On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Philip Sandifer <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:47 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >> When challenged, a contributor, must not only *state* that person A >> is a >> previously published expert in this area, but *show* that that is >> the case. >> >> The burden of proof that someone is a previously published (by a third >> party) author/expert is on the contributor, not the deleter. >> >> So. Is there evidence on the table here? > > For the expertise of Richard Bartle? > > I'm sorry. Let me try again. > > For the expertise of [[Richard Bartle]]? > > -Phil > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >
There is no question as to his expertise. The question is "Was his expertise important enough that someone who's -not him- fact checked and published what he had to say on this matter?" The answer appears to be "no". Self-published sources, even by experts, are not particularly reliable, nor do they in any way establish notability. -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
