Craigbarnes85
I have reverted your removal of this news website as a ref. As described in the article about this news outlet, this is not an amateur blog, but has professional writers, editorial review and is owned and operated by Ohso Ltd Network, a media company. Even though the format is generally blog-like it fully complies with WP:RS as a reliable media source. In particular WP:USERG applies: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control" which is the case. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
RE: OMG Ubuntu edit
The WP:RS page that you referred me to states that "blogs" are acceptable sources only if their writers are "professionals in the field on which they write" and that the blog is "subject to the news outlet's full editorial control". OMG Ubuntu fails to fulfil these conditions on both counts.
First of all, they have no technical credentials in their chosen field and in my subjective, personal opinion, write very low quality articles.
Secondly, "full editorial control" implies that the editors and writers aren't the same people. In the case of OMG Ubuntu the writers, editors and stakeholders are exactly the same 2 guys. "Editorial control" has absolutely no relevance if the writers and editors are the same individuals.
Furthermore, many of the references I removed were being cited as confirmation of statements that were being asserted as factual information. Clearly a small, amateur blog such as OMG Ubuntu isn't a reliable source of original research. Since they almost certainly gather up and rehash other people's PR, the original announcements and official PR they base their articles on would be a much more valid reference. Also, almost all of the references I removed were stacked alongside other, much more reliable sources, hence making them of little to no importance.
If you search for all the articles where OMG Ubuntu have been cited as references, it looks very much like they themselves have been adding these trivial references purely for self-promotion. Some of the things I removed were nothing more than "Joey Sneddon Says" or "Benjamin Humphrey thinks".
- Actually, in no cases did any writers from that site add the refs that you removed. In most cases it was me who added them and other cases at least one other editor added them, so there is no reason to think this was simple spamming. I disagree with your assertion that these are amateur blogs. OMG is similar to many blog style professional news sites that are common these days, and are often used as refs on Wikipedia because they meet WP:RS. In particular it is comparable to AVweb in the field of aviation, Ars Technica or Conceivably Tech in software and computer subjects. I suggest if you want to contest the use of OMG Ubuntu then take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for wider input. - Ahunt (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I won't turn this into a reverting war. I assume you will only win anyway. However, I frequently take exception to the low quality, sensationalist, ungrammatical and often technically incorrect drivel these guys write. It's a bit of an insult to Wikipedia when such low quality, subjective sources get used as reference material. Also, like I said above, they clearly don't live up to the standards as outlined in WP:RS in any meaningful way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigbarnes85 (talk • contribs)