On Dec 14, 2007 4:38 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 14/12/2007, Relata Refero
<refero.relata(a)gmail.com> wrote:
One problem: an article there'll probably
have to be viewed as a
self-published source; I don't see Google claiming to exercise any
editorial control. WP:V might see a few disagreements as people try to
alter it to allow reliance on free, signed content.
If the writer's an acknowledged authority in the field, that shouldn't
be a problem.
Oh, I agree it shouldn't. But WP:V has the line "However, caution
should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in
question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have
done so", which clearly suggests we should try and avoid signed but
self-published articles even by acknowledged experts.
In effect, this is going to be similar to, for example, archives of
unpublished 'working papers' or university websites' freely available
lecture transcripts. They're around, accessible, free, and written by
experts, but we don't like using them for some reason.
RR