Battlestar Wiki Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad/Archive2

Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad/Archive2

Discussion page of Battlestar Wiki:Citation Jihad/Archive2
Archive - Between April 20th, 2006 and May 9th, 2006
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page. Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Battlestar Wiki:How to archive a talk page.) Please add new archives to Archive 3. Thank you. --April Arcus 11:09, 2 May 2006 (CDT)


Koenigrules / Hollywood North Report

"Koenigrules" (KR) is the alias of Jim Iaccino, a popular reporter of BSG spoilers, whose reports are often cited and reposted by other sources. Recent comments made on the "Subject 2 Discussion" segment of the "LV Rocks" radio program (transcribed at Sources:Subject 2 Discussion, 11 April 2006) raised the possibility that KR is merely re-reporting publically available information, and does not appear to be a credible primary source.

The Merovingian investigated this possibility, and posted his findings to Talk:Precipice#Question about Koenigrules. I raised the possibility of instating a policy against citing KR's reports as credible sources on Battlestar Wiki, which was seconded by CalculatinAvatar.

Consequently, I am opening a formal vote here on the matter. Please review Sources:Subject 2 Discussion, 11 April 2006, its putative source material, and The Merovingian's comments on Talk:Precipice#Question about Koenigrules prior to casting your vote, and feel free to raise any questions below. --April Arcus 01:18, 20 April 2006 (CDT)

Update: Koenigrules has responded to a number of our concerns via e-mail. You can read my correspondence with him at Sources:Correspondence with Jim Iaccino. --April Arcus 12:36, 23 April 2006 (CDT)

Update 2: I will be transcribing KR's appearance on tonight's Subject 2 Discussion either later tonight or early tomorrow, and offer my considered opinion afterwards. I may request that the current "blacklist" vote be closed and recast as a more general discussion on the appropriateness of anonymous sources at battlestar wiki. Rebuttals will be welcome. --April Arcus 19:05, 25 April 2006 (CDT)

Update 3: KR's latest appearance has been transcribed to Sources:Subject 2 Discussion, 25 April 2006. --April Arcus 12:45, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

Update 4: My final opinion is available at Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad#From Peter. I have changed my vote to "Oppose" and have supported Joe's suggestion of closing this vote and moving the topic of discussion to the appropriateness of anonymous sources. --April Arcus 13:25, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

Update 5: This poll was closed by Joe on May 2, 2006, in favor of "The Rumor Vote" below. --The Merovingian (C - E) 01:27, 3 May 2006 (CDT)

