On 6/1/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)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