Tony Sidaway replied:
You mean [[wikipedia:cite sources]] says this? Where does it say that sources should be reputable?
There are three policies you should read carefully: No Original Sources; Cite Sources; and Verifiability.
I do not think any one of these uses the word reputable. I do not want to get into an argument about semantics though -- I don't see any reason to take everything so literally. If you read these three policies carefully, there is a clear understanding that sources vary in quality, and a clear expectation that the sources should be of high quality. One of these policies provides as an example peer-reviewed journal articles. This is only an example, but I think it is an example of what I meant by "reputable."
It is true that there is debate over what constitutes a reputable/non-dubious/authoritative source, and we will never agree on a single standard. But I think we do all agree that we need to discriminate between authoritative, non-authoritative but useful, and unacceptable sources.
And yes, as Slim pointed out, this is generally in reference to secondary and not primary sources.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
steven l. rubenstein said:
It is true that there is debate over what constitutes a reputable/non-dubious/authoritative source, and we will never agree on a single standard. But I think we do all agree that we need to discriminate between authoritative, non-authoritative but useful, and unacceptable sources.
Absolutely. it's fun to give people instructions on which policy documentsthey are supposed to reread, and perhaps less fun to read the examples they give. I think the examples I gave illustrate well the difference between "authoritative" and "non-authoritative"--it's a matter of context. As far as I'm aware, there are no useless or unacceptable sources (even /dev/random has a value in the right context), only useless and unacceptable citations.