Blacklist Vote

In favor of a policy against citing KR as a primary source

  • The Merovingian (C - E) 23:36, 19 April 2006 (CDT) - I feel like this guy betrayed us. And it's getting worse; 4-5 news sites report things he says as fact; he is not helping at all. Dogger said: "He often fails to differentiate what he is reporting from his own speculation, an oversight compounded by the fact that his speculation is hampered by a lack of attention to detail."-->He put that more clearly than I could. Way to go Dogger.  :)
  • CalculatinAvatar 01:11, 20 April 2006 (CDT) If he originates nothing, we lose nothing by not citing him.
  • Steelviper 07:34, 20 April 2006 (CDT) - We do NOT claim to be a primary source here, and everything that is stated as fact should be citable elsewhere. Our sources are therefore our foundation, so they should be held to a high standard.
  1. Talos 10:30, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
  2. Spencerian 11:21, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
  3. Grafix 03:16, 21 April 2006 (CDT) I'm against the publication of anything except the facts.
  4. Mazzy 17:12, 21 April 2006 (CDT) This is site is a reference, it would be misleading to publish anything other than citable information. I would vote the same no matter who we were talking about and spoilers without a named source seem to be a chance of forever cataloging misinformation. If this were a vote about sources and not a person I would be more comfortable but as it stands, I don't feel I can change my vote in good faith. I think spoilers except ones coming directly from writers or cast should be left off all together. If there is a more appropriate way for me to express this than this vote, I will consider changing it if not this is my input.-- Mazzy 12:00, 2 May 2006 (CDT)
  5. AerynSun44 17:15, 21 April 2006 (CDT) I must concur. Too much flotsam.
    • Dogger 20:38, 21 April 2006 (CDT) I've never heard KR 'reveal' anything that I haven't already seen from another source. I have always seen him as just somebody who reads the same things I read and then repeats them in another venue, but with an extra helping of certainty. He often fails to differentiate what he is reporting from his own speculation, an oversight compounded by the fact that his speculation is hampered by a lack of attention to detail. Perhaps what he does might have some value as a 'digest' of what is being talked about, but I don't see why anyone but the most naive listener would consider him as a primary source.
    • I have struck out parts of my comments that seem to have been proven wrong by some of the history presented in the thread on Skiffy. However, I cannot in good conscience change my vote because of the simple fact that I don't think that anyone claiming an anonymous source should really be considered a primary source, even if that source is genuine. Perhaps 'blacklist' is the wrong word. I simply see this as a test case for what is the appropriate kind of evidence that should be cited as authoritative. Singling out KR is probably unfair, but that doesn't change what I honestly think to be not an appropriate primary source for a wiki. If there were a vote to have a policy against citing any anonymous source as a primary source, then I would be in favour of that too. I consider this vote to be just an example of what I think should be an overall principle. For example, if KR were to name his source, then I don't see any reason not to consider citing that information. The problem I have is not with KR's honesty in particular -- it's with the idea of citing a source without giving the reader the benefit of evaluating its reliability, and that includes anonymity as well as the mixing of facts with speculation.--Dogger 19:36, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
    • Frankie Gouge 02:20, 22 April 2006 (EDT) Credibility is too hard to earn to risk needlessly. Plenty of other sites to get speculative spoilers.
  6. Bowersj8 14:31, 22 April 2006 (EDT)
  7. Shane (T - C - E) 22:40, 25 April 2006 (CDT) I listened enough to the radio show. (All Annoymous Sources too...)

Opposed

  1. Kuralyov 22:21, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
  2. April Arcus 13:41, 26 April 2006 (CDT) Individual blacklisting is not appropriate for this case.
  3. CalculatinAvatar 13:49, 26 April 2006 (CDT) It seems he does originate things after all.
  4. Steelviper 14:09, 26 April 2006 (CDT) Let's not single out KR on the issue, but we do need to address the issue of anonymous sources (see below).
  5. Adedward 23:28, 28 April 2006 (CDT)
  6. The Merovingian (C - E) 12:06, 2 May 2006 (CDT) - This discussion kind of evolved into the more generic discussion about anonymous sources in general, and I no longer support a ban on KR specifically. I think we already said it had changed and stuff last week, but I forgot to formally change my vote.

Abstain

  1. Mercifull 07:33, 23 April 2006 (CDT) Changed to abstain because I don't feel I know enough about this issue to choose either way.
  2. Quig 10:09, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
  3. Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 08:53, 20 April 2006 (CDT) After reading the unfortunate thread on the Skiffy board and the dialgoue established between Peter and KR, I will abstain until I determine whether or not this whole thing was worth the heartache for all concerned.
  4. Frankie Gouge 16:05, 24 April 2006 (EDT)
  5. Noneofyourbusiness 20:58, 26 April 2006 (EST)

Motion by The Merovingian

While KoenigRules and several of his collleagues insist that he does indeed have access to some sort of spoilers, all of them still will not confirm the veracity of these sources. Seeing as this is what they would do both if they were REAL and if they were NOT REAL sources, we thus arrive at an impasse. Therefore, I want to find some civil compromise over this: I'm a Uniter, not a Divider, and if we start turning on each other Rick Berman's new crackpot scheme to make Star Trek XI: Starfleet Academy will eat us BSG fans alive.
Proposal: If KoenigRules promises to be more careful in the future in his interviews, to *make it clear* when he is giving away direct information from his source(s), and when he is making a speculation based on either this purported source material, or just his own personal opinion, we will reverse our decision to hold a vote to reject him as a reliable source.
For example, if KoenigRules says in an interview "I think Baltar is a Cylon", he should really make it clear that that is just his opinion and not supported by any spoiler source information that he might have, as news sites might miscontrue his comments and lead to a world of trouble. However, the matter of HollyWoodNorthReport itself, which has come under frequent attack from many sites for improperly forgetting to use citations when they source material from other fansites, should be considered a separate matter.

