From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Editing issues on FTDI[edit]

I, unfortunately, had to revert most of your edits. Your changes included original research and the use of forums as a citation. Original research is prohibited on Wikipedia, and forums are never considered reliable sources. We can only go by what the sources say. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your text was overly technical, so I shorten the section to refine it down to the basic details Also, Hackaday is basically a blog, so I removed it too, since you don't want any blogs in the article. • SbmeirowTalk • 14:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Hackaday is pretty professional though, and has editorial oversight. Looking at Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_weblogs_reliable_sources.3F, we can see that this may be acceptable as a reliable source. They have a list of their contributors, if anyone wants a look: . Benboy00 (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Why do they get a pass when others don't? Why should I have to argue that another good site should be included? In this case, the description in the paragraph is just fine without saying anything about hackaday, seriously. People were reporting problems in blogs up to 3 weeks before Hackaday posted something about it. There was too much detail in the article, and even I added too much in the past days. This event should be compressed down to the BASIC facts instead of a documentary about it. • SbmeirowTalk • 23:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
How can you discuss something about a specialized technology company in basic facts? Additionally, Hackaday is a particularly major website in the same hardware enthusiast scene that would commonly use FTDI products and notice something amiss. Plus, the reference to the site itself can stay because the other sources acknowledge the site's role in spreading word of the bug. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The timeline needs to be fixed. Users started reporting it before the Windows Update. There are links in the hackaday article pointing to examples, including one of the earliest examples is October 2 on the Arduino blog. Also, I want you to restore my like to the excellent example of the counterfeit IC comparison that you have deleted twice, which is actual proof of counterfeit IC's. • SbmeirowTalk • 08:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Despite how "excellent" it may be, its still a blog. And blogs are not reliable sources. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
So are you saying that you parroting of crappy online articles trump the facts? Fix the timeline! • SbmeirowTalk • 18:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
No specific date beyond "October 2014" is needed. Plus, again, you keep attempting to reintroduce a forum as a citation. Again, forums are never considered reliable sources, and extrapolating exact dates like that is original research, which is also prohibited on Wikipedia. Plus, primary sources are discouraged. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Technically, if you were trying to illustrate something like how much controversy/discussion something generated, a forum might be an acceptable reference, in the same way that the number of views on a youtube video might be relevant. Benboy00 (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
That's just your opinion. Wikipedia guidelines say otherwise. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
That is in fact not what it says, Viper. (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Regarding the claim "Technically, if you were trying to illustrate something like how much controversy/discussion something generated, a forum might be an acceptable reference.", the claim is incorrect for the simple reason that one person can anonymously create as much controversy or discussion as he wishes. Indeed, there are companies that, for a price, will do it for you on any online forum you choose. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)