In a message dated 4/27/2009 4:14:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time, thomas.dalton@gmail.com writes:
There is no reason to take reliability of sources into account when determining notability, just that the sources exist. This is the point Ken was trying to make near the beginning of this thread.>>
-------------------------------- Notability can only be determined from reliable sources. Websites of local genealogists and local historians are not reliable simply because they exist.
That's the point I'm making. "Official" or not, we have to judge their reliability based on their own particular authorial prominence. This is especially true of websites which do not even name the authors of a piece. That is a very suspect activity in my view.
Once we can establish that a website does actually speak not only *with* authority, but *from* authority, then we could move on to determine if it's meets the other criteria to be considered reliable.
Again, that 12 websites mention a purported fact, does not in and of itself, make that fact notable. It is only notable when the mentions themselves are hosted in reliable sources. We discount mentions which are not hosted in reliable sources.
Will Johnson
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220572846x1201387511/aol?redir=http... Aprilfooter427NO62)
2009/4/28 WJhonson@aol.com:
In a message dated 4/27/2009 4:14:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time, thomas.dalton@gmail.com writes:
There is no reason to take reliability of sources into account when determining notability, just that the sources exist. This is the point Ken was trying to make near the beginning of this thread.>>
Notability can only be determined from reliable sources.
That's the point we are disputing, you can't use it as a premise for your argument...
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Notability can only be determined from reliable sources. Websites of local genealogists and local historians are not reliable simply because they exist.
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.
That's the point I'm making. "Official" or not, we have to judge their reliability based on their own particular authorial prominence. This is especially true of websites which do not even name the authors of a piece. That is a very suspect activity in my view.
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.
Once we can establish that a website does actually speak not only *with* authority, but *from* authority, then we could move on to determine if it's meets the other criteria to be considered reliable.
Speaking from authority imposes a logical fallacy.
Again, that 12 websites mention a purported fact, does not in and of itself, make that fact notable. It is only notable when the mentions themselves are hosted in reliable sources. We discount mentions which are not hosted in reliable sources.
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?
Ec