There are two classes of such meta-sources.
within the world of primary scientific journals, there is citation.
worthless articles are not cited. Of course the notable wrong ones
are, but thats a very small percentage of the nonsense. the test of
acadeic acceptance is not publication, but citation.
and there is the other one that applies for all subjects: the judgment
of reputable secondary and tertiary sources. that usually makes it
unnecessary to go to citations of primary articles as a way of
establishing reliability.
This is really the basic presupposition for RS, and it remains valid.
The determination that a source is "reliable" just
adds another level of uncertainty. Where is the
meta-reliable source
that establishes the chosen source as reliable. I'm well aware, for
example, that we have many editors who believe that parapsychology is
pseudoscience. But when somebody cites "The Journal of Parapsychology"
it should be enough for the claim to speak for itself without going
through the whole argument again about why parapsychology is
pseudoscience. We still preserve the fault line, but make it clear that
the fault line is not a product of our judgement.
Ec
_______________________________________________
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
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG