"jossi fresco" wrote
On Nov 22, 2007 3:11 PM,
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Exactly. "Reliable" is an everyday concept. We mentally class people as
reliable or not, and I defy anyone to say exactly what that means. Doesn't mean
it's not a helpful notion.
Charles
No one is arguing for the dismissal of the concept of "reliable
sources", which is already explained in detail at [[WP:V#Sources]].
What is being proposed is to redirect WP:RS to WP:VSources.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V#Sources
People are coming up with some really bad ideas these days, it seems. Keeping the
in-principle discussion of verifiability, which is a Foundation level policy, separate
from the nitty-gritty discussion of what a reliable source is, is a very good idea.
Mainstream press is usually reliable enough to use in WP, supermarket tabloids are never.
There's a grey area in between; it makes no sense to me to have comments about that
near the basic point that WP can't accept unverifiable factoids.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from
www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam