The organization didn't say they wouldn't admit Fred Saberhagen had died. That was Quatloo, a single user. Other editors chimed in that he was wrong, and the wikipedia board later sent an apology email to scalzi. (And no, I can't list a citation for that. I know that from a personal conversation with Scalzi. :P )
The reference guidelines on reliable sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS) do permit the use of primary sources that are considered authorities on the content of the topic.
I think it's a Wikipedia backlash response, a cultural trend, rather than a single user, pushing for citations and references. The editor who marked the ConFusion article as needing references in May was different than this editor who marked the U-Con article for speedy deletion. This editor marks himself as a new article patroller. Based on comments in his user profile's talk history as well as the experience we just had, I think he's a bit overeager. Aggressive activity like that discourages otherwise earnest and willing people from contributing.
no subject
The reference guidelines on reliable sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS) do permit the use of primary sources that are considered authorities on the content of the topic.
I think it's a Wikipedia backlash response, a cultural trend, rather than a single user, pushing for citations and references. The editor who marked the ConFusion article as needing references in May was different than this editor who marked the U-Con article for speedy deletion. This editor marks himself as a new article patroller. Based on comments in his user profile's talk history as well as the experience we just had, I think he's a bit overeager. Aggressive activity like that discourages otherwise earnest and willing people from contributing.