In a message dated 4/28/2009 1:15:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, saintonge@telus.net writes:
They're not unreliable either. I prefer to site my sources as precisely as possible, and trust the reader to decide the reliability of those sources for himself. Dictating to a reader that only our preferred sources are reliable is outright arrogance.>> ------------------------- Yes we are arrogent in assuming that we editors can use judgement. That is what we're called to do in this project. Not go willy-nilly helter-skelter about, but to use judgement and discernment, to weed out those sources that should be used, from those that should not. ---------------------
In a message dated 4/28/2009 1:15:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, saintonge@telus.net writes:
Why narrow the discussion to websites? The same arguments on both sites can be applied to printed material. What do you mean by "authorial prominence"? Failure to name the authors is not fatal. Pseudonymous and anonymous articles are very common in magazines throughout the lat three centuries. That is not sufficient reason to jump to the conclusion that they are unreliable.>> -------------------------------------------------------------- I am solely speaking of websites here, but anonymous contributions to magazines are also quite suspect. Without knowing who the speaker is, we cannot determine their reliability except by using sources that make it unnecessary to use the first party, in the first place. ------------------
In a message dated 4/28/2009 1:15:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, saintonge@telus.net writes: Of course notability is not a matter of numbers. The obsession of gutter journalist Nancy Grace on CNN with the child murder of Caley Anthony and the reporting of such events by other programs does not make that child notable. Who determines when a source is reliable?>> ------------------
We do. The community as a whole. When in doubt, you ask at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
Will Johnson
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221621499x1201450105/aol?redir=http... ilExcScore428NO62)
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
saintonge@telus.net writes:
They're not unreliable either. I prefer to site my sources as precisely as possible, and trust the reader to decide the reliability of those sources for himself. Dictating to a reader that only our preferred sources are reliable is outright arrogance.>>
Yes we are arrogent in assuming that we editors can use judgement. That is what we're called to do in this project. Not go willy-nilly helter-skelter about, but to use judgement and discernment, to weed out those sources that should be used, from those that should not.
But you aren't even allowing editors to use judgement when you dictate what is reliable. You're substituting your judgement for theirs.
saintonge@telus.net writes:
Why narrow the discussion to websites? The same arguments on both sites can be applied to printed material. What do you mean by "authorial prominence"? Failure to name the authors is not fatal. Pseudonymous and anonymous articles are very common in magazines throughout the lat three centuries. That is not sufficient reason to jump to the conclusion that they are unreliable.>>
I am solely speaking of websites here, but anonymous contributions to magazines are also quite suspect. Without knowing who the speaker is, we cannot determine their reliability except by using sources that make it unnecessary to use the first party, in the first place.
I have no shortage of 19th century periodicals which do not show the author of articles. "Chambers's Magazine" was only one such. I trust the reader's ability to interpret these sources in a way appropriate to his needs.
Saintonge@telus.net writes:
Of course notability is not a matter of numbers. The obsession of gutter journalist Nancy Grace on CNN with the child murder of Caley Anthony and the reporting of such events by other programs does not make that child notable. Who determines when a source is reliable?>>
We do. The community as a whole. When in doubt, you ask at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
The "Reliable Sources Noticeboard" does not represent the community as a whole, and the "doubts" there are only raised by those who question a source. Like AfD it has its own swarm of fellow travellers, who find it convenient to concentrate their misery in one place. The normal contributor is at a disadvantage there because he does not have the culicid persistance of its regular inhabitants.
A better place to discuss the reliability of a source would be the article's talk page.
Ec
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
<snip>
The "Reliable Sources Noticeboard" does not represent the community as a whole, and the "doubts" there are only raised by those who question a source. Like AfD it has its own swarm of fellow travellers, who find it convenient to concentrate their misery in one place. The normal contributor is at a disadvantage there because he does not have the culicid persistance of its regular inhabitants.
A better place to discuss the reliability of a source would be the article's talk page.
The debate over whether some discussions are better held at a centralised, specialised venue, or on the article talk page, is a long one. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. It would be good to have a discussion here about that.
Carcharoth