On 6/6/05, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote:
Fred Bauder stated for the record:
There is also the question of whether it is
reasonably convenient
to access it. For example, a NYT's article might cost 2 bucks but
something that requires accessing Nexus or consulting an obscure
journal is much more expensive.
So material from an "obscure" journal is less acceptable? I guess my
digging into old Soviet naval records for information about their
nuclear submarines is a waste of time.
The harder the original editor worked, the more likely his work will be
deleted. That's ... I'm groping for the word ... smart? ... no ... oh,
I have it: perverse.
I agree, that is a foolish metric.
Now, if we have two equal sources (that is, roughly equal reliability
and authority) for the same information we should choose the one which
is more widely available (and of course, cost is a factor there).
This is like the pruning I do on external links... sometimes I find
places where someone has taken free content (Linux documentation
project materials, for example), and place it on their blog or a site
laden with advertising then linked it from Wikipedia. When I
encounter those I change the link to point to the more authoritative
source.
This should not dissuade us from using a very expensive, very rare
source, or even an advertising laden websource, if that is what is
available for the information. That someone can verify its
authenticity and authortativeness is the bar we impose.
That said, it would be a shame if we wrote articles with only very
expensive sources, but I don't think we are running any risk of that.
:)