I hope we can all agree to this.

I don't think this subissue needs a vote. Koenigrules has indicated to me that he'll be able to reply here by monday. If he can adequately address the concerns we've raised, then naturally, the above discussion will be re-evaluated in light of that. --April Arcus 02:21, 23 April 2006 (CDT)

Support

  1. --The Merovingian (C - E) 22:48, 22 April 2006 (CDT)

Oppose

On anonymous sources

In lieu of all this, I am thinking of further clarifying the section defining what sources we should and should not use on the wiki. In particular, sources that are anonymous should not be referenced (this is fairly common sense, but isn't explicitly stated0. Also, for reference, we should probably add a definitive list of sources, grouped by categories from "uses anonymous source" to "trusted primary sources". (We have a list such as this already on the Citation page, though it could be better defined in my mind. ) Thoughts? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 19:49, 23 April 2006 (CDT)

I agree (though I don't know how to set that up using wiki code).--The Merovingian (C - E) 20:46, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
We would set it up just like the "Image tagging policy" page. The only question is how do we define what is legit and what is not? If we consider how big the internet and how vast information can be found, anyone who reports on infomration at a regular basis could be considered legit, as long as the information is true. (i.e. Gateworld vs. HNR). This would also not benifit the little people. So I am not really a fan of this, but in light of the problem with spoilers vs. fact, this might be needed. --Shane (T - C - E) 21:02, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
Well it now seems likely that KR does indeed have a source: he's been heavily involved since the Miniseries, and was on the original nuBSG fan page. What threw me in all of this is that that site **no longer exists**, so when I was trying to fact check his credibility it didn't come up. He still cannot reveal his source without compromising it, so I think Joe's "annonymous source" spoiler tag idea might be best. --The Merovingian (C - E) 21:41, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
I think anytime something can be better defined, it is a plus to the accuracy of the project. =)-- Mazzy 12:02, 24 April 2006 (CDT)


Everyone I think this has been resolved after our contact with KoenigRules, and we should bring down the site notice on the Main Page that there's a vote going on regarding KR, as I think things have been resolved already and this would only confuse newcomers. KR seems entirely on the level to me now, and we should put this past and move on to other work. --The Merovingian (C - E) 22:40, 24 April 2006 (CDT)

Absolutely not. This remains an important issue. Tomorrow night, I will transcribe his appearance on S2D and offer my final opinion. --April Arcus 01:13, 25 April 2006 (CDT)

From Peter

Alright then. Having spoken with KR and listened to his latest podcast, the following is now clear to me:

  • KR is not merely re-reporting information gleaned from other sources available to the public. The overlap between the information in the Selloi Dedona casting side and the report made on the 11th is remarkable, but the information he supplied on the 25th cannot be accounted for in light of other publicly available material.
  • KR asserts that he has a single, anonymous source for all his reports.
  • KR has complied with every request we've made of him, clearly separating his personal speculation from information supplied by his source.

It is therefore my opinion that he has done everything we can reasonably expect him to do, considering the anonymity of his source. I therefore believe that singling him out for blacklisting is inappropriate. I am changing my opinion on the above vote to "oppose", and I support Joe's desire to let the matter drop and refocus the discussion on the nature of our sources.

The Spoiler Policy, arrived at by grudging compromise last autumn, makes the following statement:

All spoiler information must have a source, whether in the form of a URL or a printed publication text, on the talk page of the spoilerific article. For printed publication text, a copy must be scanned and uploaded to the wiki in the form of a JPG or PNG, and posted on the talk page of the article containing the spoilerific content.

