User talk:HayateTokidoki

Re: D'espairsRay Interview

Why did you remove the link to the D'espairsRay interview? It is relevant to the D'espairsRay page and numerous other pages for other entertainers have links to interviews. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HayateTokidoki (talk • contribs) 21:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

The link has been removed per Wikipedia's guideline for external links. Regrettably, tokidokijournal.com is a self-published and not well-known publication, hence it does not meet the criteria for reliable sources. - Cyrus XIII 21:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Tokidokijournal.com has been around for five years. They've attended several press-only events and been given press admission to numerous conventions relating to games, anime, manga, and Japanese music. If you search for D'espairsRay Interview on Google, Tokidoki's interview is the second hit. As I said, I've also seen numerous interviews linked to from other entertainers' Wikipedia pages from publications I'd never heard of. Tokidoki may not be a huge site like IGN or something similar, but I certainly wouldn't say they're not well-known. What criteria do you base that on?

The ones discussed in the guidelines I linked in my last message. - Cyrus XIII 22:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow that was a great response. You said Tokidoki is not a well-known publication, which I asked you to explain what you base that on. You didn't actually give an answer to that. I read the bit about self-published sources, but I still feel it's a bit silly to say that a site that's been around for five years and has been recognized as a professional media outlet by some of the biggest game, manga, anime, and music publishers out there isn't reliable simply because the site is self-published. Do you really think that sites that are published by a corporation rather than a few individuals is inherently more accurate or reliable? If you honestly believe that, you haven't read any mainstream entertainment review publications...

My personal beliefs are not the subject here, just like your own, the longevity of a website or its Google ranking are not criteria for sufficient notability. One of the key principles of Wikipedia is verifiability and the burden of evidence lies with the editor who makes the addition - hence I do not have to prove the lack of notability for the source we are discussing, it is the other way around.

Also note, that your user name indicates affiliation with the site, which might lead editors to question whether your contributions are indeed made to improve Wikipedia in general or primarily for the sake of promoting your own work. Neutrality is yet another important principle, for obvious reasons. - Cyrus XIII 23:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I am affiliated with the site, and I have no reason to hide that. Being affiliated with a publication doesn't automatically mean that everything you do regarding that site is automatically biased. If someone who isn't affiliated with the site had posted that link, you would still have done the same thing. Again, it's not like me posting a link to this interview suddenly makes it biased. It doesn't change the content of the interview, and if you actually look at the interview, there clearly is no biased spin anywhere to be found.

The link in question is an interview with the vocalist of the band. What exactly needs to be verified there? It's not like we're publishing questionable information. This interview, just like any other interview, would be of interest to those who are researching the band. As I've said (and you've ignored) I have seen interviews linked to on many other entertainers' page on Wikipedia, and not all of them are from well-known sites and many have been from fan-published sites, as you put it. Why the inconsistency?

You also act like the only way for something to be verifiable and acceptable is for it to be published by a corporate-run entity. What does that have to do with the information being reliable? And again, the link in question is an interview. It's not like this is some controversial bit of information that is contrary to anything the band has said or done. It's useful as supplemental material to readers of that page, but there is nothing in the interview that requires "verification".

This whole thing really makes very little sense. The rules leave a lot of vague points to be interpreted by the moderators and clearly the rules aren't followed in a consistent fashion. To set the line of which sources are acceptable to link to or refer to and which sources aren't at whether they're published by another company or if they pay to publish their own material seems really silly and not the slightest bit reasonable. Honestly, if asked what makes a publication reliable or not reliable, the method of publication wouldn't even cross my mind as a good way to make such a judgment.

I have never accused you of bias, I merely pointed out that your neutrality might come into question, considering your user name and the circumstances of your contributions. And given that Wikipedia is user-edited, it should come as no surprise that there will always be a considerable number of articles that do not adhere to its own policies. Pointing out their flaws to justify the introduction of yet another contribution at odds with policy will hardly improve this situation. But just as editing articles is open to everyone, so is questioning and discussing guidelines on their respective talk pages. If you see the need to do so, go ahead. - Cyrus XIII 00:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)