Steve Block wrote
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Steve Block wrote
Bogdan Giusca wrote:
Maybe I spent too much time editing history articles, where the source credibility matters, but accepting blog/forum/usenet posts as valid sources would be a great mistake, IMO.
Go tell it to the Oxford English Dictionary then.
The OED does English language usage; we do reference material. Comment has no merit.
Go list Featured article Spoo for deletion then.
Why? You made a global argument based on a ropey comparison. I happen to think 'reliable sources' needs a bit of modulation according to topic area. But even within "blog/forum/usenet posts", in areas where there is some validity in what is posted, these sources are not generally acceptable, and it is at best a gold-panning exercise.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Steve Block wrote
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Steve Block wrote
Bogdan Giusca wrote:
Maybe I spent too much time editing history articles, where the source credibility matters, but accepting blog/forum/usenet posts as valid sources would be a great mistake, IMO.
Go tell it to the Oxford English Dictionary then.
The OED does English language usage; we do reference material. Comment has no merit.
Go list Featured article Spoo for deletion then.
Why? You made a global argument based on a ropey comparison. I happen to think 'reliable sources' needs a bit of modulation according to topic area. But even within "blog/forum/usenet posts", in areas where there is some validity in what is posted, these sources are not generally acceptable, and it is at best a gold-panning exercise.
No, you made a "global argument based on a ropey comparison". I responded in kind. If you don't think "accepting blog/forum/usenet posts as valid sources would be a great mistake", don't say it. If you do, have the decency to explain why in the face of evidence to the contrary. As to the gold-panning exercise, it is my understanding of the way Wikipedia works that that is precisely what we do on Wikipedia. It's a resource assembled collectively by anyone. That to me implies there is gold panning involved, as editors weigh other people's contributions for value. I apologise if my tone was more cantankerous than necessary, but I would still appreciate it if we could avoid bandying about absolutes, especially if we don't generally mean them. I've said elsewhere it's a horse for courses issue, and I still believe it is. I don't think we can consider Wikipedia as being entirely based on history practises any more than we can OED practises. But I think where appropriate, we should consider those practises.