When challenged, a contributor, must not only *state* that person A is a previously published expert in this area, but *show* that that is the case.
The burden of proof that someone is a previously published (by a third party) author/expert is on the contributor, not the deleter.
So. Is there evidence on the table here?
Will Johnson
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)
On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:47 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
When challenged, a contributor, must not only *state* that person A is a previously published expert in this area, but *show* that that is the case.
The burden of proof that someone is a previously published (by a third party) author/expert is on the contributor, not the deleter.
So. Is there evidence on the table here?
For the expertise of Richard Bartle?
I'm sorry. Let me try again.
For the expertise of [[Richard Bartle]]?
-Phil
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:47 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
When challenged, a contributor, must not only *state* that person A is a previously published expert in this area, but *show* that that is the case.
The burden of proof that someone is a previously published (by a third party) author/expert is on the contributor, not the deleter.
So. Is there evidence on the table here?
For the expertise of Richard Bartle?
I'm sorry. Let me try again.
For the expertise of [[Richard Bartle]]?
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
There is no question as to his expertise. The question is "Was his expertise important enough that someone who's -not him- fact checked and published what he had to say on this matter?" The answer appears to be "no". Self-published sources, even by experts, are not particularly reliable, nor do they in any way establish notability.
Actually, Todd, self-published sources by experts are reliable. Last time I checked. I remember one RSN thread where somebody tried to argue the editor-in-chief of the *Village Voice* could not be cited when he commented about journalism at his own blog (because there was nobody above him in the organization to edit his blog, I suppose).
-Durova
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:52 AM, toddmallen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:47 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
When challenged, a contributor, must not only *state* that person A is a previously published expert in this area, but *show* that that is the case.
The burden of proof that someone is a previously published (by a third party) author/expert is on the contributor, not the deleter.
So. Is there evidence on the table here?
For the expertise of Richard Bartle?
I'm sorry. Let me try again.
For the expertise of [[Richard Bartle]]?
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
There is no question as to his expertise. The question is "Was his expertise important enough that someone who's -not him- fact checked and published what he had to say on this matter?" The answer appears to be "no". Self-published sources, even by experts, are not particularly reliable, nor do they in any way establish notability.
-- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:52 PM, toddmallen wrote:
There is no question as to his expertise. The question is "Was his expertise important enough that someone who's -not him- fact checked and published what he had to say on this matter?" The answer appears to be "no". Self-published sources, even by experts, are not particularly reliable, nor do they in any way establish notability.
"Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"
Three points if you can guess what that's a quote from.
"Self-published," incidentally, only comes up in WP:N in terms of autobiography.
-Phil
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, toddmallen wrote:
There is no question as to his expertise. The question is "Was his expertise important enough that someone who's -not him- fact checked and published what he had to say on this matter?" The answer appears to be "no". Self-published sources, even by experts, are not particularly reliable, nor do they in any way establish notability.
We're not going to start deleting our article about the Simpsons.
But we both know very well that sources about the Simpsons aren't going to be fact-checked. Sources about any sort of popular culture topic generally aren't fact-checked. If you publish a book about the Simpsons, the publisher won't go through and verify that your statement about the first appearance of Krusty the Clown is correct. There may be an occasional professional journal with a Simpsons article that is fact-checked, but most of our information in Simpsons articles won't be from sources like that.
The idea that using a non-self-published source means it's fact-checked just isn't *true*, unless you're talking about some kind of technical or scientific topic, which this isn't.
Two centuries ago, Jane Austen was popular culture for teenage girls. Four centuries ago, Shakespeare was popular culture.
A lot of scholars today would be happier if their contemporaries had kept better records about either of their lives. When Austen's nephew finally wrote up his recollections, it was with regrets that nobody who knew more was still alive.
-Durova
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, toddmallen wrote:
There is no question as to his expertise. The question is "Was his expertise important enough that someone who's -not him- fact checked and published what he had to say on this matter?" The answer appears to be "no". Self-published sources, even by experts, are not particularly reliable, nor do they in any way establish notability.
We're not going to start deleting our article about the Simpsons.
But we both know very well that sources about the Simpsons aren't going to be fact-checked. Sources about any sort of popular culture topic generally aren't fact-checked. If you publish a book about the Simpsons, the publisher won't go through and verify that your statement about the first appearance of Krusty the Clown is correct. There may be an occasional professional journal with a Simpsons article that is fact-checked, but most of our information in Simpsons articles won't be from sources like that.
The idea that using a non-self-published source means it's fact-checked just isn't *true*, unless you're talking about some kind of technical or scientific topic, which this isn't.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ah, the irony. This entire episode has produced articles like this: http://www.raphkoster.com/2009/01/08/wikipedia-muds-and-where-the-sources-ar... Lots of information there for Wikipedia.
2009/1/10 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com
Two centuries ago, Jane Austen was popular culture for teenage girls. Four centuries ago, Shakespeare was popular culture.
A lot of scholars today would be happier if their contemporaries had kept better records about either of their lives. When Austen's nephew finally wrote up his recollections, it was with regrets that nobody who knew more was still alive.
-Durova
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, toddmallen wrote:
There is no question as to his expertise. The question is "Was his expertise important enough that someone who's -not him- fact checked and published what he had to say on this matter?" The answer appears to be "no". Self-published sources, even by experts, are not particularly reliable, nor do they in any way establish notability.
We're not going to start deleting our article about the Simpsons.
But we both know very well that sources about the Simpsons aren't going
to
be fact-checked. Sources about any sort of popular culture topic
generally
aren't fact-checked. If you publish a book about the Simpsons, the publisher won't go through and verify that your statement about the first
appearance
of Krusty the Clown is correct. There may be an occasional professional journal with a Simpsons article that is fact-checked, but most of our information in Simpsons articles won't be from sources like that.
The idea that using a non-self-published source means it's fact-checked just isn't *true*, unless you're talking about some kind of technical or scientific topic, which this isn't.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l