In a message dated 7/25/2008 10:54:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
cbeckhorn(a)fastmail.fm writes:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 01:27:15PM -0400,
WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
They are not the standard however. For example
in biography the number
of
"peer-review" articles is vanishingly
small. In Physics it is
overwhelming.
Quite different animals.
If you are saying that too many of our biography articles (and pop-culture
articles) rely heavily on substandard sources, I completely agree. >>
-----------
No I'm saying that in certain subject-areas, the sources simply are not
peer-reviewed by nature.
When was the last time you read a biography that was peer-reviewed? It just
doesn't happen. Sure they are fact-checked by publishers, but that's not the
same as peer-review. Whatever "peer review" occurs with works of certain
types, occurs as an afterthought in the way of published reviews and critiques, so
in those cases, we'd note the biography and we'd note the critiques as well.
As we do.
-----------
You are wrong to lump "self-published
material" with "even from experts".
That isn't what the policy states, nor what
we hashed out over and over
years
ago on this very point. We made a clear
distinction between
self-published
material from non-experts, and self-published
material from experts. You
argument seems to blur that distinction that we carefully tried to draw.
Here is the entire text on the subject of self-published expert
sources from the current version of WP:V:
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when
produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose
work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable
third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when
using such sources: if the information in question is really worth
reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the use of self-published expert
writing. It explicitly encourages cautious use and a search for more
reliable sources (the "someone else").
In the end, we _should not_ be encouraging the use of self-published
expert writing, for the reasons I laid out in an earlier email. A lack
of ediitorial review is a magnet for theories and interpretations whose
due weight in our articles is very low. >>
---------------
And I did not say a "ringing endorsement" Mr. Straw Man argument :)
There is a wide gap being "encouraging the use of" and "*allowing* the use
of", I'm sure you would agree.
We are always, even in the case of "peer review" encouraged to seek more
reliable sources, however the writing of "an established expert in the revelent
field who has been previously published by reliable third-party publications",
is by our policy a reliable source.
Should you use such a source cautiously and meanwhile seek a better one.
Sure. Just as you'd hopefully do with all sources. The use of any source
requires a certain amount of common sense and skepticism.
We are explicitely stating that such experts understand how to exercise
self-review, self-censorship, and competency. They are not identical with the
general public.
Will Johnson
**************
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign
up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(
http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)