http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_D._Nicoll...
Love the bit where burntsauce tells Patrick Nielsen Hayden to get a reliable source.
- d.
On 5/17/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_D._Nicoll...
Love the bit where burntsauce tells Patrick Nielsen Hayden to get a reliable source.
Someone ought to just reply with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Nielsen_Hayden
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
Someone ought to just reply with:
I was thinking of that, although the 'needs refs' tag for that appears to have disappeared - maybe he done what he was told.
GDonato.
_________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What is much more promising is that a great many eds, have endorsed the view that the internet is in some cases a reliable source, especially for internet phenomena; the count at this point is at 26 keep, 5 delete, removing duplicates.
I particularly call attention to Kim Bruning's: "Seeing the unique situation where this Articles for Deletion discussion probably counts as a reliable source all by itself now, shall we keep early?"
I think it will be a useful precedent or at least starting point for further discussions.
DGG
On 5/17/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_D._Nicoll...
Love the bit where burntsauce tells Patrick Nielsen Hayden to get a reliable source.
Someone ought to just reply with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Nielsen_Hayden
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 17/05/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
What is much more promising is that a great many eds, have endorsed the view that the internet is in some cases a reliable source,
I posted this elsewhere, but I think it's worth reprinting:
First, Usenet is a perfectly good *medium* to cite things through; as far as such things go, it's sort of like the letters page of a newspaper. You can confidently quote someone's letter to the Times without fretting too much they didn't write it - it's conceivably possible it was faked, since the paper is a bit lax about checking these days, but it's not really plausible unless you have some actual reason to be suspicious (or if it's from the old days when people still used pseudonyms and you had to infer authorship - an analogy can go too far and still work...)
So when citing Usenet posts, the thing to determine if it's reliable is entirely down to context, authorship, etc. (As to whether the actual content is authoritatively correct, even more dependent on authorship and that good old editorial gut feeling)
But Usenet is, in and of itself, a bad *source* in the sense of a publication; it's a vast mass of original material arguing with itself with no control. You can't really confidently say "The general opinion on Usenet is that..." or "There has been much debate over..." except in quite restricted situations; too prone to misinterpretation (wilful or not) and misrepresentation.
I suspect the latter is why someone came up with the idea that "Usenet is not a source"; unfortunately, they failed to understand that an unreliable source can be a reliaiblity-neutral (as it were) medium. I've been arguing this one for a year and not getting very far...
On 5/17/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect the latter is why someone came up with the idea that "Usenet is not a source"; unfortunately, they failed to understand that an unreliable source can be a reliaiblity-neutral (as it were) medium. I've been arguing this one for a year and not getting very far...
Would it be worth it for a line or three to clarify the differences between sources and mediums on the relevant policy pages?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 17/05/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect the latter is why someone came up with the idea that "Usenet is not a source"; unfortunately, they failed to understand that an unreliable source can be a reliaiblity-neutral (as it were) medium. I've been arguing this one for a year and not getting very far...
Would it be worth it for a line or three to clarify the differences between sources and mediums on the relevant policy pages?
Good luck! Expect to be reverted immediately. [[WP:RS]] remains a wasteland.
- d.
It should be made clear that the reliability of a source depends not on the medium it was written in, but more on the author who wrote it. The idea is, blogs are unreliable because any nutcase can start one. But say Queen Elisabeth of the United Kingdom started a blog and the fact it was her was communicated on the official website for the British Royal House, I'd consider it pretty reliable on topics of British politics or British Royals. It all depends on context and if the author was actually verified somehow. If the blog is attached to the official site of a famous person, you can assume they've written it.
On the other hand, it also depends on what you want to cite. If we have an article on person X, person X's weblog would be a perfectly reliable source for trivial stuff like their current place of residence. To determine they're notable, you need to rely on some source other than the subject themselves, because they have a conflict of interest when it comes to that.
The moral: It's not black and white, it all depends on the context the source is used in.
Mgm
On 5/17/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/05/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect the latter is why someone came up with the idea that "Usenet is not a source"; unfortunately, they failed to understand that an unreliable source can be a reliaiblity-neutral (as it were) medium. I've been arguing this one for a year and not getting very far...
Would it be worth it for a line or three to clarify the differences
between
sources and mediums on the relevant policy pages?
