Nathan wrote: > Obviously it would be an impossible task to study all potential > sources and make a proactive determination of reliability. We hope to > some extent that folks citing academic sources have vetted them in > some way as to their credibility, but with mainstream news sources > even that expectation is set aside. So instead, perhaps we could have > a reactive policy of reassessing the assumption of reliability for > specific sources based on a history of errors. When Fox News articles > are shown to be riddled with errors of basic fact, indicating that no > effort was made to verify claims, we should stop granting it the same > deference we extend to other institutions with more integrity. > There are various WP articles that are in parts more explicit than WP:RS. And have the advantage of talking about broadly accepted approaches to "reliability", rather than representing the status quo on an endlessly-edited wiki page. [[Historical method]] may be the most interesting; [[source criticism]] and [[source evaluation]] also have something to say.
Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
