steven l. rubenstein said:
It is true that there is debate over what constitutes a
reputable/non-dubious/authoritative source, and we will never agree on
a single standard. But I think we do all agree that we need to
discriminate between authoritative, non-authoritative but useful, and
unacceptable sources.
Absolutely. it's fun to give people instructions on which policy
documentsthey are supposed to reread, and perhaps less fun to read the
examples they give. I think the examples I gave illustrate well the
difference between "authoritative" and "non-authoritative"--it's a
matter
of context. As far as I'm aware, there are no useless or unacceptable
sources (even /dev/random has a value in the right context), only useless
and unacceptable citations.