charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com wrote:
Steve Block wrote
charles.r.matthews(a)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.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.6/617 - Release Date: 05/01/07 11:11