Actually, Todd, self-published sources by experts are reliable. Last time I checked. I remember one RSN thread where somebody tried to argue the editor-in-chief of the *Village Voice* could not be cited when he commented about journalism at his own blog (because there was nobody above him in the organization to edit his blog, I suppose).
-Durova
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:52 AM, toddmallen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:47 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
When challenged, a contributor, must not only *state* that person A is a previously published expert in this area, but *show* that that is the case.
The burden of proof that someone is a previously published (by a third party) author/expert is on the contributor, not the deleter.
So. Is there evidence on the table here?
For the expertise of Richard Bartle?
I'm sorry. Let me try again.
For the expertise of [[Richard Bartle]]?
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
There is no question as to his expertise. The question is "Was his expertise important enough that someone who's -not him- fact checked and published what he had to say on this matter?" The answer appears to be "no". Self-published sources, even by experts, are not particularly reliable, nor do they in any way establish notability.
-- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l