Naturally, this arises from a desire for Battlestar Wiki to be a reliable source. The nature of a wiki allows anybody to contribute news and information, which must be checked by a policy such as this. It would obviously be unacceptable to allow anybody to pass off ungrounded speculation as reported fact, bolstered in reputation by dint of its presence on the wiki.

However, the very nature of spoiler reporting renders impossible the goal of maintaining perfect accuracy while reporting on episodes not scheduled to air for months to come. Even the very best sources we can hope to come by - legitimate casting sides and call sheets, for example - may refer to script elements that end up being cut from the final broadcast. Set reports may refer to scenes which are filmed but not included, or be reported out of context.

This is an inevitability to which we must resign ourselves if we intend to report on spoilers at all. However, it can be mitigated by requiring attribution to individual reporters. The real problem with KR's reports is the anonymity of his source. Casting sides and call sheets which arrive in their original format are unlikely to be forged, and set reports substantiated by photographic evidence, but all we have to go on with regard to KR is his good reputation.

I find it awkward to judge submissions here based on such a nebulous concept as the reporter's reputation, which is why my personal preference leans to reporting only information which can be backed up by tangible evidence or sourced to individuals involved in production. However, it should be acknowledged that by excluding anonymous reports such as KR's, we will be depriving ourselves of a prolific source of timely and apparently reasonably accurate information.

Because I consider this a real and important dilemma, I want to solicit comment form other users on the issue of anonymous sources. Particularly relevant questions:

  • Should they be allowed at all?
  • If so, should we discriminate between different sources on the basis of reputation?
  • If so, how should reputation be determined, and who should be responsible for determining it?

--April Arcus 13:22, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

(Intro) First of all, I listened to the podcast live. There was quite a number of people in the chat channel inclduing myself. Along with KR, was merv, Ribby, and a few other people that were in the orginal flame war on SciFi.com.
(Question 1) anonymous Spoliers are the worest. First of all, they are considered Wikipedia:Hearsay which means the context of the spolier or information can change and exaserations can be made by the reporter. (From the Podcast on Question #1) When I listened last night he said he took through notes on what his source said, to make sure he kept the information straight. Usually I have pretty good ears, but I didn't hear any paper's or him lean away from the phone.
(Question 2) If gateworld to report this as a spolier, and like this podcast OR link even us as the source with US sourceing it as an annoymous source, Gateworld did not list this current radio cast as the source for them knowning the new title. This page was posted a good few hours before the radio show. They have yet to cite or deem these current spoliers on the website.
(Question 3) I can not answer this, because I think offical sites, offical news orginzations, are the best place. If this came from Katte's website, or Apollo's then I would be OMG, but it didn't. It came from a source that can not even verify if the spoliers are correct. Teasers are offical spoliers, you can choose to watch them or not, but they are offical. RDM podcasts are offical, RDM blog. etc... etc..
(Conclustion) If he was to go on the show stright till october, we would know all of Season 3 BEFORE it happened. For this, I voted to not allow KR be a source, even if another "anonymous" soruce, and only allow offical spoliers to be reported. --Shane (T - C - E) 13:45, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
I'm not that keen on using anonymous sources at all. I don't think it's realistic for us to be everything to everyone, and would rather see us strive to be the concise, accurate, organized repository of BSG knowledge (and let the new sites and forums handle the spoiler info). I could see maybe having a "news" pages with links to such spoilers, but actually putting content into the article that we have no way of verifying (and could prove to be false) seems like a stretch.
Maybe there's a way for us to be able to "report" the information, without compromising our accuracy. We could, for example, limit spoiler postings to spoiler news areas (which nobody updates anyway), and obvious spoiler pages (like the next season, and upcoming episodes). People reading those pages expect spoiler information, as there is no canon information available yet. The important thing to keep in mind would be making sure that once the page passes out of the realm of spoilers into to normal article space (by having an airdate, etc), all normal citation requirements must apply. It is a double standard, but there's a clearly demarcated line that could be observed/enforced, and if the spoilers end up being false it only ends up affecting the temporal accuracy of that particular spoiler page, and not the long-term accuracy of the page once aired. I would still prefer not seeing any anonymous sources in the regular article space, though, as the maintenance issues involved would potentially leave false spoiler information in place after the event occurs.
Also, I'd like to see the above vote closed (since the context since it's opening has changed quite dramatically). I'd rather not change my vote, I'd vote that way again given the same information, but "re-voting" based on the new information seems a bit of the Monday-morning quarterbacking ("I'd a double bagged it.")--Steelviper 13:47, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
Spoilers are already quarantined into the episode guide pages; quarantining anonymous spoilers somewhere else seems excessive to me. I think we just need to decide one way or another. --April Arcus 13:55, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
I didn't realize that was the case. I think I was remembering character pages like this that had spoiler boxes, and it's hard to edit them without running into the spoilers. --Steelviper 14:00, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
I'm mistaken. --April Arcus 14:02, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

