[WikiEN-l] Unreliable sources, or no sources at all?

[Risker]

On 25/03/2008, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
>
> On 25 Mar 2008 at 00:03:47 UTC, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> > Which would be you falling afoul of the fallacy that "all A is B
> > therefore all B is A." You need to think why in this case you're
> > wrong.
>
> The lesson I got out of it was "If A has a bigger and more powerful
> clique of friends and supporters than B, then by definition A is
> right and B is a troll," but what do A and B equal in *your*
> explanation?
>
> --


Dan, you know I generally agree with you on the badsites issue; however, I
don't see this as at all analogous.  Having had a fair bit of experience
with links to the Post Chronicle from a couple of the more gossipy articles
I watch, these links were often added insidiously, replacing "real"
references.  Almost every link I saw in the half-dozen articles where they
kept popping up was some editorialized press release, full of prices and
links to purchase.

This actually is a bad site - from the encyclopedic perspective, not the
user protection perspective.  Although some of the pages involved are
archived, it's now possible to blacklist this website without messing up any
pages.  Further, the links were only denatured, not removed outright.

Risker