User talk:Sferguson1529

June 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article FanFiction.Net, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Forums and petitions are not considered reliable sources NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Criticism also has to be notable. For example, we wouldn't allow forum posts criticizing a local politician to stand as a reliable source. The criticism has to be significant enough that it's picked up by (in this case) an online news source like HuffPo and reported on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here to report "the truth", it's here to describe the mainstream views on a topic. If the mainstream view as reported by reliable sources says the world is flat, that's what Wikipedia would say. Specific to this case, I bet you could find justified criticism for the vast majority of notable products/services/companies/people in the world. These criticisms don't make it into articles unless reported on because articles aren't the place to air the grievances of a person/section of a community. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Sferguson (the S. Ferguson? kiddng.), I wouldn't take this too literally. A large portion of editors and admins have a definite pattern to their activity than isn't "copy editing" and does the work of promoting the version of reality they would like to see. Similarly the admonition not to "game the system" should be taken and observed to mean the opposite. In other words learn what are considered reliable sources, and use that understanding as a tool to promote the content you feel is "true" and attack the content you don't like. I don't mean that most contributors consciously do this or that I am allowed to encourage you to do it. It's maybe a dialectical criticsm. Or it might be advice. Except that advice would be against the rules. Obotlig (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)