>> Tony Sidaway replied:
>>
>> You mean [[wikipedia:cite sources]] says this? Where does it say that
>> sources should be reputable?
>
There are three policies you should read carefully: No Original Sources;
Cite Sources; and Verifiability.
I do not think any one of these uses the word reputable. I do not want to
get into an argument about semantics though -- I don't see any reason to
take everything so literally. If you read these three policies carefully,
there is a clear understanding that sources vary in quality, and a clear
expectation that the sources should be of high quality. One of these
policies provides as an example peer-reviewed journal articles. This is
only an example, but I think it is an example of what I meant by "reputable."
It is true that there is debate over what constitutes a
reputable/non-dubious/authoritative source, and we will never agree on a
single standard. But I think we do all agree that we need to discriminate
between authoritative, non-authoritative but useful, and unacceptable sources.
And yes, as Slim pointed out, this is generally in reference to secondary
and not primary sources.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701