讨论:中大学生报

Removal of links

The whole article is completely baised against the student, and use the materials exclusively from known conservative newspaper. I therefore added the material from Appledaily as a balance.

I removed the following links for the stated reasons.

"向影视及娱乐事务管理处投诉方法" (At best, this link is unrelated to this entry. At worst, this link is a loaded and biased link and breaks the "neutral point of view" requirement of Wikipedia.)

"学联社会运动资源中心( 自治八楼)联署声明:恳请中大校方三思" (This is a petition, and again breaks the "neutral point of view" requirement of Wikipedia.)

"虚妄的“大学之道”" (This is a personal blog entry and again breaks the "neutral point of view" requirement of Wikipedia as it is "personal opinions" and "original research" thus not allowed.

I hope both sides will not hate me for my removals. Or both sides of this debate will hate me equally. (smile) I've removed links from both sides and it is important to note that I am not taking sides as I try to follow "neutral point of view" .K ideas 2007年5月12日 (六) 20:52 (UTC)

• User:K idea, 看你划花这两页讨论区, 也不恰当呢! 小心你才是。 —What is your ideas ? 2007年5月12日 (六) 22:29 (UTC)

• • User:WhattsD, I make mistakes all the time. So please feel free to point out where did I make a mistake here? I think "neutral point of view" is an ideal worth defending. Without NPOV, we are just a bunch of propaganda writers. So please be specific on your recommendations and suggestions. Vague complains and imprecise charges like "看你划花这两页讨论区, 也不恰当呢! 小心你才是。" are difficult to address when the debate is as heated as this one. Thanks for your understanding. K ideas 2007年5月12日 (六) 23:08 (UTC)

Again, I can be wrong but I removed some more links due to NPOV again. Those personal blog entries may be very insightful but they are person blogs none the less and thus broke the NPOV requirement. Sorry to be taking things out added by User:137.189.4.1 especially some insightful links were added by this user. K ideas 2007年5月13日 (日) 08:45 (UTC)

Addition of links

Added link for "中大学生报 - 情色版争议讨论". Because of the listed letters "包括 香港中文大学学务及素质组, 国际特赦组织, 等 信件", I believe the link can now be included safely without violating the "neutral point of view" requirement of Wikipedia. K ideas 2007年5月14日 (一) 00:39 (UTC)

相关网站被记载﹐只要保持客观记录﹐当然无问题。我也加了寄存在 blogspot.com 的同步网页。—零空网 2007年5月14日 (一) 10:50 (UTC)

Dear 零空网, Thanks for your feedback. Basically, it is the content of the website, in particular, those letters from the internationally recognized organizations which lead me to include the original reference site "http://www.xanga.com/cusp_07 中大学生报 - 情色版争议讨论". Strictly speaking, my ground for including the rest of the site is rather weak. I probably should have just link to those letters and not link to the site as a whole.

I am still struggling if a blog at blogspot.com should be allowed. My gut feeling is that it should not be allowed. Anyone can create a blog. For that matter, anyone can create a website. So both blogs and websites (non-notable ones at least) should carry no weight. A notable site like RTHK or BBC is totally different. To me, there are too much complication to include a blog because of NPOV. May be more people can enter this debate and add some insights here. I don't think it is a vote but more a founded and rational discussion of what links are to be included. I sure like to hear a rational discussion from CUHK students (and those that work in 中大学生报) and the general HK public here. K ideas 2007年5月14日 (一) 15:09 (UTC)

Agreed with your thought on direct linking to the public documents instead of linking to CUSP's homepages, not so much that the xanga and blogspot pages being non-notable, but because they are suspicious of "self-serving" in the way that they are put together by the publisher for the their own argument. (See Self-serving) But to put it fairly, they didn't publish much "original arguments" on their homepages anyways, rather, the majority of informations there are quotations, though not explicitly verifiable, from other notable sources (国际特赦组织, etc).

I think what we can do in order to maintain NPOV without losing the balanced context is to direct link the public documents such as the reportings, letters, petitions, rebuttals, both for and against, all together according to the context of this encyclopedia article, with verifiable sources explicitly shown; but not according to the context of the CUSP, like currently *(with regard to the xanga & blogspot page links)*. All the documents linked will be notable, verifiable, and non-self-serving, and therefore they should be included to give our readers a balanced view for this serious matter. If no objection, let's get it started. —零空网 2007年5月14日 (一) 17:39 (UTC)

Great, so direct linking to the pages of those original public documents seem to be the preferred method. You may be right the there may not be too much "original arguments" on the websites but it is still difficult to monitor and maintain. Yeah, "balanced context" may be a key here and I will add "independent". Sounds like something to proceed on. K ideas 2007年5月16日 (三) 21:45 (UTC)

关于 (这段意义何在？)

(留了在你个人讨论页的留言副本)

59.149.26.248兄﹐你好﹐我叫零空网。我看到你在“中大学生报”主版面的留言。首先多谢你对维基的贡献﹐但有以下事项需要注意﹕

• 1) 请在“讨论页”中讨论主版面之内容﹐而避免把“讨论”和“内容”混在一起。
• 2) 如果你对内容有意见﹐除了提出疑问外﹐请大胆提出改良方案。讨论区是很好的交流平台。
• 3) 我会现在删去你在“内容”中的留言﹐而把它搬去讨论页﹐以便作详细讨论。

有关其他使用维基的详情﹐请查阅编辑手册。 谢谢。

如果你对那一段文字有意见或提案﹐烦请详述。

建议分拆内容到中大学生报情色版事件

现时本页有关情色版事件内容，篇幅已占全文八九成了，而且可预见事情于短期内还会继续发展下去。为免条目出现喧宾夺主的情况，建议把情色版事件内容分拆到中大学生报情色版事件，中大学生报只保留一段简要介绍及情色版事件条目之连结。 -- Kevinhksouth (Talk) 2007年5月16日 (三) 17:07 (UTC)

赞同 —零空网 2007年5月16日 (三) 17:07 (UTC)

If no solid objection until tomorrow morning, we split the article. If Kevin is free to do it, please do. Thanks in advance.—零空网 2007年5月16日 (三) 18:07 (UTC)

同意。:)—石 2007年5月16日 (三) 17:14 (UTC)

Yeah, make sense. Lets split them up. Of course, lets take the opportunity to fix up and update the main 中大学生报 article. Why not improve the main article at the same time? It will be neat to get some benefit from this controversy (a better 中大学生报 wikipedia article). K ideas 2007年5月16日 (三) 21:49 (UTC)

各位﹐分拆完成了﹗—零空网 2007年5月17日 (四) 00:36 (UTC)

Hi 零空网, thanks for your 分拆. It looks clean and thanks for spending time to fix it up. I will have to look at the content (of the new page) closer when I have time, but it looks great on first glance. K ideas 2007年5月17日 (四) 12:37 (UTC)

移除不必要的保护

本版只是提及“性”、“人兽交”等几个名词，并不属于只宜成人阅读，无须保护。