themselves. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for addressing some of the concerns. I'm going to try and get some more eyes on the article for further consideration. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns 

message: Well, I'm probably a fool to get stuck into this issue, but this article does need help before it gets out of hand. So, what I've done is a rewrite of the entire article, tightening it up, removing some of the badly unsourced stuff, finding a few other sources, and generally trying to make it work a bit better under the verification, reliable sources and other guidelines and policies. I'd invite participants here to take a look at the draft over here and provide comments HERE, please. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I've condensed this section down to where it is, and used just the link to the original post as a reference, is because there's a total lack of non-trivial reliable reporting on the topic, anywhere. The Sunday Magazine piece is a direct reprint of the original post, and after considering it, I can't believe it passes the guidelines for verifiability or reliable sources. Note that the 'citation needed' tag at the end of my paragraph is for the WHOLE paragraph, not just the last sentence.  Please take a look at WP:RS and WP:V for indications of what's necessary under those guidelines. I also feel that if the original post is included, it avoids Wikipedia as a source of analysis and interpretation, rather than an encyclopedia. We've absolutely got to follow the neutral point of view here, and analysis of the post will invariably drift off neutral. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Couple of things: first, please don't remove other peoples' comments from the page, as I've just had to replace my response to CurtainCall up above your coment, Anthony. Second, I did ask for *comments*, not edits, on the draft page, so please discuss changes HERE and I'll make the changes. That way we don't wind up with battles in two different places. =P  Finally, to both sides of the debate: Wikipedia is not a debate forum. This isn't the place for argument and counterargument about these claims. It's an information source. That's what I'm aiming for with the draft. Please remember that. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No worries on the newness - I was there once too. One of my key concerns with this article is, as you say, there is no evidence to back up the accusations. This is why I've suggested wording the controversy section as it is, and asked the folks who are requesting its addition to provide a better source. If it can't be backed up with a reliable source, then out it goes - that's generally how it works around here. Do please note that I'm just an editor, same as tens of thousands of others, and I have no official power over this or any article; I've joined this discussion to try and help shape a consensus that meets all of the Wikipedia guidelines. I understand the concerns of both sides of the discussion, and am hoping to help find a comfortable middle ground that provides us with an encyclopedic article without factual issues. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside: something's gone screwy with the talk page; it looks like a full copy of it was pasted in at some point. I'm trying to fix it; I hope I haven't lost anyone's comments in the process. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I've been waiting for any further comment on the rewrite before I bring it in. Those claims have yet to be sourced. If no further issues arise, I'll bring the rewrite live shortly. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What I'm trying to do is find a middle ground, and to do so, my intention has been to leave that paragraph there, with the request for citations included, and give the folks who have been wanting to add that information in an opportunity to properly source it. If sourcing doesn't show up within, say, a week or so after going live, it gets removed. Given your concerns, I may remove it and post it on this page with the request for citations; if properly cited, it would then be reintroduced. Would that be more amenable to you? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite to try and clean up POV and other issues