User talk:Jabezclegg

Dear Jabezclegg

Why not create a hautalk wikipedia page and link it. A page cannot be primarily overpowered by edits from adverse and malicious parties. Imagine what wikipedia would look like! There many of the issues around hautalk can be included, like industry wide underpay and self-exploitation of young scholar labor, a very important issue! One entry of one journal cannot be shoved and exploded with these structural and personal problems.

"Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" is a primary wikipedia criteria. Further wikipedia counts as unverifiable, things like anonymous allegations made on anonymous blogs. In general only allegations made by identifiable individuals can be prosecuted for libel, anonymous allegations cannot. Allegations made to the police or in court are of a different nature from anonymous allegations made on anonymous blogs or unverifiable sources. These can be references if they have been submitted.

I paste from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Articles must be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.[9]

The On the Media Breaking News Consumer's Handbook contains several suggestions to avoid unreliable information, such as distrusting anonymous sources,