Talk:Topsite: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
[[User:Pda|Pda]] 17:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC) |
[[User:Pda|Pda]] 17:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC) |
||
I don't see how NFO files can be a valid source, they are not 2nd party journalism, they are first party editorials. Nfos can be written by anyone, modified heavily as they are passed from the source, and a frequently contradicted by other nfos. Since they are not reported by a peer reviewed or reputable 2nd party source, quoting them is original research, akin to quoting a conversation in an IRC channel. |
|||
None of this information is verifiable, it's just conjecture based on dubious sources. No reputable source has ever published a detailed account as to the specific workings of the release scene and as such this article shouldn't go into those workings, such as linkops vs siteops and how nuking works, etc. |
|||
[[User:67.182.140.115|67.182.140.115]] 08:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 08:09, 30 June 2006
How do you guys know this stuff, are you all sceners? If so what groups ;-)
- Ex-scener. ALKIVAR™
01:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- You should be arrested for being a pirate and raising the costs of software, movies, and music. 12.219.74.52 06:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- You should be arrested for believing all the crap that organisations like the mpaa say.
- Maybe you should get a job so you can afford stuff.
- Pretty lame comments, wikipedia is about informations not arguing.
- Maybe you should get a job so you can afford stuff.
- You should be arrested for believing all the crap that organisations like the mpaa say.
- You should be arrested for being a pirate and raising the costs of software, movies, and music. 12.219.74.52 06:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the page back to version by User:S33k3r and added some info which was removed previously. Reference 3 works as a reference for group admin aswell, since it's mentioned there. I agree with User:67.182.140.115 that forum posts alone are not valid citable sources, but it seems to be complimentary with reference 3 which has more detailed information about nuking, atleast on the technical process. As for the linkop thing, I reverted it aswell. Standard (warez) article seems to be entirely based on information that can be cited only from NFO files. For warez related articles, I would consider NFO files valid source, since this stuff isn't something you can go and research in a library.
I don't see how NFO files can be a valid source, they are not 2nd party journalism, they are first party editorials. Nfos can be written by anyone, modified heavily as they are passed from the source, and a frequently contradicted by other nfos. Since they are not reported by a peer reviewed or reputable 2nd party source, quoting them is original research, akin to quoting a conversation in an IRC channel.
None of this information is verifiable, it's just conjecture based on dubious sources. No reputable source has ever published a detailed account as to the specific workings of the release scene and as such this article shouldn't go into those workings, such as linkops vs siteops and how nuking works, etc.