Cvillepedia talk:Guidelines

From Cvillepedia
Jump to: navigation, search

2018 updates

I removed the {{tellyourstory}} template as part of the relaunch of the service. We could perhaps add that back in the future, but the general consensus at the October 10, 2018 meeting was that it could go. --Seantubbs (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2018 (EDT)


Use of unverifiable sources

"Whenever possible, editors should cite verifiable sources for all information, and especially for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor."
"As the focus of cvillepedia is more specialized than Wikipedia and other encyclopedia projects, many areas of knowledge are not well-documented by online sources. Worse still, information derived from non-reputable sources may be inaccurate. Citing verifiable sources therefore helps to establish the overall credibility and authoritative character of cvillepedia."

This discussion relocated from another article --BrianWheeler 18:26, 4 January 2011 (EST)

Removed a reference that was an email to Brian Wheeler. If it's not published, it's not a reliable source. (Or I'll start making stuff up and claiming I got emails, that I won't share, attesting the made up facts.) -- B.S. Lawrence 10:37, 3 January 2011 (EST)

I'd suggest that paid journalists get to do that in cvillepedia because we do it all the time for stories published online and in the newspaper. Some of those e-mails are public documents, some are not. Very few of those messages are republished in their entirety online to backup a sourced statement. --BrianWheeler 13:46, 3 January 2011 (EST)
I think everyone has the right to cite an e-mail, which should prompt a discussion about the reliability of sources. The e-mails can always be produced. For instance, on the Charlottesville page, I have listed how many employees the city currently has. That information came from an e-mail I received from the City's HR department (via Ric Barrick). That's a reliable source and confirms a fact that otherwise wouldn't be in cvillepedia--Sean Tubbs 13:20, 4 January 2011 (EST).
The first sentence of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources reads (emphasis theirs): "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, ...." So if it's not published, it sure wouldn't fly there. If cvillepedia's going to digress from Wikipedia policy, I'd suggest there should be some consensus, and a specific cvillepedia policy added. If it's "cville tomorrow staff can write whatever they want", it ought to be stated as such. -- B.S. Lawrence 16:46, 4 January 2011 (EST)
I created {{cite email}} and added some preliminary guidelines about how this template might be used. Expectation is that it is a source of last resort and should be expected to be challenged if the user is not a paid journalist. --BrianWheeler 15:35, 29 January 2011 (EST)