Tony Jacobs wrote:
I think it looks pretty good that we have a standard
that we don't
accept original research, even if said research can be easily done
online. That standard makes us more professional and more worthy or
trust and respect.
No one's saying that we should accept original research. However, to
act as if there's nothing verifiable or reliable about GNAA reeks of
short-sightedness. Until we start accepting that *some* self-published
and blog-like sources are actually reliable when it comes to covering
certain things (like web memes or independent bands), we're going to
look incredibly naive.
The question isn't whether "dead tree" sources exist, but whether *any
non-trivial coverage* in *any independent source* exists. It turns out
it doesn't, in this case; at least nobody was able to pony it up. There
are certainly articles that are well sourced without any dead trees
being involved; this wasn't one of them.
Was there non-trivial coverage in independent sources? Yes. Was there
any in something that Wikipedia thinks is "reliable" or "verifiable?"
No. The problem is Wikipedia's situation with the latter, and it goes
far, far beyond silly troll organizations.
-Jeff
--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW:
http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
- Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.