[WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing the XML article

[wjhonson at aol.com]

<<I'm chary of experts determining what sources are reliable, as
Carcharoth suggests.>>

Experts do not determine what sources are reliable.  Consensus does.

<< There are two meanings for "reliability." Reliability in RS, I 
claim, depends solely on the publisher, and reliability in this sense 
is about notability, and certainly not about reliability in the 
ordinary sense, that we could assume that the material is "true." If 
it's in independently published source,
it's reliably sourced. Sure, there are gray areas.>>

No.  Reliability as we use it in WP:RS depends on an author and the 
publisher's editor being known as producing resources which accurately 
reflect their own underlying sources.  It is not about the notability 
of the publisher, because in that case a *famous* publisher like Ivana 
Trump Enterprises could produce complete dreck and be called reliable.  
WP:RS is a combination effect arising from the interface of 
author-publisher-source.  It's not dependent on one of these alone.


<<If we accept that fact in reliable source -- or "asserted fact", to 
be precise about what can be verified -- is usable in the project, my 
view is that RS establishes notability and that, therefore, the fact 
belongs somewhere in the project, it should not be excluded because 
someone, expert or not, claims that, say, the author is biased. Rather, 
if that impeaching claim can be backed, itself, by reliable source, we 
would provide both, and the original "fact" would be stated with 
attribution, "according to ..." and probably likewise the rebuttal. 
Even if there is no impeaching claim in reliable source, it is within 
the sovereignty of local consensus to include attribution where it will 
broaden consensus.>>

RS does not establish notability.  Example among a few hundred other 
deeds that Bogislaw I did, he also loved partridge pie.  It's sourced 
reliably, that doesn't necessarily means it's notable.  Things which 
are notable should be important, interesting, standard, curious, odd, 
startling and so on, not mundane, bland and trivial regardless of the 
source.

Next IF you have an example (I'm sure you do, you're just too shy to 
tell us its Britney Spears or Scientology or both) where a single 
expert has decided that a source is biased and is therefore blocking 
that article, then tell us so we can go beat him or her up.

If you don't let's just say that a single editor should not be able to 
OWN an article nor the use of a source or it's disuse.  Community 
consensus still prevails and there is an WP:RSN reliable sources 
noticeboard where you can bring that forth and establish a community 
posse to take out the varmit.

IF however your source states something that *the vast majority* (and I 
characterize this as meaning "me") would say "that claim is outrageous" 
then you have to recognize that fact and abide by the community 
standard view.  So "apple pie with whipped cream has been shown to cure 
some types of cancer"... no.  "Space Aliens tend to like to visit San 
Diego more than Los Angeles".... no.

"Some medical studies show a correlation between high blood pressure 
and doughnut-eating" (Source 1) "while other studies have found no such 
correlation" (Source 2).

There is a point at which a claim falls off the face of the Earth 
because most of the community is rolling around on the floor laughing.

So bring your example, mr shyness.

Will Johnson