On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:47 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
When challenged, a contributor, must not only *state* that person A is a previously published expert in this area, but *show* that that is the case.
The burden of proof that someone is a previously published (by a third party) author/expert is on the contributor, not the deleter.
So. Is there evidence on the table here?
For the expertise of Richard Bartle?
I'm sorry. Let me try again.
For the expertise of [[Richard Bartle]]?
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
There is no question as to his expertise. The question is "Was his expertise important enough that someone who's -not him- fact checked and published what he had to say on this matter?" The answer appears to be "no". Self-published sources, even by experts, are not particularly reliable, nor do they in any way establish notability.