Hi rob, welcome to SourceWatch. If you have any queries feel free to drop me a line at bobATSourceWatch.org (sub @ for AT) cheers --Bob Burton 02:19, 28 Aug 2004 (EDT)
Hello Robjensen, Welcome to SourceWatch.
As for your request about changing 'Committee on Media Integrity' into 'Committee for Media Integrity' what is already solved by Bob, that is something you can also do yourself if you click on the 'Move this page' link at the left side of every article. It's something you have to know or happen to see, so I understand it is easily overlooked.
--Bonzai 23:02, 29 Aug 2004 (EDT)
Hello Rob, To explain my edits of your Wikipedia redirects, my understanding is that Wikipedia and SourceWatch use the same software but have different processes and different focuses. When they cover the same subjects, ideally they will present complementary and not totally overlapping information. Therefore, adding Wikipedia links to provide more info on SourceWatch topics is appropriate, but wholesale redirecting from SourceWatch to Wikipedia articles is less so (though it may make sense in some cases). --Diane 17:16, 21 Dec 2004
I'd like to share my concerns here as well. While in agreement with Diane, I prefer to see SourceWatch redirects to the Wikipedia, which retain SourceWatch articles linking to the SourceWatch redirect. This enables subsequent development of a SourceWatch article without having to recode other articles which unfortunately link directly to the Wikipedia. For the most part, this seems to be what Rob has been doing; though I don't see a pattern, and I don't feel compelled to find and redirect every empty article in the SourceWatch.
--Maynard 13:55, 21 Dec 2004 (EST)
I'd like to add a comment here. I'm not comfortable with redirecting every empty SourceWatch article to the wikipedia, as Rob has been doing. I'm concerned that it could create a 'chilling effect' on people starting new SourceWatch articles. The point of wikifying names even when the article the name points to hasn't been created is to encourage people to click on that name, and create that article. By systematically redirecting all blank articles to their wikipedia equivalents, i believe that Rob is making casual users less likely to do that. Many casual users will surely click the name and read the wikipedia article, and if they have something to add will make some edits to that wikipedia article, instead of creating a new SourceWatch article. Even supposing such a user is inspired to create a SourceWatch article, he/she will have to have the extra expertise required to access and edit the redirect code. So it does seem to me that all these redirects are a bad idea, and dilute SourceWatch's value and distinctiveness. --Neoconned 04:58, 22 Dec 2004 (EST)
- One other point on this. One of the ways that SourceWatch is better than wikipedia, in my opinion, is that it has a systematically enforced referencing policy. Many of the articles linked to by the wikipedia redirects contain NO references. So the redirects also have the undesirable effect of appearing to dilute SourceWatch's referencing standards. --Neoconned 05:01, 22 Dec 2004 (EST)