Having read everything you guys said and listening to the last show, here's my thoughts: I entirely agree with the three points about KR Peter said; he met our requests and was careful about saying "I guess" "that's what I think", etc., and he incorporated it into his interview smoothly (didn't stop in his tracks and say "everyone be warned this is just what I think, websites shouldn't etc etc etc) which was good for him, not affecting his interview drastically. I think that worked out well for everyone. Nextly, I am actually now quite possitive that he does indeed have some sort of spoiler source, the exact nature of which is of course unknown, but still it is now clear to me that he isn't just basing all of his information on casting sides and public information, but has a source no one else does. The real problem, then, has changed: how do we address spoilers which are based on a reporter who has a reputation of providing on the whole accurate spoilers in the past, and uses an anonymous source which nonetheless seems to be a "real" source?

"Should they be allowed at all? If so, should we discriminate between different sources on the basis of reputation? If so, how should reputation be determined, and who should be responsible for determining it?"

This was an important set of questions Peter, and I think that a new subsection on our sources policy page should be openned up to discuss these questions raised in more detail. Further, I agree entirely with you and Joe's feelings that this vote here should be "wiped", singling out a single person would be inappropriate, that we should "let the matter drop and refocus the discussion on the nature of our sources."

KR's sources thus seem to generally be real and he's not just making things up, but that raises all sorts of questions; as said above, these sources tend to be based on early ideas or scripts and are subject to change even if the reports on them were truthfully saying what the production team thought they were going to do, or might be scenes that even get filmed, but ultimately deleted and possibly becoming deleted scenes that are in fact contradicted by scenes that appear in the final episode rendering them totally non-canonical; i.e. what if someone was on the set and saw the alternate cut of "Pegasus" where Boomer actually gets raped, then left the set and did not see that another take of this was filmed where she gets saved at the last minute?...this spoiler source would honestly report that they saw a scene where Boomer gets raped...however even though this scene was filmed, another scene was filmed which completely contradicted it and it is no longer real (as opposed to like, the deleted scenes such as when Roslin gets "Lest We Forget" from Billy in "33", which it appears CAN be thought of as more or less canonical and RDM said was only deleted for time reasons). So, the thing we really need to do is open another, more generic discussion on what to do about sources and spoilers.

My thoughts on the subject: Generally, we should keep spoiler information confined to news and season 3 pages; by it's very nature the season 3 page is right now filled with spoilers, and people going there are looking for them, and can see the spoiler sign on top. Also, *individual episode entries* for episodes that have not aired yet, such as "Occupation", are obviously going to contain spoilers and people go there to look for them, although even then *gigantic* spoilers should be in a highlighted spoiler-text box so you have to highlight specific plot information to see it. Once and a while there will be some exceptions where we can keep spoiler info on a character page, i.e.

Spoiler follows, highlight to read.
Number Three where Lucy Lawless says she'll be a character like God, and do this for a MAJOR 10 episode arc.


