Talk:BATS Chi-X Europe

Second ref for Linux use

Hello,

I am editing this page to point out that Chi-X itself announces on their website that they use Linux. That renders completely useless the link by Vaughan-Nichols. That article is an anti-Microsoft propaganda by that person. The LSE has NOT announced they are dumping Windows. They simply said they are considering options, but NO such decision have been made as of today.

May I ask why is somebody restoring such a link in this page to quote that Chi-X runs on Linux? That article is more than that. The Chi-X's page is the official and only necessary page to get that information from.

Please don't restore that link.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.223.211 (talk)

There is no reason not to have two references for this information. If you read WP:V you will find that text in articles should be supported by sources that are independent of the subject, not company websites, wherever possible. The second ref should be included as it provides independant verification of what the company claims, regardless of your own dislike for the writer or his subject. - Ahunt (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason: there is absolutely NO reference in such article from where they are giving that information. That's something huge. There is no such "verification" (that Chi-X is running Linux). Moreover, that person is outright lying about LSE dumping Tradelect. I challenge you to provide ONE press note, one single article that corroborates that the decision has been made. There isn't. That's more than just me disliking the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.223.211 (talk)

You are completely missing the point - the article is used as an independent ref to show that Chi-X is using Linux, nothing more. If you don't like this article then find another independent ref that shows it, to replace it with. - Ahunt (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you are understanding. You keep saying that I like or dislike things which is something subjective. I am stating objective reasons why such link shouldn't be included: First, the article is providing misinformation. It's like me creating a webpage which simply states: "The earth is not a planet, and Chi-X runs on Linux". According to what you are saying that would be a valid source of information because it's independent. However, that's clearly wrong. Second, if you look at that article there is no verification that Chi-X runs on Linux. The author does not say how or IF he verified that. He might as well be quoting the Chi-X page. That has nothing to do with what I like or not. Instead of addressing those concerns you are attacking me: you are saying that I deleted the reference because I didn't like the author but are ignoring the reasons I am putting forward. I understand the point but it would be ideal to have an independent verification of the company claims, but the deleted article provides NO such verification.