Talk:Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search[edit]

Lethargilistic, can you please explain the basis for your belief that this source is reliable? Unless I'm missing something, it seems to fall pretty squarely into WP:BLOGS. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I would admit it under the "expert sources" exception in WP:BLOGS. The publisher, Foley Hoag, is a well-respected law firm with expertise in the area. We'd still need to be on guard against bias, of course -- Foley represents clients who have particular positions -- but I don't see any issue with taking it as a WP:RS. TJRC (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
TJRC, the problem with the expert exception to WP:SPS is that it requires the author to have work that has been published in the relevant field by reliable third-party publications. Has David Kluft been published be reliable third-party publications? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Per TJRC. It is not a personal blog. It's the organization's blog on the topic, and I'd say it fits all three exceptions to the rule you're citing. 1) It's a collaborative site and the writer is credited to a credentialed staff member, a partner at the firm. 2) The content is clearly subject to editorial's control and the writers are professionals. 3) The author has been widely published by third parties in regards to copyright, though feel free to ignore the examples from this blog if you wish. Additionally, although this is not an argument as to the source's overall reliability, the article itself is a synthesis of cases demonstrating points relevant to Star Athletica. This one is important enough to include in the WP article because it's, in some sense, a new liability introduced by the decision of this case. Because the designs were not eligible for copyright before, there was no incentive to hide any utility; now that they are copyrightable, there's a notable possibility for mistakes or outright fraud to lead to criminal damages. It's a new dimension to the area. Proving the same conclusion by going to those cases could be considered OR to a certain extent (someone in the case did mention the criminal possibilities), so I'm far more inclined to link to this outside expert rather than citing this point to the cases. lethargilistic (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand the relevance of your points (1) and (2), but I'll accept (3), thanks for pointing out the author's publication history. (I didn't see that.) Normally in these situations we use in-text attribution. I'll add it. Next time please follow WP:BRD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Point 1 of lethargilistic's comment refers to the first exception at WP:UGC: "Content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff." The second point relates to the following exception: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." The left side of the article webpage lists two "Blog Editors", so presumably there is editorial control over the content. That said, the author of the article is one of those two editors, so may not have been held to the blog's full editorial control. However, the WP:UGC exceptions don't say that all of the criteria must be met and so points 1 & 3 should be sufficient to use the article as a source. AHeneen (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)