Good luck! Expect to be reverted immediately. [[WP:RS]] remains a wasteland.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/17/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/05/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect the latter is why someone came up with the idea that "Usenet is not a source"; unfortunately, they failed to understand that an unreliable source can be a reliaiblity-neutral (as it were) medium. I've been arguing this one for a year and not getting very far...
Would it be worth it for a line or three to clarify the differences
between
sources and mediums on the relevant policy pages?
Good luck! Expect to be reverted immediately. [[WP:RS]] remains a wasteland.
The difference is there. If you discuss widely on the exact wording reverting is just plain vandalism.
Mgm
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
On 5/17/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect the latter is why someone came up with the idea that "Usenet is not a source"; unfortunately, they failed to understand that an unreliable source can be a reliaiblity-neutral (as it were) medium. I've been arguing this one for a year and not getting very far...
Would it be worth it for a line or three to clarify the differences between sources and mediums on the relevant policy pages?
Mediums? We're depending on séances for policy now? :-)
On 5/17/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
What is much more promising is that a great many eds, have endorsed the view that the internet is in some cases a reliable source, especially for internet phenomena; the count at this point is at 26 keep, 5 delete, removing duplicates.
So doe sthis mean it is time to list [[brian peppers]] on DRV?
On 18/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
What is much more promising is that a great many eds, have endorsed the view that the internet is in some cases a reliable source, especially for internet phenomena; the count at this point is at 26 keep, 5 delete, removing duplicates.
So doe sthis mean it is time to list [[brian peppers]] on DRV?
If you think that'll improve the encyclopedia and think you can make a convincing case for it.
- d.
On Thu, 17 May 2007 17:05:29 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Love the bit where burntsauce tells Patrick Nielsen Hayden to get a reliable source.
Love even more the bit where several editors tell him, in words of one syllable and with skilful use of withering scorn, exactly who he has just insulted :-)
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007 17:05:29 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
ove the bit where burntsauce tells Patrick Nielsen Hayden to get a
reliable source.Love even more the bit where several editors tell him, in words of one syllable and with skilful use of withering scorn, exactly who he has just insulted :-)
Guy (JzG)
There are two kinds of experts: those who are involved actively in their subjects and those who simply study them. With either type there is a danger in conflating expertise with neutrality but it is especially a problem when the experts have business or personal connections to the subjects. While I realize that Patrick and Theresa Nielsen Hayden are major figures in their field that does not mean that they are neutral commentators. In fact, their history at Wikipedia shows just the opposite. Assertions by an expert who has an interest in a subject may be useful but we should not abdicate our usual procedures just because the famous person decides to give us their input. While their comments may be a reliable source for their opinions, their opinions don't trump NPOV, OR, and V.
Will Beback
On 5/17/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
There are two kinds of experts: those who are involved actively in their subjects and those who simply study them. With either type there is a danger in conflating expertise with neutrality but it is especially a problem when the experts have business or personal connections to the subjects. While I realize that Patrick and Theresa Nielsen Hayden are major figures in their field that does not mean that they are neutral commentators. In fact, their history at Wikipedia shows just the opposite. Assertions by an expert who has an interest in a subject may be useful but we should not abdicate our usual procedures just because the famous person decides to give us their input. While their comments may be a reliable source for their opinions, their opinions don't trump NPOV, OR, and V.
Their opinions do not trump core policies but I cannot see any conflict in this instance. NPOV does not prohibit sources with a strong point of view, or indeed editors with a strong point of view.
As for OR, some of the arguments in this case seem to be running in the direction of stating that if someone is a Wikipedia editor, their opinions and beliefs and publications are suddenly off-limits for Wikipedia articles. The end result will be not allowing the views of any expert still alive to be used in Wikipedia, which I don't feel is the intent of this core policy. The essence of No Original Research is that Wikipedia is not a place of first publication.
As for Verifiability, that simply requires all contentious statements to be sourced and encourages us to source everything, even the non-contentious. Again, not a problem. The assumption that Verifiability includes everything ever written in [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] as gospel is the issue.
-Matt
On 17/05/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007 17:05:29 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Love the bit where burntsauce tells Patrick Nielsen Hayden to get a reliable source.
Love even more the bit where several editors tell him, in words of one syllable and with skilful use of withering scorn, exactly who he has just insulted :-)
This reminds me of a great story about [[Alan Kay]]:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HeInventedTheTerm