On May 26, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Delirium wrote:
For example, I would see nothing wrong with our article on [[Richard M. Stallman]] citing something he wrote on his personal website and attributing it to him. His personal website saying "[x]" is not a reliable source for the statement "[x] is true", but it *is* a reliable source for the statement "Richard Stallman has said [x]", much as a company's official website is not necessarily a reliable source for what a company actually does, but *is* a reliable source for what the company describes itself as doing.
I see this as a good rule:
When X is a person, anything known to be published by X is a verifiable source about X. (This is more of a heuristic than a law, as there are no doubt counterexamples.)