We should be very sparing about allowing spoiler info like this off of the upcoming season and news pages. ***Still, I think our current spoiler warning policy is more or less okay in turns of placement.

What we need to really focus on is tagging our sources.

Spoiler follows, highlight to read.
I mean, Lucy Lawless said the above thing in an interview and thus it is okay to add to a page. However, KR's recent comments about what Starbuck is doing in various season 3 episodes should definately not be added to the Starbuck page until they are confirmed by production photos, but still will appear on season 3, news, and season 3 episode pages.


Ultimately, I think we actually have to run KoenigRules' spoilers: Gateworld, Galaticastation, and most other Battlestar Galactica news sites all tend to run them within a few days. We'd be seen as less reliable about our info if someone could get better info from somewhere else. ***I think the best idea would be to run these annonymous source spoilers only *after* an official news site like Gateworld or Galacticastation has already run them, like the day after they run them, we report that "Gateworld reported this story, it came from a radio interview which gave news from an anonymous source".

Sort of like the "Citation needed" tag, which appears in the article but as a little super-script? I think we need a new one of those which says "Information from an anonymous source, not confirmed" or something to that effect. Well those are just my early thoughts on the subject. Bottom line: ESSENTIALLY, KR does seem to have a real spoiler source, though he won't reveal it. We need to figure out how to handle anonymous sources like this. We should remove this vote as new information we've gotten has shed more light on the matter, and we should refocus this onto a more generic "who do we handle anonymous spoilers" discussion on our sources page. I agree with Farago and SteelViper. --The Merovingian (C - E) 14:49, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

Maybe you should wrap the actual spoiler content in the above in spoiler tags. I hadn't read some of that yet (and try to avoid it).--Steelviper 15:04, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
Merv writes: I think that a new subsection on our sources policy page should be openned up to discuss these questions raised in more detail.
The Citation Jihad is our sources policy page, and we're having that discussion right now. --April Arcus 15:14, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
I meant a new subheading. (I will find those spoiltexts SV...)--The Merovingian (C - E) 15:19, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
If we allow a spolier to be listed like this it would be moot to what we are. This is not even offical. Spoliers with cast memebers are offical. We become something we are not supposed to be. If I reported annoymously that I heard BSG Wiki was closing and it was annoymous source, it could be anyone, however int his case, Joe is the only one. So a reported would ask joe is BSG closing, or joe would see it and he would look to see who spread that rumor because the fact is not true. Just put yourself in RDM shoes. What would he say to the production staff. Please do not leak spoliers. Actors are bound by the Wikipedia:SAG contracts in which they why can't reveal sources otherwise they can be seriously fined. They do comment on the show and what their characeter does, but not the spolt details itself. --Shane (T - C - E) 15:31, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
All spoilers should be sourced. If that source is anonymous, that should probably be specifically, explicitly noted, but I cannot see how it would hurt to include them if they are so marked. Each reader can then judge how much stock to put in an anonymous source individually, since it's a point on which reasonable people can differ. --CalculatinAvatar 15:53, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
If you don't mind spoiler's read the two reports. One is from The Season 3 (2006-07) page and the other is from the new discussion.
Spoiler follows, highlight to read.
According to Ron D. Moore's podcast of the Captain's Hand, Apollo will continue to be the Commander of the Pegasus well into Season 3.

This goes totally against

Spoiler follows, highlight to read.

KR: It's not— I don't think you're going to have a Galactica spinoff

SO: Uh oh. Well, I mean, they could've done a spinoff with the Pegasus if they'd wanted to, they could've done some other things, but I mean even that as fan fiction—

KR: Did you say "Pegasus"?

SO: Uh oh.

KR: Did you say "Pegasus"? Episode 303.

SO: Uh oh.

KR: Pegasus is destroyed.

SO: Oh no, you're kidding me! Who's on it when it gets destroyed?

KR: Don't know. But it is sent— my source says it is sent on a collision course to a Cylon base ship so that the Galactica can get away.


