On 7/10/06, Sarah <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Erik, the important point about newspapers is that all
but the tiniest
have processes in place to detect errors, and particularly legal
problems, prior to publication. We can only hope they use the
processes correctly; if they don't, that's not our fault. But
Wikipedia has no such process, which is why we rely on what we call
"reliable sources" who do.
Wikipedia has quite a lot of processes to detect errors, though it
doesn't have the traditional notion of publication. Wikinews does, by
the way. But let's not go there.
The question is: a reliable source for what? A reliable source that
person A said B? Person A tends to be a reliable source for that, and
there are other indicators that he is indeed person A than some
imagined process of verification. The more important question is
whether the statement is relevant to the article, and whether it
speaks for itself or is used to support an original speculation. If
not, we need a secondary source that establishes the context -- but
very often, a primary source is more than sufficient (and in some ways
preferable).
Our own history is an example. Virtually all of it is documented
through electronic mailing lists and edits to the wiki. It is possible
to fake mailing list posts just like it is possible to fake them on
Usenet. So, are we going to dispute that Larry Sanger wrote the "Let's
make a wiki" post on those grounds? Are we going to argue that a
mailing list is not a "reliable source" and we need to wait until some
piece of paper picks up the same information from the same source,
with the added magic pixie dust of print, to turn it into an eternal
truth?
No, because if someone had faked Larry's post, Larry himself would
have pointed it out quite quickly. The situation needs to be looked at
in context, rather than reducing it to a simple formula of "reliable
sources." We need to be very careful that dogma does not take the
place of common sense.
Erik