--- On Fri, 13/5/11, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
From: Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org>
Isn't this just a failure to actually think through what
verifying
information with a reliable source means, rather than a
problem with the
principle? It's quite possible for the Guardian to be a
good newspaper
in general, but for a random list in the "Diversions"
section, with no
apparent investigative reporting involved, to *not*
constitute reliable
verification of that point.
I actually think it's malice, rather than a failure to think through what
verification means. And it's malice in most cases where editors insist
that some tabloid claim should stay in a biography, based on "verifiability,
not truth." They don't like the subject, and enjoy taking pot shots at them.
I guess I see that kind of critical source analysis
as
completely in
line with the idea of "verifiable information cited to
reliable
sources", though. At least as I read it, the WP:V/WP:RS
combination
asks: is this given citation sufficient to verify the fact
it claims to
verify? So I wholeheartedly agree that bright-line rules
like
"everything in The Guardian is reliable" are wrong, but I
don't think
that ought to require abandoning the WP:V/WP:RS view, at
least as I've
understood it. Isn't there even some text on WP:RS (there
used to be,
anyway) about how reliable sources may be context-specific,
e.g. a
newspaper may be a reliable source for some claims but not
for others?
Yes, those sections are still there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NEWSORG
I don't see editors quoting them much.
A.