Can you explain and suggest what you mean here? FT2
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 9:46 PM, David Goodman <[email protected]> wrote: > (Snip) > Perhaps a rewording not using absolute terms > might work better--NFCC has shown the disadvantages of using in an > absolute sense things that need to be interpreted > > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 1:31 PM, FT2 <[email protected]> wrote: > > IAR isn't for a regular, predictable, situation where a generic agreed > > solution would be better, and not for a sourcing issue or "systematic > > problem" like this. More and more often there is a chance (small in any > > given case, large overall) that important information for an article may > be > > blog published, so we do have a genuine issue here. > > > > I tend to use eventualism for filling out a page, not for correcting > > violations of NPOV (paramount policy).I don't expect to find myself > > thinking *"It's not balanced and gives undue weight but eventually we > might > > get a source that fixes it"*. That's different from extra information > that > > we don't need. As Charles says the problem is that RS is our filter to > > ensure what we do say is reliable. So the question is, that information > in > > the blog - who says it's accurate? Why would a user rely upon it? > > > > My suggested view is to look at the purpose of RS. The aim of RS is part > of > > a wider goal - not passing off dud information as good, and allowing > users > > to see transparently where our information comes from. We do that to an > > extent with self published material. So I would be okay with a solution > that > > extended and built upon SELFPUB. For example: > > > > > > Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of > > information, without the requirement that they be published by experts in > > the field or reliable sources, so long as: > > > > 1. the content is salient or NPOV would be compromised if absent; > > 2. the content is not published in a more reliable source; > > 3. the author's details and the origins of the material (authenticity) > is > > not in question; > > 4. the author's position to speak to the matter or viewpoint involved > is > > not in question; > > 5. the material is not unduly self-serving; > > 6. it does not involve claims about third parties; > > 7. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the > > subject; > > 8. the article is not based primarily on such sources; > > 9. The material is clearly attributed to the author and the type of > > medium made clear (personal website, blog, etc) for the reader's > > understanding. > > > > This is more, a natural extension and rationalization of an existing > norm, > > and puts SELFPUB on a platform with other material of a like nature. > Worth > > proposing? > > > > FT2 > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Ian Woollard <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > >> >> Sure there's something you can do: fix the definition of reliable > >> source. > >> > >> Or, isn't this the point of IAR? > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > WikiEN-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > > > > -- > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