Goes totally against an offical spoiler. --Shane (T - C - E) 16:13, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

Possiblities: (1) Plans have changed since RDM made that podcast, (2) Plans have not changed, the producers feel that three episodes are enough to show Lee's ups and downs of command, (3) Keonigrules' source is flatly mistaken or (4) didn't get the details right (it's a Pegasus Viper that is sacrificed, or something like that). --Noneofyourbusiness 20:58, 26 April 2006 (EST)

From Joe

Well, I've created {{spoileranony}} with the following wording:

BSG WIKI Stop.png This {{qif|test={{{1|}}}|then={{{1}}}|else=page}} contains possible spoiler information!
This page contains spoilers regarding an unaired episode from an anonymous source. Note that Battlestar Wiki neither confirms nor denies the validity of spoilers, but merely reports them with citations to their originating source(s).

As this page contains information which may have an effect on your viewing, we ask that you please DO NOT read any content from this page, unless you wish to be spoiled.


Basically, I feel that as long as we can cite a source for the rumor, we should report it as such. Care must be taken to ensure that we inform our readers that this information is rumor and speculation. Here are the criteria I'd prefer we use:

  1. As so long as it is reported on a valid news source (Gateworld, HNR, S2D), we can report it as well.
  2. We must take care to indicate that these are rumors. Therefore they may or may not be accurate. (Templates such as {{spoileranony}} reflect this view.)
  3. We must make sure that we are not the primary source for these rumors -- we aren't a news and rumors site. We're a reference. We summarize and scrutinized what's been reported, nothing more, nothing less. (I guess I'm repeating point 1, but I don't think I can emphasize this enough.)

I think we may have to create a page specifically dealing with rumors, such as Battlestar Wiki:Rumor Policy. Thoughts?

So that's what I have to say on that subject... Unless anything else comes to mind. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 16:34, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

Page takes a second to create... :) --Shane (T - C - E) 16:41, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
{{Episode List}} - needs to be updated. I posted a suggestion to split up the three seasons because spoliers and title names should be inclduded. --Shane (T - C - E) 16:46, 26 April 2006 (CDT)


I agree with the three points Joe has listed here. I'm unsure on precise implementation though but we'll be hammering that out for a while. --The Merovingian (C - E) 16:50, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
First, let me address some of your points above:
  1. What the heck is a valid news source? Anyone can start a blog and be a "valid news source". This goes back to the credibility/reputation problem.
  2. If we do decide to permit anonymous spoilers, an ostentatious warning banner is the last thing we need. This is alread taken care of by the spoiler and spoiltext tags we already have. The anonymity of the source should simply be noted in the citation.
I'm afraid I'm still against anonymous sources. If we report anonymous spoilers, we must take into account the reputation of the poster. Since we cannot do this in an objective and non-arbitrary manner, we therefore cannot report anonymous spoilers.
Lastly, there is nothing that we would cover in a "Rumor" policy that we couldn't cover here. Let's not spread ourselves thin. --April Arcus 19:09, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
"What the heck is a valid news source?" A very good question indeed. In fact, you do raise many interesting points above and I believe we should consider very carefully whether or not we cite spoilers. I'm starting to reconsider that. Anyone else want to chime in? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 20:19, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
I dislike spoilers and only read them because it's an effective necessity to edit here; they don't add anything that wouldn't be there after the episode anyway. My opinion on anonymous sources for them (under the assumption that spoilers in general will be cited) is above. --CalculatinAvatar 20:43, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

Joe, I think it's time to wrap this thing up. Let's formally close the blacklist vote and come to a conclusion about our policy on anonymous sources. --April Arcus 01:57, 2 May 2006 (CDT)

The Rumor Vote

I am calling a vote on this issue; the blacklist vote is closed. Since it seems to be the consensus that we will not blacklist anyone, I am calling for a different vote, so as to make thing clear.

