Websites of established newspapers may not be published in the original sense, but they're still run by the attached news agency and therefore trustworthy sources.

At least newspaper editors can be tracked and held accountable for what they wrote. As for the trustworthiness. They're at least as trustworthy as the attached newspaper (as far as they are), not being published in the original sense has nothing to do with it. That last line was my point with regard to being used a source.

slimvirgin(a)gmail.com (slimvirgin(a)gmail.com) [050508 08:31]: That's why we rely on this thing called "case by case editorial judgement" to say whether to use them, and readers use a thing called "a clue" to judge the value of a given source. Your calls for an instant Arbitration Committee decision in mid-argument on the matter are, frankly, mind-boggling.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. However, it is not Wikipedia policy.

On 5/7/05, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote: Sean, I've asked three or four times if anyone can point me to any part of Wikipedia policy that states or implies that Usenet is an acceptable source, and so far, no one has done so. My understanding of the policy pages (e.g. WP:NOR) is that it's not, and I sent you a link to the section that seems to back me up. It doesn't mention Usenet explicitly, but the description of what type of source is acceptable would definitely exclude it. I'd say you're the one operating on the basis of your opinion only, not me. But if I'm wrong, show me.

slimvirgin(a)gmail.com wrote: I do not see any explicit reference barring the use of Usenet as a source. I suspect that you may have a much stricter interpretation of NOR than at least some other Wikipedians. I think most of us would agree that individual postings on Usenet would not be of much value as a citation for any particular claim made about a specific subject (other than documenting what that poster said at a particular point in time). However, many usegroup have FAQs and other moderated documentation which are produced in a similar manner as the Wiki model and are roughly about as accurate as much of the content in Wikipedia. I see no basis for barring such content indiscriminately. Like most everything else on Wikipedia, determining the merits of any particular claim and the references supporting such a claim is a matter of open-ended discussion and revision. The worthwhileness of any citation in Wikipedia is dependent on having multiple readers, where if the citation is being used to support a controverisal claim, some of those readers are willing to examine the source and provide a separate evaluation. You say we don't have the resources to do any of this, but I thought that was precisely the strength of the Wiki editing model--hundreds, thousands, or even potentially millions of readers/editors, some of whom have the interest and motivation to cull out the worst crap and revise and improve that which is worth keeping. I've seen numerous attempts to use mainstream sources to support claims that upon closer examination were not actually supported by the sources. Without someone willing to examine the sources and evaluate the merits, anyone can make up citations that "look" good.

As a person who is a manic book collector I am not lacking in obscure sources. I could correctly cite an issue of the "Strand Magazine" to say that Queen Victoria enjoyed mountain climbing and reached the top of several of the highest peaks in Scotland, but I would be wrong to cite the same reference to say that she broke her leg during one of these climbs? Good scholarship would require that these facts be checked, but who is going to do that kind of checking even when I make it easy by giving the date and page number for the information. If people do that checking, and find that I am consistently adding fraudulent information my reputation will suffer. In the absence of checking the wrong information could remain there for years.

That's precisely the point: newspapers (and their websites) have a fact-checking infrastructure in place. A reporter writes a story, it's checked by the assigning editor, checked again by a copy editor, again by a page editor, and again by a proof reader, all of whom are looking for obvious legal and factual problems as well as style issues. Depending on the size of the newspaper, it might also be checked by a fact-checker. If it's a sensitive story, it might be looked at by the managing editor, the editor-in-chief, the publisher, the lawyers, and even the owners.

We don't have the resources to do any of this, which is why we rely on sources that do. Usenet isn't one of them.

I challenged an editor to come up with checkable sources once. He flatly refused. Slim here went screaming off when I proposed deleting any material for which no source was given. Seems the rules change if it's a mate.

Peter, for the record, you were trying to insert that Australia is a republic, and wouldn't accept the hundreds of sources available that contradict that.