Stan Shebs wrote:
JAY JG wrote:
steven l. rubenstein said:
repute of sources. Our "official policy" of "cite sources" explains that claims should come from reputable sources,
Tony Sidaway replied:
You mean [[wikipedia:cite sources]] says this? Where does it say that sources should be reputable?
The policy states "More than that, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite". Authoritative, in my view, means reputable.
At the risk of splitting hairs, I usually interpret "authoritative" as being with respect to something, while "reputable" is less focussed. A LaRouche website can be authoritative w.r.t. official group positions, while being considered non-authoritative on every other subject, and maybe generally disreputable to boot.
References and external links should include at least brief caveats about quality of sources, just as one sees in good book bibliographies.
The phrase "you should actively search for" does not imply that the less autoritative ones should be excluded, only that better ones should be included. By adding a caveat to a dubious reference it forewarns the user of a possible problem. When that same reference is deleted from the article the warning goes with it, and our poor user is left to Google and flounder on his own. He will probably find the site anyway, and have to waste his own time determining that the site is pure trash.
Ec