WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
saintonge(a)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(a)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(a)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