Bill Konrad wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Sean, I've asked three or four times if anyone can point me to any part of Wikipedia policy that states or implies that Usenet is an acceptable source, and so far, no one has done so. My understanding of the policy pages (e.g. WP:NOR) is that it's not, and I sent you a link to the section that seems to back me up. It doesn't mention Usenet explicitly, but the description of what type of source is acceptable would definitely exclude it. I'd say you're the one operating on the basis of your opinion only, not me. But if I'm wrong, show me.
I do not see any explicit reference barring the use of Usenet as a source. I suspect that you may have a much stricter interpretation of NOR than at least some other Wikipedians. I think most of us would agree that individual postings on Usenet would not be of much value as a citation for any particular claim made about a specific subject (other than documenting what that poster said at a particular point in time). However, many usegroup have FAQs and other moderated documentation which are produced in a similar manner as the Wiki model and are roughly about as accurate as much of the content in Wikipedia. I see no basis for barring such content indiscriminately. Like most everything else on Wikipedia, determining the merits of any particular claim and the references supporting such a claim is a matter of open-ended discussion and revision.
The worthwhileness of any citation in Wikipedia is dependent on having multiple readers, where if the citation is being used to support a controverisal claim, some of those readers are willing to examine the source and provide a separate evaluation. You say we don't have the resources to do any of this, but I thought that was precisely the strength of the Wiki editing model--hundreds, thousands, or even potentially millions of readers/editors, some of whom have the interest and motivation to cull out the worst crap and revise and improve that which is worth keeping. I've seen numerous attempts to use mainstream sources to support claims that upon closer examination were not actually supported by the sources. Without someone willing to examine the sources and evaluate the merits, anyone can make up citations that "look" good.
I have never used Usenet as a source of information, and, given the controversy that it engenders, I would only do so with extreme caution. I would make no absolute rule against using it, but a critical reader needs to be aware that its use as a reference will taint the credibility of the material. The value of an article depends on the combined credibility of its sources and integrity of its contributors.
As a person who is a manic book collector I am not lacking in obscure sources. I could correctly cite an issue of the "Strand Magazine" to say that Queen Victoria enjoyed mountain climbing and reached the top of several of the highest peaks in Scotland, but I would be wrong to cite the same reference to say that she broke her leg during one of these climbs? Good scholarship would require that these facts be checked, but who is going to do that kind of checking even when I make it easy by giving the date and page number for the information. If people do that checking, and find that I am consistently adding fraudulent information my reputation will suffer. In the absence of checking the wrong information could remain there for years.
Ec