"Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I have never used Usenet as a source of information, and, given the controversy that it engenders, I would only do so with extreme caution. I would make no absolute rule against using it, but a critical reader needs to be aware that its use as a reference will taint the credibility of the material. The value of an article depends on the combined credibility of its sources and integrity of its contributors.
Yes, I agree. In general, Usenet is close to the bottom of the barrel in terms of reliability. However, there is still some valuable information to be found on Usenet in between the volumes of drek and I think it is misguided to pre-emptively bar it as a source. It should certainly be deprecated, and wherevery possible other sources should be substituted. But much of the better quality material to be found on Usenet is really more a sort of a tertiary reference, summarizing and often listing other references. As a hypothetical example, if Joe Blow comes along and sees that there isn't any topic about some old bridge over the river backwater, but he knows of a Usenet FAQ in alt.obscure.bridges.moderated describing the bridge and decides to write an article about the bridge based on the FAQ, then I think he should encouraged to do so and to cite the FAQ as a source. The FAQ might well mention arcane some print sources that are unavailable to Joe (or maybe he's not interested in looking them up himself or maybe he's clueless about how to incorporate citations from another source into his writing). If using Usenet as a source is summarily barred, then the other sources for that information would not be very easily available for future editors who might be interested in improving the article. And if the Usenet FAQ turns out to be a work of fiction, then having it identified as a source for the article will also make it easier for future editors to weed out the garbage.
Bkonrad