On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:47 PM, WJhonson(a)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(a)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.
--
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.