Wikipedia talk:No original research: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 279:

::::::If someone arrives to change the policy and has made only 250 edits to articles over four years, we do know that either (a) that person is not a content contributor or (b) is a sock/alternative account, and policy editing with second accounts isn't allowed. So either way it's unhelpful and time-consuming. That's demonstratively true&mdash;look at how many words have been spent on this, and do any of you still remember the proposed edits? It's fine for those who don't care who is doing what, but others do. I do care because I don't want to see key words and phrases removed, and the names of the editors helps me to judge whether the policy is being reformulated by someone who knows their stuff. That's all I want to say about it. This really isn't a fruitful discussion. <font color="purple">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small>^{<font color="red">[[User talk:SlimVirgin|TALK]]</font> <font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font>}</small> 00:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

::::::: While the context / metadata of who the editor is of some relevance, I think that being dismissive of a contribution or implying a sock account for only having 250 edits possibly takes that too far. The amount of time a person spends on Wikipedia is not necessarily a measure of (or even correlated with) the quality of a contribution. Respectfully. [[User:North8000|North8000]] ([[User talk:North8000|talk]]) 02:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

===newspaper articles are primary/secondary===