In a message dated 4/27/2009 4:14:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
There is no reason to take reliability of sources into account when determining notability, just that the sources exist. This is the point Ken was trying to make near the beginning of this thread.>> -------------------------------- Notability can only be determined from reliable sources. Websites of local genealogists and local historians are not reliable simply because they exist. That's the point I'm making. "Official" or not, we have to judge their reliability based on their own particular authorial prominence. This is especially true of websites which do not even name the authors of a piece. That is a very suspect activity in my view. Once we can establish that a website does actually speak not only *with* authority, but *from* authority, then we could move on to determine if it's meets the other criteria to be considered reliable. Again, that 12 websites mention a purported fact, does not in and of itself, make that fact notable. It is only notable when the mentions themselves are hosted in reliable sources. We discount mentions which are not hosted in reliable sources. Will Johnson **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220572846x1201387511/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd= Aprilfooter427NO62) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
