wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > sainto...@telus.net writes: > > They're not unreliable either. I prefer to site my sources as precisely > as possible, and trust the reader to decide the reliability of those > sources for himself. Dictating to a reader that only our preferred > sources are reliable is outright arrogance.>> > ------------------------- > Yes we are arrogent in assuming that we editors can use judgement. > That is what we're called to do in this project. Not go willy-nilly > helter-skelter about, but to use judgement and discernment, to weed out those > > sources that should be used, from those that should not. > --------------------- > > But you aren't even allowing editors to use judgement when you dictate what is reliable. You're substituting your judgement for theirs.
> sainto...@telus.net writes: > > Why narrow the discussion to websites? The same arguments on both sites > can be applied to printed material. What do you mean by "authorial > prominence"? Failure to name the authors is not fatal. Pseudonymous > and anonymous articles are very common in magazines throughout the lat > three centuries. That is not sufficient reason to jump to the > conclusion that they are unreliable.>> > -------------------------------------------------------------- > I am solely speaking of websites here, but anonymous contributions to > magazines are also quite suspect. Without knowing who the speaker is, we > cannot determine their reliability except by using sources that make it > unnecessary to use the first party, in the first place. > ------------------ > I have no shortage of 19th century periodicals which do not show the author of articles. "Chambers's Magazine" was only one such. I trust the reader's ability to interpret these sources in a way appropriate to his needs. > > sainto...@telus.net writes: > > Of course notability is not a matter of numbers. The obsession of > gutter journalist Nancy Grace on CNN with the child murder of Caley > Anthony and the reporting of such events by other programs does not make > that child notable. Who determines when a source is reliable?>> > ------------------ > > We do. The community as a whole. When in doubt, you ask at the Reliable > Sources Noticeboard. The "Reliable Sources Noticeboard" does not represent the community as a whole, and the "doubts" there are only raised by those who question a source. Like AfD it has its own swarm of fellow travellers, who find it convenient to concentrate their misery in one place. The normal contributor is at a disadvantage there because he does not have the culicid persistance of its regular inhabitants. A better place to discuss the reliability of a source would be the article's talk page. Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l