User talk:Tedarroway

Sourcing

Hi, just a little hint. I've noticed that most (if not all) of your changes appear to be titled "original sourcing"......you don't need to keep doing this. The original source doesn't particularly matter, as long as the source we have on the page is reliable. This change for example wasn't particularly advisable - just to let you know for the future - as you replaced a reliable, English source with an unknown Korean one, just because they broke the news originally. Good work, but just watch what changes you make as some of them are unneeded and create confusion/barriers for any people who want to look at the sources. Thanks. Paralympiakos (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to hint at the above once again. Paralympiakos (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't you use the original source instead of the copy-and-pasters looking to improve their SEO? These sites do no work to confirm the news and simply re-purpose the work of others in hopes of generating some page views. It hardly seems fair to the people doing the actual reporting. --Tedarroway (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what an SEO is. Original sources have to be reliable. Some random Korean site and a random Swedish site aren't exactly that. Sites such as mmajunkie, mania etc are very much reliable sources, so that's why we use them. There's also zero point in having source in foreign languages; I repeat ZERO sense. Keep that on se.wikipedia or kr.wikipedia. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make no sense. "Some randon Korean site" isn't reliable, but the sites that just re-purpose their news and do no actual fast-checking are reliable? How exactly does that work? Sherdog, MMA Weekly, MMA Junkie are reliable. They do actual reporting. MMA Mania, MMA Frenzy, etc. are simply blogs that will re-report anything anyone else is reporting. That doesn't make them reliable. In fact, it makes them the exact opposite of that. How many scholarly papers or publications have you produced with second-hand sources? And besides, the Swedish site you're bashing as unreliable was in English. Perhaps you should take a few minutes to check out sources instead of using them blindly. It'd make this site far more accurate and reputable. --Tedarroway (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference in the mindset of people between seeing a random Korean site and seeing mmamania/junkie etc. People will trust mania. They confirm news they've seen on other small sites, which can often be nonsense rumours. Therefore people trust junkie/mania because they rarely print stuff that is blatant lies, as people will think a Korean site will be. I like how you've conveniently dodged the part about it being in a foreign language so people can't read it. In answer to your question, how many papers have I produced? A few. I have a papers published. You? Paralympiakos (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mania isn't reliable, and you lose any credibility when you try to compare them to a reliable site. "They confirm news they've seen on smaller sites." Uh, no they don't. Like MMA Frenzy, they wait for a reliable site like Sherdog or Junkie to prove the report is crap and then they "update" their stories with whatever the newest news is. How does make them reliable? Therefore, even a foreign site (especially when it's in English text or video) is far more reliable than these unreliable sites blindly posting whatever they find on the web. Next time you write a paper, let me know. I'll just re-hash the journals and books, slap on a "Quote of the Day" or "Report:" headline, and then you can source me for all of them instead of the actual sources. --Tedarroway (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]