There are two classes of such meta-sources.
within the world of primary scientific journals, there is citation. worthless articles are not cited. Of course the notable wrong ones are, but thats a very small percentage of the nonsense. the test of acadeic acceptance is not publication, but citation.
and there is the other one that applies for all subjects: the judgment of reputable secondary and tertiary sources. that usually makes it unnecessary to go to citations of primary articles as a way of establishing reliability.
This is really the basic presupposition for RS, and it remains valid.
The determination that a source is "reliable" just
adds another level of uncertainty. Where is the meta-reliable source that establishes the chosen source as reliable. I'm well aware, for example, that we have many editors who believe that parapsychology is pseudoscience. But when somebody cites "The Journal of Parapsychology" it should be enough for the claim to speak for itself without going through the whole argument again about why parapsychology is pseudoscience. We still preserve the fault line, but make it clear that the fault line is not a product of our judgement.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l