[WikiEN-l] Sources

[Daniel P. B. Smith]

> I think it's a good idea for the question of "what's an acceptable
> source" to be distinct to the rule of verifiability. The latter is
> central to Wikipedia; the former is a much more contentious and fuzzy
> issue.
>
> People need to understand that primary sources are always acceptable.
> E.g. if you're referring to a mailing list archive to discuss the
> mailing list archive, or (for example) the text of someone's post to a
> mailing list, that's totally fine and what historians and journalists
> of computer history do all the time.

Absolutely.

Also, _almost_ any source is better than no source.

The most important thing is that the reader know where the  
information came from--traceability.

The second most important thing is that the reader should be able to  
make a rough _judgement_ about the reliability of the source.  Some  
people may not feel that The New York Times is reliable (too left- 
wing or too reliant on Jayson Blair or whatever), but they know what  
The New York Times _is_. Similarly, if someone cites the University  
of Pennsylvania's website as an authority for Penn having been  
founded in 1740, the reader knows that a) it wasn't made up, b) there  
is quite likely a good argument to be made for that date, but c) Penn  
is not a disinterested party and universities have a motivation to  
exaggerate their antiquity.

The reliability of the source is relatively less important. The only  
real problem occurs when the "source" is, in fact, another entity  
like Wikipedia--one in which the identity and credentials of the  
contributor are not easy to assess.