Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Jump to content

Talk:Susan Tom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Note icon
This redirect has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
WikiProject iconCalifornia: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
LowThis redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This redirect is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Unfounded notice[edit]

At 06:08 & 06:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC) User:AntonioMartin added this inaccurate notice to the accompanying page, in violation of WP policy:

(note: please feel free to add the names of Susan Tom's other children and characteristics, as long as it's not done as an act of vandalism. Wikipedia is rigorous in doing research and removes all "bad" information received. Wikipedia does not tolerate users who add unproven, prejudicial information about people).

Wikipedia lacks a paid staff for research and correction, and virtually all such work is done by volunteers who work on what interests them when they feel like it. The system works surprisingly well, but

  • "rigorous" is an overstatement,
  • the intimation that corrections are prompt is far from accurate, and
  • much is "tolerated" due to
    • failure to detect it,
    • a policy of extreme caution against alienating possibly well-meaning editors, and
    • various means of circumventing restrictions.

The survival of the notice on the Susan Tom article for over 21 months is the most obvious evidence that its assurances are ill founded.
--Jerzyt 00:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

_ _ I have added a notice to the accompanying article, saying that sourcing is a problem. There are four sources formally cited for the accompanying article, which has had 8 registered and 13 anonymous ones. At the very least, there is a need to track down for each of the informally cited sources (i.e., those that just say so-and-so "reported that" such and such)

  1. whether it can be verified as having commented on the topic,
  2. on what specific date, and
  3. a URL where those are stated and the information they have about the topic can be read.

Verifying that they attest to the facts asserted in our article, and tying each fact to its corresponding source, are further needs, that depend on those pieces of groundwork, which can be done either in the article (with footnotes at the end, and super-script numbers in the text where they appear), or on this talk page (by matching up extracts from the external source and from the corresponding language in our article that they verify).
_ _ That will make feasible a specific assessment of the degree of verifiability of what is presently apparent. Any remainder may or not be straightforward to trace back to a source, perhaps more detailed and perhaps correcting misstatements in our version.
_ _ IMO, this is especially important in the case of the accompanying article bcz of the note (moved into the previous section of this talk page), which is likely to have had the effect of encouraging contributions made without adding verifying information, and perhaps based on vague recollections or imprecisely set down, all encouraged by the unfounded promise of "rigorous ... research" by others.
--Jerzyt 04:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Susan Tom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]