That's a good example of a blog used as a source appropriately. You can't really get much better than direct quotes from the creator of the subject of an article. Of course, POV is a thing to look out for, but regardless, it still beats third-party information by a good distance, I'd say.
--Ryan
On 11/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Absolutely. For many subjects, the best sources of all are not traditional treeware. It's the authority of the source that matters, not the medium, in my view.
Remember also that most of our articles are not controversial - we should take care not to make rules from special cases.
e.g. [[EXA]] - a minor topic, though significant enough for an article in its tiny area (3D acceleration for the X.Org X11 server). One of the references is to a blog! Worse yet, it's the original developer's blog! Yet I submit there is no reason whatsoever to consider this any less reliable as a source on this particular subject than a printed publication would be.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l