Talk:Dr Karl to run for Australian senate
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Borofkin in topic news.com.au source
news.com.au source edit
What's the point of adding the source from news.com.au? It's not a second source -- they've just written an article based on the Climate Change Coalition press release, just like we did. - Borofkin 01:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's a second source. The bio doesn't serve as a source for his declaration of candidacy. Even if they too relied solely on the press release, at least it means that a news organization (other than Wikinews) considers it to be legitimate. If we were to accept press releases as sole and authoritative news sources, we'd be publishing lots of crazy stuff. --SVTCobra 01:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- The source for his declaration of candidacy is the press release. We accept the press release as authorative because it came from the Climate Change Coalition website. If the news.com.au article had an independent source (such as an interview with Karl himself) then I agree that we could cite it as a second source. I think we should try to reduce our dependence on other news organisations. If we can verify the source ourselves (which I believe we can in this case) then we should use it. In my opinion we should only cite other news services as a last resort. - Borofkin 01:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know the Climate Change Coalition from Adam. Just because they have a Wikipedia page doesn't mean they are legitimate. But actually, I do agree with you that we should seek out releases from the sources when available, and we ought to do this more than we currently do. However, I don't think it hurts to have some corroborating sources. --SVTCobra 01:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that it doesn't hurt -- I've no intention of removing it. I'd just like to see us thinking of ourselves as a serious news organisation. *We* write the news; *we* verify sources. The Climate Change Coalition source is there to be challenged. Unlike news.com.au, any of our readers can verify it themselves if they like, and tell us if they think it's bogus. - Borofkin 01:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know the Climate Change Coalition from Adam. Just because they have a Wikipedia page doesn't mean they are legitimate. But actually, I do agree with you that we should seek out releases from the sources when available, and we ought to do this more than we currently do. However, I don't think it hurts to have some corroborating sources. --SVTCobra 01:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- The source for his declaration of candidacy is the press release. We accept the press release as authorative because it came from the Climate Change Coalition website. If the news.com.au article had an independent source (such as an interview with Karl himself) then I agree that we could cite it as a second source. I think we should try to reduce our dependence on other news organisations. If we can verify the source ourselves (which I believe we can in this case) then we should use it. In my opinion we should only cite other news services as a last resort. - Borofkin 01:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)