Here's the text of what we are voting on:

Battlestar Wiki's primary goals do not include discerning which unofficial sources have valid information. Our primary goal is to report valid information in an encyclopedic medium. Due to this, we will not be citing rumors from any sources other than official channels (SCI-FI Channel, Ronald D. Moore, and current cast and crew). Any information from sources other than those in the list will be immediately removed from the wiki; actions which lead to the repeated reintroduction of said unofficial and unverifiable material will be dealt accordingly by an on-duty administrator.

Voting ended May 9, 2006 at 23:00 UTC. Final result: 19 support (95%), 1 opposed (5%), 0 neutral (0%).

Support

  1. Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 22:13, 2 May 2006 (CDT)
  2. Shane (T - C - E) 23:04, 2 May 2006 (CDT) Could not agree more.
  3. The Merovingian (C - E) 23:24, 2 May 2006 (CDT)
  4. April Arcus 00:52, 3 May 2006 (CDT)
  5. --Day (Talk - Admin) 00:53, 3 May 2006 (CDT) (If I'm understanding this right, we won't be reporting the rumors, let alone citing them?)
    • Well, that's my understanding Day, though I could be wrong. BTW, what if something like TVGuide gets word of such super-spoilers or from a different source entirely, then runs a story with them that has anonymous sources? I think that if a major publication runs it, the lid on such a spoiler would be blown so wide open that we can't contain it as its common knowledge. I mean they ran a story that Apollo would kiss Starbuck in "Home, Part I" a week before it happened, with a picture and everything. --The Merovingian (C - E) 01:25, 3 May 2006 (CDT)
      • A picture would be pretty incontrovertible. I'm less inclined to take their word for it in the absence of corroborating evidence. --April Arcus 01:39, 3 May 2006 (CDT)
      • Even in that case, unless it was corroborated by RDM or someone close to the production, then we wouldn't quote it. It's safer that way anyway. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 10:20, 3 May 2006 (CDT)
  6. Absolutely! -- Mazzy 09:44, 3 May 2006 (CDT)
  7. Frankie Gouge 11:44, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
  8. Mercifull 11:48, 3 May 2006 (CDT) ditto
  9. CalculatinAvatar 11:50, 3 May 2006 (CDT) This should make life easier, as it's a nice, sharp delineation.
  10. Geckomind 13:13, 3 May 2006 (CDT) BTW, am I right in assuming that the "Purple! Green!" at the top comes from the B5 Episode "Geometry Of Shadows"?
    Yep. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 21:50, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
  11. Spencerian 14:25, 3 May 2006 (CDT)
  12. Brecchie 21:05, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
  13. Noneofyourbusiness 19:15, 5 May 2006 (EST)
  14. Jasonbondshow 01:18, 6 May 2006 (EST)
  15. I wouldn't even trust Sci-FI channel. --David Templar 22:56, 7 May 2006 (CDT)
  16. --Fordsierra4x4 00:54, 8 May 2006 (CDT)
  17. LeobenConoy 19:17 (TST) 8 May 2006
  18. "valid information in an encyclopedic medium" There is a place for rumors, spoilers, and information gathering at all costs. It just isn't here. We can provide links to such sites in the community portal, if there is consensus that the sites are of interest. We can't be everything to everyone, so let's just try to be exremely organized, accurate, concise, and well-sourced, and leave the "scoops" to those who specialize in such things. We score based on accuracy, not time. Support. --Steelviper 13:06, 8 May 2006 (CDT)
  19. -- Kaszeta 13:57, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

Oppose

  1. barce -- Perhaps the list of official sources can be broadened by a bit? For example, if Newsweek does a piece on Battlestar Galactica and say Arthur C. Clark is on the set and comments on something he sees there, isn't that still a good, yet unofficial source? 06 May 2006, 16:40:55 PDT
    • You don't understand we already talked about that: a magazine that did a set report is a reliable source. Someone saying they've got inside information but not exactly how they got it is not. --The Merovingian (C - E) 18:19, 6 May 2006 (CDT)

Neutral