On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:34:00 +0200, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
Exactly. Reliable sources suck! For web content, we should have less strict standards and allow regular blogs and forum/usenet posts as sources!
Nope. What we should do is assess sources according to - well, their reliability. A random blogger is not reliable. A politically opinionated blog is often not reliable. Some blogs are reliable for some things and not for others. Blogs are ephemeral, and often someone will post an error then correct it in a subsequent posting.
If the sole sources for an article are blogs, I would say that is prima facie evidence that the subject is not encyclopaedic. I have little problem with a blog traceable to an identified authority being used as a source for individual facts.
However, if there are no substantial independent secondary sources - meaning profiles of the subject in the news media and the like - then we can't have an article because without sources of independent critical review we can't verify neutrality. Plus it's likely ephemera, take it to Cruftpedia :-)
Guy (JzG)