On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:47 PM, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote: For the expertise of Richard Bartle? I'm sorry. Let me try again. For the expertise of [[Richard Bartle]]? -Phil _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org 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.

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, toddmallen wrote: We're not going to start deleting our article about the Simpsons. But we both know very well that sources about the Simpsons aren't going to be fact-checked. Sources about any sort of popular culture topic generally aren't fact-checked. If you publish a book about the Simpsons, the publisher won't go through and verify that your statement about the first appearance of Krusty the Clown is correct. There may be an occasional professional journal with a Simpsons article that is fact-checked, but most of our information in Simpsons articles won't be from sources like that. The idea that using a non-self-published source means it's fact-checked just isn't *true*, unless you're talking about some kind of technical or scientific topic, which this isn't. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l