Guy Chapman wrote
We have WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:NOR - we absolutely must have a decent, working definition of what defines a source, so that we can apply these.
It's the carpet we sweep the dust under. Which makes the rest of the place look a damn sight tidier. Remember, though, that it is the wikilawyers who run this 'you haven't defined your terms' riff into the ground, for their own sordid 'gain'. I'm happy enough that articles which, after best efforts to add reliable sources, do not have much to show, should be deleted at AfD.
I think we should admit that the pool of 'reliable sources' is dynamic, and certain things that are premature creations at the moment will in the future be much easier to source. This kind of argument helps keep us straight on celebrity (Warholinan 900 seconds) versus notability; and that WP cannot, be definition, itself be the pioneer reliable source on anything.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:13:45 +0000, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
It's the carpet we sweep the dust under. Which makes the rest of the place look a damn sight tidier. Remember, though, that it is the wikilawyers who run this 'you haven't defined your terms' riff into the ground, for their own sordid 'gain'. I'm happy enough that articles which, after best efforts to add reliable sources, do not have much to show, should be deleted at AfD.
Yes, that is reasonable enough, although the idea of allowing spammers to get us to waste time working up their drivel before finally deleting it is profoundly unattractive.
I think we should admit that the pool of 'reliable sources' is dynamic, and certain things that are premature creations at the moment will in the future be much easier to source. This kind of argument helps keep us straight on celebrity (Warholinan 900 seconds) versus notability; and that WP cannot, be definition, itself be the pioneer reliable source on anything.
Absolutely. For many subjects, the best sources of all are not traditional treeware. It's the authority of the source that matters, not the medium, in my view.
Guy (JzG)
On 29/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Absolutely. For many subjects, the best sources of all are not traditional treeware. It's the authority of the source that matters, not the medium, in my view.
Remember also that most of our articles are not controversial - we should take care not to make rules from special cases.
e.g. [[EXA]] - a minor topic, though significant enough for an article in its tiny area (3D acceleration for the X.Org X11 server). One of the references is to a blog! Worse yet, it's the original developer's blog! Yet I submit there is no reason whatsoever to consider this any less reliable as a source on this particular subject than a printed publication would be.
- d.
That's a good example of a blog used as a source appropriately. You can't really get much better than direct quotes from the creator of the subject of an article. Of course, POV is a thing to look out for, but regardless, it still beats third-party information by a good distance, I'd say.
--Ryan
On 11/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Absolutely. For many subjects, the best sources of all are not traditional treeware. It's the authority of the source that matters, not the medium, in my view.
Remember also that most of our articles are not controversial - we should take care not to make rules from special cases.
e.g. [[EXA]] - a minor topic, though significant enough for an article in its tiny area (3D acceleration for the X.Org X11 server). One of the references is to a blog! Worse yet, it's the original developer's blog! Yet I submit there is no reason whatsoever to consider this any less reliable as a source on this particular subject than a printed publication would be.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l