
HN as a credible source in Wikipedia? - robg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zynga#cite_note-68
======
ghiculescu
As evanrmurphy says, the citation is only there to link to the relevant HN
thread; it's not implying that HN is (or isn't) a credible or reliable source.
There's currently 57 external links to HN from the en.wikipedia.org domain,[1]
though not of all them are used as citations.

Wikipedia's Verifiability policy indirectly comments on sites like HN here:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPS#Self-
published_so...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPS#Self-
published_sources) (and the section directly below, "Self-published or
questionable sources as sources on themselves"). So for example, a comment pg
made on HN would be something that would be an acceptable citation since his
work in the field has been published in numerous reliable sources in the past.

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch...](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.ycombinator.com&limit=500&offset=0)

------
evanrmurphy
That citation is confirming their claim from the first sentence of
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zynga#Intellectual_property> that Zynga was
indeed criticized on Hacker News.

I'm not sure that's the same as calling HN a credible source, because they're
not vouching for anything said here. In any case, it's interesting and I've
never seen it before on Wikipedia. :)

