Talk:Susan Tom

Unfounded notice

At 06:08 & 06:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC) User:AntonioMartin added this inaccurate notice to the accompanying page, in violation of WP policy:

(note: please feel free to add the names of Susan Tom's other children and characteristics, as long as it's not done as an act of vandalism. Wikipedia is rigorous in doing research and removes all "bad" information received. Wikipedia does not tolerate users who add unproven, prejudicial information about people).

Wikipedia lacks a paid staff for research and correction, and virtually all such work is done by volunteers who work on what interests them when they feel like it. The system works surprisingly well, but

• "rigorous" is an overstatement,
• the intimation that corrections are prompt is far from accurate, and
• much is "tolerated" due to
  • failure to detect it,
  • a policy of extreme caution against alienating possibly well-meaning editors, and
  • various means of circumventing restrictions.

The survival of the notice on the Susan Tom article for over 21 months is the most obvious evidence that its assurances are ill founded.
--Jerzy•t 00:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

References

_ _ I have added a notice to the accompanying article, saying that sourcing is a problem. There are four sources formally cited for the accompanying article, which has had 8 registered and 13 anonymous ones. At the very least, there is a need to track down for each of the informally cited sources (i.e., those that just say so-and-so "reported that" such and such)

1. whether it can be verified as having commented on the topic,
2. on what specific date, and
3. a URL where those are stated and the information they have about the topic can be read.

Verifying that they attest to the facts asserted in our article, and tying each fact to its corresponding source, are further needs, that depend on those pieces of groundwork, which can be done either in the article (with footnotes at the end, and super-script numbers in the text where they appear), or on this talk page (by matching up extracts from the external source and from the corresponding language in our article that they verify).
_ _ That will make feasible a specific assessment of the degree of verifiability of what is presently apparent. Any remainder may or not be straightforward to trace back to a source, perhaps more detailed and perhaps correcting misstatements in our version.
_ _ IMO, this is especially important in the case of the accompanying article bcz of the note (moved into the previous section of this talk page), which is likely to have had the effect of encouraging contributions made without adding verifying information, and perhaps based on vague recollections or imprecisely set down, all encouraged by the unfounded promise of "rigorous ... research" by others.
--Jerzy•t 04:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Susan Tom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101230032359/http://abc.go.com:80/shows/extreme-makeover-home-edition/episode-detail/tom-family/60917 to http://abc.go.com/shows/extreme-makeover-home-edition/episode-detail/tom-family/60917

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)