(2013-10-09, 06:46 PM)Matt. Wrote: [ -> ]Try telling that to the moderators of Wikipedia. Those are the standards they go by.
I have no desire to talk to the people that don't apply or have common sense and go "HURR DURR guideline HURR DURR" in the talk pages. I have better things to do with my time.
Uh, it was a figure of speech. Calm down
(2013-10-09, 06:08 PM)Josh H. Wrote: [ -> ] (2013-10-09, 02:34 PM)Tom K. Wrote: [ -> ] (2013-10-09, 01:50 PM)Josh H. Wrote: [ -> ]I'll never completely understand the problem with citing MyBB.com, seeing as that's the official source for the software...
Because that's not what citing is meant for. That's like saying "Walmart is the best supermarket in the world [Source: Walmart]", or having a pharmaceutical company test their own drugs for effectiveness. The idea with citing is to get unbiased information on a topic, and for an article to be allowed on Wikipedia it must have a notable impression on the world, and be proven through reports from international news or from articles from established websites.
You're taking extremes of the point, though I hear what you're saying. But there's nothing wrong IMO with citing an official page for something like the date of a release.
Of course, but at the same time there would need to be some kind of news reports on the release, even if it's by CNET or similar. Otherwise you could start up a domain, make a fork of MyBB, and claim 10 different release dates going back 2 years on the "official" website. Then you cite your own site and a member of the public would know no different. That's the reason for unbiased sources.
(2013-10-10, 08:05 AM)Matt. Wrote: [ -> ]Uh, it was a figure of speech. Calm down
And I, in turn, was responding semi-sarcastically.
