On 2/27/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
I think we need to adopt standards of what is an
which is in accord with the nature of the subject. In this case, it
is not going to be a book published by the Oxford University Press,
blogs may have to serve, as well as comixs websites. The alternative
is to drastically trim our popular culture coverage, which is one of
the bright spots of Wikipedia, if sometimes considered eccentric and
Rather than having fixed standards, let's just use common sense:
Factually correct, unsourced information is better than no information.
Information sourced to a blog is better than unsourced information.
Information sourced to paper is better than info sourced to a blog.
Information sourced to a peer-reviewed journal is even better...
If a blog on webcomics is the best we have, it's the best we have.
It's not like someone was saying "That guy is wrong, there's another
blog which completely contradicts him".
Am I way of base with believing that uncontroversial information
should just be left? Sources are nice, but if everyone agrees that the
information is correct, what is to be gained by removing it, or
bickering over the quality of the source?