[WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia

[Ray Saintonge]

WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
> saintonge at telus.net writes:
>
> They're  not unreliable either.  I prefer to site my sources as precisely 
> as  possible, and trust the reader to decide the reliability of those 
> sources  for himself.  Dictating to a reader that only our preferred 
> sources  are reliable is outright arrogance.>>
> -------------------------
> Yes we are arrogent in assuming that we editors can use judgement.
> That is what we're called to do in this project.  Not go willy-nilly  
> helter-skelter about, but to use judgement and discernment, to weed out those  
> sources that should be used, from those that should not.
> --------------------- 
>
>   
But you aren't even allowing editors to use judgement when you dictate 
what is reliable.  You're substituting your judgement for theirs.


> saintonge at telus.net writes:
>
> Why  narrow the discussion to websites?  The same arguments on both sites  
> can be applied to printed material. What do you mean by "authorial  
> prominence"?  Failure to name the authors is not fatal.   Pseudonymous 
> and anonymous articles are very common in magazines  throughout the lat 
> three centuries.  That is not sufficient reason to  jump to the 
> conclusion that they are unreliable.>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> I am solely speaking of websites here, but anonymous contributions to  
> magazines are also quite suspect.  Without knowing who the speaker is, we  
> cannot determine their reliability except by using sources that make it  
> unnecessary to use the first party, in the first place.
> ------------------
>   

I have no shortage of 19th century periodicals which do not show the 
author of articles.  "Chambers's Magazine" was only one such.  I trust 
the reader's ability to interpret these sources in a way appropriate to 
his needs.
>  
> Saintonge at telus.net writes:
>   
> Of course notability is not a matter of  numbers.  The obsession of 
> gutter journalist Nancy Grace on CNN with  the child murder of Caley 
> Anthony and the reporting of such events by other  programs does not make 
> that child notable.  Who determines when a  source is reliable?>>
> ------------------
>  
> We do.  The community as a whole.  When in doubt, you ask at  the Reliable 
> Sources Noticeboard.
The "Reliable Sources Noticeboard" does not represent the community as a 
whole, and the "doubts" there are only raised by those who question a 
source.  Like AfD it has its own swarm of fellow travellers, who find it 
convenient to concentrate their misery in one place. The normal 
contributor is at a disadvantage there because he does not have the 
culicid persistance of its regular inhabitants.

A better place to discuss the reliability of a source would be the 
article's talk page.

Ec