User talk:Tochic

Your opinion please
I notice a change you made to the article Khaled Samy Abdullah Ismail, and I would like to suggest a reasion to change it back that may not have occurred to you. So far relatively little use has been made of material from wikileaks in articles about living people.

Wikileaks is controversial, and I anticipate that if and when more extensive use has been made of this material that those references will be challenged, on various grounds. I anticipate some challengers will claim that the material does not comply with WP:BLP, because it is not "independent", is not reliable, is not neutral. Personally I believe that, properly handled, the wikileaks is reliable -- for the position of the US government. But I think it makes sense to anticipate the arguments of challengers.

Originally, when I referenced articles from the CBC and elsewhere that quoted, summarized and analyzed documents published by wikileaks I wrote that coverage to explicitly make clear that I was quoting the CBC's coverage. You changed that to eliminate the attribution to the CBC. When the CBC, the NYTimes, the Telegraph or the Guardian summarizes and interprets wikileaked document challengers are less able to criticize that coverage because those news organizations all have editors who are supposed to evaluate the reliability and notability of what they publish.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

mirror links
Let me offer you my favorite site if you want to add links to mirrors at archive sites to your references. http://webcitation.org/archive.php

It's great! You fill out a field for the URL, and your email address, and some optional fields, it thinks for 10, 15 seconds, and hands back two URLs to an archive page. One of the URLs is conveniently short, but it is opaque. Security experts warn people to avoid those links, because they are opaque, and can point to malicious sites. SO I always use the long URL.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 06:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)