Talk:Conference discusses the credibility of blogs


 * Please log into #webcred and #webcredtrans for direct quotes from the conference to get direct quotes from the conference, and put them in the article.

Hi. I've just read the announcement on Watercooler, and came to see the article. The current version is very short description of the basic facts about the conference, and my guess is these facts are verifiable. If so, I think we can treat this article as if it is not an original report - applying the regular processes and standards.

If there are some facts or characterizations of the subject that is not from publicly available sources, then, I suppose some questions are in order. But this is really an uncharted territory, and it is just my idea at this moment, nothing like accepted convention or anything.

There are three things to be checked in my mind about original reports
 * Neutrality
 * Is there any major facts missing from this report that would drastically change the likely reception of the readers?
 * Is this reporter trusted by the community to make a good-faith effort to write articles from neutral point of view?
 * Is there some warning/ disclaimer needed for the article so that readers can be made aware of the fact that the coverage is not necessarily neutral?
 * Verifiability
 * What are the facts and characterizations that is not verifiable via published sources?
 * Is there any record of the source cited? Say, can we see the full email correspondence between the reporter and the source?
 * Conflict of interests
 * Is the reporter an insider or a stakeholder to the subject reported? In what sense?

For the issue of verifiability, we can use some mailing list as I suggested earlier.

How does that sound? Tomos 14:31, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * sorry, the article isnt, yet. I dont think i made that clear enough. it was just set up to be ready for when the conference starts. The bellman 20:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * For example the quote (from dan gillmour), is a quote from our wikijourno on the ground user:sj who is transcribing on to IRC for us. Hence the original research. The bellman 21:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nothing to worry about
It is important for there to be verification, especially when a Wiki reporter is commenting on events for which they weren't present, but I think we should give a lot of slack to anyone who does original reporting. The article STILL must exhibit neutrality, relevance, and good news style, but I think it's so amazingly cool to get original reporting that we should allow the bar on verifiable info to be set lower in these cases. That's not a license to fabricate, mind you, but we should give the author props for providing a first-hand account. Just my $0.02.

BTW, nice work!


 * Well, while we are in heta, why not have a go at anything, and see where it leads? The bellman 06:14, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * We are! - Amgine 21:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)