Quoting Agrare:

Quote:
which to me means that the notes are part of the data you are contributing. and if the notes are not accurate and supportive of the information being contributed, A no vote is warrented. You cannot assume that people will know the data is accurate unless you provide them with sources saying so. Especially when dealing with name variation changes.

I don't disagree with you.  However, sources were included in the contribution.  These sources support the information being contributed.  Enry, on his own, found more information to support the original claim.  That is a plus.

The problem I have in this case, is Skip is trying to force mikl to use the source he prefers.  There is no requirement for that in the rules.

Did mikl provide supporting documentation for the data?  Yes.
Is the data being submitted acurate?  Yes.
Does the submission replace data which is inaccurate?  Yes.

Under these circumstances, a 'no' vote is improper.

Quoting Agrare:

Quote:
Now i'll admit voting no because they were left out is different than voting no because you don't like their sources, but I don't think that it's an abuse of the voting privilege. If your sources don't convince me your contribution is correct, then I am well in my rights to vote no on it, even though it may in fact be accurate.

I don't disagree with you here either.  But, there is a difference between voting no because you aren't convinced and voting no, for data you know is acurate, simply because you don't like the source.

while I agree that in this cases, it does seem like a yes vote should be cast, and personally for me, more data found in either the forums or on my own when it appears to be correct but i'm unsure is enough. though I do think that the notes need to at least include some documentation for future reference though i dont think anyone is arguing against that.

Also, I was taking a 'larger picture' view in my 'arguments' and not specific to this profile. If skip hadn't said that he agrees but will vote no unless the bfi link is put in the notes then no one would know that his no vote was only because he didn't like the source despite knowing it was accurate, and their wouldn't be an issue with it.

as the old saying goes, you can't please everyone. and ultimately, a no vote won't stop a contribution from being accepted. and I think there could be situations where the supplied source (if only one or two provided) could be so 'bad' that a no vote is warrented to prevent the precedent being set that its an ok source (not saying this is the case here) because of the importance the contribution notes play in keeping the accurate data from being undone because when looked at later its origin is unknown.

I guess my whole point is that I think Skip brings up some valid points about sources for the validity of data, and we probably need some official standards or guidelines for acceptable sources in different types of situations to avoid these kind of disagreements. You can always have someone that wants more sources and for some changes it may be impossible for us to provide that level of confidence in the change that 1 person wants. Ultimately if there is enough information provided for the screeners it will get approved anyway, but until it does we will fight about it in the forums.

-Agrare

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
A little off topic, but I find it amusing when we are arguing over the quality of the source.  So often, folks simply paste in a URL and call it a source.  That's fantastic...today.  Two years from now when somebody goes through the notes and none of those URLs work, we're going to be having a whole different conversation. 

This is why (if possible) I usually try to also quote the relevant part of my source in my notes (just a sentence or two) as well as putting the link, so at least later down the road my quote will still exist.  It's not always possible depending on what you're trying to prove and what the source is, but I figured it may help at some point.  Though, the down side is it can make your contribution notes a little too lengthy so they get cut off when displayed in the main voting screen and Gerri has mentioned she doesn't like wordy notes (the more to read, the longer if takes her to process profiles, so I can see her point).