In a message dated 4/28/2009 12:23:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time, saintonge@telus.net writes:
I've seen awful work done by professionals too, so I'm not about to abandon my judgement when I see academic or professional titles attached to somebody's name.>>
------------------------
I agree that credentials don't necessarily make something a reliable source. Our standard is that the author must have been previously published by a third-party, known for doing fact-checking. Or something close to that paraphrase.
Will
************** An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221621499x1201450105/aol?redir=http...; bcd=AprilExcScore428NO62)
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
saintonge@telus.net writes:
I've seen awful work done by professionals too, so I'm not about to abandon my judgement when I see academic or professional titles attached to somebody's name.>>
I agree that credentials don't necessarily make something a reliable source. Our standard is that the author must have been previously published by a third-party, known for doing fact-checking. Or something close to that paraphrase.
We mostly don't know, and mostly have no way of knowing, whether the publishers of 19th century magazines checked their facts. "Gentleman's Magazine" (published 1731-1907) was highly regarded for the information it provided, but I have no way to measure the amount of fact-checking that it did.
Ec
<<-----Original Message----- From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 2:53 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia
We mostly don't know, and mostly have no way of knowing, whether the publishers of 19th century magazines checked their facts. "Gentleman's Magazine" (published 1731-1907) was highly regarded for the information it provided, but I have no way to measure the amount of fact-checking that it did.>>
In general, for works of this age and presence, we can apply the "venerable source" approach, taking it for its word, and applying corrections when they exist. CP for example has a corrections volume (volume 14) and so corrections do exist.
Things like NEGHR and CTeG tend to get corrections made in later editions or cross-posted to other Gen/History journals.
The main problematic sources are not the ones from the 19th century, but rather the pseudo-historical ones that are being spewed out like .... spew, right now. I picked up a copy of Laurence Gardiner's book "Bloodline of the Holy Grail" for a buck, not because I think it has any substantive worth whatsoever (which it does not), but because I wanted to track down what his sources were for his absurdly fantastic genealogical charts.
My "absurdly fantastic" I mean "wholely lacking in evidence and in some cases utterly preposterous to boot".
On nearly every page of this "work", I find statements that are ridiculous and mostly uncited. But at least it has led me to cite some of my own work more rigorously and to be surprised by reading the fictional "Book of Jubilees" that someone has made up names for all the wives of Noah's ancestors.
For that it's worth a buck I suppose. But it's not a reliable source. For anything. Except perhaps to cite the complete fictional line of "Prince Michael of Albany", since he wrote the foreword.
Will Johnson
2009/4/29 wjhonson@aol.com:
The main problematic sources are not the ones from the 19th century, but rather the pseudo-historical ones that are being spewed out like .... spew, right now. I picked up a copy of Laurence Gardiner's book "Bloodline of the Holy Grail" for a buck, not because I think it has any substantive worth whatsoever (which it does not), but because I wanted to track down what his sources were for his absurdly fantastic genealogical charts. My "absurdly fantastic" I mean "wholely lacking in evidence and in some cases utterly preposterous to boot".
One of the most educational aspects of working on Wikipedia is realising just how bad other sources (including all journalistic "reliable sources") can be, and that the main practical difference between us and them is that here you can see inside the sausage factory, there you can't.
- d.