--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote:
> > >
> [...]
> > > Nyah. Usenet groups are considered impossible to verify, so you
> > can't use them as
> > > primary/secondary sources.
> >
> > You could certainly use alt.m.t posts from Andrew
> > as a primary source to show that he lied *in those
> > posts*.
> >
>
> Nope. Unless he quoted those posts on his own website without
comment, there's no proof
> that he wrote them. At best, you could make a case that his quoting
my RESPONSE to him
> implied that those were his own words, but wikipedia's been burned
too many times to allow
> including usenet stuff unless it explicitly appears on Skolnick's
website.
>
Is there a difference in using a printed or electronic source?
No. Both are valid.
If Skolnick "publishes" stuff under a logon name people know is his
the proof of burden rest on him (or the sys admins of the site he
publishes on) if he decides to disavow individual postings made under
that name as the work of an impostor (the sys admins can easily do
this by checking the IP of the poster).
Actually, it just might be quite entertaining to see the guy talk
himself out of that corner :-)
More important, however, is the fact that being and acting in the
capacity of journalist, Andrew Skolnick is de facto bound by a set of
minimum ethical requirements it is not in his interest that people
think he has violated.
http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?id=387
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
I suppose the guy also can be sued :-)
