On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 06:45:23PM -0500, SlimVirgin wrote:
On 4/7/08, Carl Beckhorn cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm wrote:
Proposal: An editor who has no idea whether what a source says is accurate really shouldn't be editing that article using that source.
That means we can never again cite the New York Times unless we've personally contacted the source to make sure he really did say X, and perhaps further, unless we've also checked out that not only did the source say it, but that he was right to say it.
Far from it. I have good reason to believe that the vast majority of statements in the New York Times are not only attributable but are actually correct (note that, for quotes, "correct" only means "correctly dictated"). Of course there will be occasional errors, but it's only hyperbole to say that we have "no idea" whether what it says is accurate.
However, Wikipedia does overuse newspapers to a great extent. Many of our articles only appear adequately sourced because we turn to newspapers rather than peer-reviewed sources.
- Carl