To get right down to the issue of sources wikipedia states. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."
There's also some good stuff here. tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/2rdnhq complete url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Forum_for_Encyclopedic_Standards#Proposed_guidelines_and_strategies And here: tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/kp8fp original: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reliable_sources I cannot stress enough that these policies fall within reason of the editing policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy Wether something is right or wrong if it is reasonably determined to be added in good faith then there's no excuse for outright deletion wether it needs to be sourced or not. In fact, automatically deleteing content immediately gives noone else a chance to source it. -Mike On 5/1/07, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > just so im clear...the process for citation needs to be like this: > > Something happens online. > > Mary Joe blogs about it. > > we wait for someone from a traditional newspaper to call Mary Joe and quote > > her. > > Once the traditional newspaper publishes the quote, it's now a reliable > > source. > > correct? > > this would mean that only is a reliable source (ir newspaper) comments > > on an event will it be notable. That's strange. I didnt know that was > > how wikipedia worked. Can you share the link that defines this? > > Im answering my own question after researching wikipedia. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability > I guess the main editors at Wikipedia feel that if the major press > doesnt cover a story/event....then its probably not worth doing a > wikipedia entry about. > am i reading this correctly? > > seems weird that we have a completely new art form that has > developed...and we're having difficulty providing information and the > backstory. > > Jay > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
