Talk:Karin Spaink

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

This article is 100% WP:OR or someone could not provide RSs[edit]

all said, this article needs a major cleanup. COFS 23:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As there seems to be some confusion on what that means, here is the relevant paragraph of WP:ATTRIB.

Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable, but see below for exceptions. Any unsourced material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately.

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought

Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources.

Note the difference between unsourced material and original research:

   * Unsourced material is material not yet attributed to a reliable source. It is unattributed.
   * Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source. It is unattributable.

The only way to demonstrate that material is not original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. COFS 21:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you would indicate *where* you think that reliable sources are missing, I might be able to provide them. I think that the joined autors have managed to write a fairly accurate description of parts of my activities, although - of course - not of all. For instance, my work with/for digital civil rights organisations is missing. Karin Spaink 22:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I pulled the disputed tag. Considering it's been 7 months and the subject of the article has commented herself, I hardly think it is justified. Keith Henson (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I romoved the References-needed tag that was inserted in May 2008. Again, I consider this a fair article, and I have offered to provide references where needed. But _when_ you want them, please be specific about _where_ you want them. Karin Spaink (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Karin Spaink, I do not agree with the Wikipedia:original research claims but the article does lack references. The article Wikipedia:When to cite may give a good impression of when and where citiations are needed. Some examples:
  1. Quotations, for instance in the part about New Age there is a claim that Spaink invented neologism, these would be quotes, needing sources
  2. Contentious statements about living people: If I would have written the bio, I would provide a reference for every sentence or at least make clear where I found the information. The claim that Spaink suffers from specific diseases would need referencing for instance. The same is true for the court case(s).
  3. Other: I would have, if possible, provided a reference to an (internet) archive of the columns Spaink wrote,
Moreover I advise you to conservative in editing Karin Spaink page. Wikipedia:Autobiography states "Avoid writing or editing an article about yourself, other than to correct unambiguous errors of fact." Providing (reliable, external, third party) references would be fine however.
- C mon (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)