5 ms·

I wonder if you could use a forum post of someone saying what's wrong on their page as a source to edit the page though. Forum posts aren't outside the realm o

I wonder if you could use a forum post of someone saying what's wrong on their page as a source to edit the page though. Forum posts aren't outside the realm of valid sources, so where exactly is the line drawn?

lmm 5y ago
> I wonder if you could use a forum post of someone saying what's wrong on their page as a source to edit the page though. You could. The person themselves couldn't. (There are guidelines about the risk of bias from primary sources, which apply very much to someone talking about themselves or their own company, so you shouldn't just blindly copy what they say into Wikipedia, but you absolutely can use them as a source)
- bookofjoe 5y ago
  Off-topic: this discussion reminds me a bit of what happened about five years ago when I offered to host a reddit AMA about anesthesia and anesthesiology and related subjects (I was board-certified in 1980). The moderator asked me for proof that I was who I was, so I had to spend a couple days digging through my files to find my medical school diploma, board-certification document, medical licenses, etc., then scan and email them to reddit. I did all that, and they said it wasn't sufficient proof: I needed to take a selfie with the documents and my driver's license to "prove" my bona fides. At that point I said WTF? and bagged it. No good deed goes unpunished.
  - atatatat 5y ago
    What's the worst/best part of your position that people outside of it would rarely acknowledge publicly?
    - bookofjoe 5y ago
      Huh?
      - scubbo 5y ago
        They're trying to get the AMA started here.
bawolff 5y ago
Conflict of interest is totally separate from the reliability of sources issue. I think the thing that would be encouraged in this situation is to detail what you would want changed on the talk page, and have a neutral wikipedian look at it and make the changes if appropriate. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_con... That said, as far as where the line is drawn for sources see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources i dont think forum posts are usually considered the best sources.
- Cogito 5y ago
  Was about to reply with this exact sentiment. If the page is about you or your service, propose the updates in the talk page (ideally with reliable third-party sources).
- Talanes 5y ago
  I've definitely seen posts by community managers used as reference for some gaming-related articles, which I assume would fit under "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves." But, of course, none of those posts specifically targeted their Wikipedia articles.

lmm 5y ago

> I wonder if you could use a forum post of someone saying what's wrong on their page as a source to edit the page though. You could. The person themselves couldn't. (There are guidelines about the risk of bias from primary sources, which apply very much to someone talking about themselves or their own company, so you shouldn't just blindly copy what they say into Wikipedia, but you absolutely can use them as a source)

bookofjoe 5y ago
Off-topic: this discussion reminds me a bit of what happened about five years ago when I offered to host a reddit AMA about anesthesia and anesthesiology and related subjects (I was board-certified in 1980). The moderator asked me for proof that I was who I was, so I had to spend a couple days digging through my files to find my medical school diploma, board-certification document, medical licenses, etc., then scan and email them to reddit. I did all that, and they said it wasn't sufficient proof: I needed to take a selfie with the documents and my driver's license to "prove" my bona fides. At that point I said WTF? and bagged it. No good deed goes unpunished.
- atatatat 5y ago
  What's the worst/best part of your position that people outside of it would rarely acknowledge publicly?
  - bookofjoe 5y ago
    Huh?
    - scubbo 5y ago
      They're trying to get the AMA started here.

bawolff 5y ago

Conflict of interest is totally separate from the reliability of sources issue. I think the thing that would be encouraged in this situation is to detail what you would want changed on the talk page, and have a neutral wikipedian look at it and make the changes if appropriate. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_con... That said, as far as where the line is drawn for sources see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources i dont think forum posts are usually considered the best sources.

Cogito 5y ago
Was about to reply with this exact sentiment. If the page is about you or your service, propose the updates in the talk page (ideally with reliable third-party sources).
Talanes 5y ago
I've definitely seen posts by community managers used as reference for some gaming-related articles, which I assume would fit under "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves." But, of course, none of those posts specifically targeted their Wikipedia articles.