Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/1/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
No, it doesn't. However, it does mean that a phone book isn't a *reliable* source.
I don't think it's ever been stated that Wikipedia only incorporates material from known, infallible sources. Our minimum requirements are much more vague however - words like "reliable" and "verifiable" get used a lot, but with no clear definition.
Given that, providing the source of all information and taking steps not to ridiculously misuse sources (eg, quoting speculative material from a tabloid and presenting it as established fact), is what we should be aiming for. So far, we're not even close.
I essentially agree. Some people still argue that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. On the other hand "Scientific American" for this month used [[Sudoku]] as a reference in an article on the same subject.
Diferent sources will have different levels of reliability for different types of information. It's ultimately up to the user to exercise critical thinking in making such evaluations, not us.
Ec