In a message dated 4/28/2009 1:15:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
saintonge(a)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.
---------------------
In a message dated 4/28/2009 1:15:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
saintonge(a)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.
------------------
In a message dated 4/28/2009 1:15:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
saintonge(a)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.
Will Johnson
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221621499x1201450105/aol?redir=htt…
ilExcScore428NO62)
In a message dated 4/27/2009 1:54:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com writes:
A church website, if it is obviously aimed at PR
and full of blurb, should have claims of membership and influence taken
with a pinch of salt. However, a page on a small church which narrates
that it was built in 1791, built of sandstone, and has a clock tower of
gothic style dating from 1806 built by village subscription to celebrate
Trafalgar, and that six generations of the family of the Lord of Boggle,
is hardly likely to be lying. And if the same information can be
verified for the website of the county historical society, then common
sense says we have enough.>>
------------------
Historical Society websites are not reliable sources.
For the most part they consist of segments written by amateur historians
and amateur genealogists.
I started the Local History Project, and not even I would consider a site
like that reliable and citable.
IF one of those authors has been previously published by a third-party
publisher (who does fact-checking), then it might be considered a reliable
source. But not until then.
Will Johnson
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220572846x1201387511/aol?redir=htt…
Aprilfooter427NO62)
In a message dated 4/28/2009 9:07:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
saintonge(a)telus.net writes:
> If someone wants to dispute that the
> contributor's source is not reliable, a blanket statement about that
> without evidence is an assumption of the contributor's bad faith.>>
>
------
The issue in this thread is "Notable" not "based on Reliable Sources"
Will
**************
An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221621499x1201450105/aol?redir=htt…
bcd=AprilExcScore428NO62)
In a message dated 4/28/2009 6:34:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com writes:
> I disagree that the burden of proof is on the contributing author. The
> burden is on those wishing to delete something to achieve a consensus to
> delete.
>>
------------------
That's right, but that isn't what I spoke against.
So you can disagree, but you're not disagreeing with anything I said.
Will
**************
An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221621499x1201450105/aol?redir=htt…
bcd=AprilExcScore428NO62)
Re :King Arthur is the ancestor of the present Queen Elizabeth
If he existed, and I understand prevailing wisdom is that there probably was at least one dark age warlord behind the myth, and if he had progeny then its statistically probable that he features in the ancestry of our current Queen and everyone else who has any British ancestry.
WereSpielChequers
"When Adam delved and Eve span,
who was then the gentleman?"
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:38:26 +0100
> From: doc <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <49F641F2.3030103(a)ntlworld.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > 2009/4/27 <WJhonson(a)aol.com>:
> >> In a message dated 4/27/2009 3:40:00 PM Pacific
> Daylight Time,
> >> doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com writes:
> >>
> >> If we can agree something is the sensible thing
> to do, then we do it.
> >> That's what IAR is all about, and why
> "multiple third-party sources" may
> >> be a good rule of thumb, but, like most rules,
> must never become Holy
> >> Writ. (See WP:IAR).>>
> >>
> >>
> >> -------------------------
> >>
> >> So we let creep in such chestnuts as "King
> Arthur is the ancestor of the
> >> present Queen Elizabeth" because this is
> repeated on 12 websites of "local
> >> genealogy" societies.
> >
> > That's completely unrelated. Using a source to
> establish notability is
> > very different to using that source to establish
> facts. That King
> > Arthur is mentioned on 12 local genealogy society
> websites might well
> > be enough for him to be notable, but some other source
> would need to
> > be used for actually writing the article. There is no
> reason to take
> > reliability of sources into account when determining
> notability, just
> > that the sources exist. This is the point Ken was
> trying to make near
> > the beginning of this thread.
> >
>
In a message dated 4/27/2009 4:27:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
That's the point we are disputing, you can't use it as a premise for
your argument...>>
----------------------
I know you are disputing it. I'm stating that it's a given.
It underlies our policy that we only consider reliable sources.
Sources which are not reliable sources, do not count as anything, anywhere
in the project.
They don't count to determine notability, they don't count to determine
extent of coverage, they simply don't count.
That's my opinion of what our policy states.
Will
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220572846x1201387511/aol?redir=htt…
Aprilfooter427NO62)
In a message dated 4/28/2009 12:30:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com writes:
And all that information will probably be [[WP:OR]], since I doubt that
the media bothered doing a "Jimbo's pants: where are they now" follow-up
a few months later. ;)>>
-------------------------------------
It's only OR if you personally interview Rachel or Jimmy.
If you re-report what Rachel states on her own site, it's not OR.
Will
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221621499x1201450105/aol?redir=htt…
ilExcScore428NO62)
In a message dated 4/27/2009 4:14:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
There is no reason to take
reliability of sources into account when determining notability, just
that the sources exist. This is the point Ken was trying to make near
the beginning of this thread.>>
--------------------------------
Notability can only be determined from reliable sources.
Websites of local genealogists and local historians are not reliable simply
because they exist.
That's the point I'm making. "Official" or not, we have to judge their
reliability based on their own particular authorial prominence. This is
especially true of websites which do not even name the authors of a piece. That
is a very suspect activity in my view.
Once we can establish that a website does actually speak not only *with*
authority, but *from* authority, then we could move on to determine if it's
meets the other criteria to be considered reliable.
Again, that 12 websites mention a purported fact, does not in and of
itself, make that fact notable. It is only notable when the mentions themselves
are hosted in reliable sources. We discount mentions which are not hosted
in reliable sources.
Will Johnson
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220572846x1201387511/aol?redir=htt…
Aprilfooter427NO62)
In a message dated 4/28/2009 12:30:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
saintonge(a)telus.net writes:
Requiring the author
to explain why a property is notable makes it easier to have shifting
goalposts for notability to satisfy the AfD denizens.>>
-------------
We have always placed the burden of proof-of-notability on the contributing
author, not on the rest of the AfD posters. That's been true across each
AfD for notability that I've seen. I doubt it's going to change. I did
not create that, it's just the way it is.
Will Johnson
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221621499x1201450105/aol?redir=htt…
ilExcScore428NO62)