1,756
edits
Talk:Research Psychologist: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
re
(sorry, and why this page belongs deleted) |
Leucosticte (talk | contribs) (re) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
::Sorry about the over-reversion, I have no idea how I managed to do that. | ::Sorry about the over-reversion, I have no idea how I managed to do that. | ||
::The issue is the purpose of WikiIndex. Is it a place to post original research on user identities? That opens a huge can of worms, if so. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC) | ::The issue is the purpose of WikiIndex. Is it a place to post original research on user identities? That opens a huge can of worms, if so. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
:::I don't know how binding [http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex%3AFrequentlyAskedQuestions&diff=76974&oldid=76966 this] is, but it's been on that page for awhile. Why does Wikipedia ban original research and prefer tertiary to primary and secondary sources? I don't know, but in some cases it has dumb results, e.g. when they're writing articles about stuff that happened on Wikipedia and people object to their citing diffs. A diff is a pretty reliable source, in my view, and diffs are pretty much the sources that will be cited when we're talking about what people in the wikisphere have said and done. It's not like anyone cared enough to write a mainstream news article about 99% of the stuff that goes on in the wikisphere. | |||
:::Why not follow the same practices as [[RationalWikiWiki]] (aside from the dumb stuff they did, like kick people off for no reason)? They could write a several-page long article about someone using mostly diffs for the references. Granted, they did a lot of editorializing too, which we should avoid here. The Research Psychologist article had no editorializing; only cited facts. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 04:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC) | |||