"Denny Colt" wrote
I am wondering why the 'blog' aspect itself has this dirty Scarlet Letter connotation...
If you want to use a blog as a source, the burden of proof lies with you to substantiate its reliability. The low barriers to access for blogging mean this is the only sane approach.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 27/03/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Denny Colt" wrote
I am wondering why the 'blog' aspect itself has this dirty Scarlet Letter connotation...
If you want to use a blog as a source, the burden of proof lies with you to substantiate its reliability. The low barriers to access for blogging mean this is the only sane approach.
OK, fine; that seems reasonable. It's no excuse for a speedy deletion in the current case, though.
On 3/27/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Denny Colt" wrote
I am wondering why the 'blog' aspect itself has this dirty Scarlet
Letter
connotation...
If you want to use a blog as a source, the burden of proof lies with you to substantiate its reliability. The low barriers to access for blogging mean this is the only sane approach.
Charles
There aren't any high barriers to starting a website either. We should treat both the same.
Mgm
On 3/27/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Denny Colt" wrote
I am wondering why the 'blog' aspect itself has this dirty Scarlet
Letter
connotation...
If you want to use a blog as a source, the burden of proof lies with you to substantiate its reliability. The low barriers to access for blogging mean this is the only sane approach.
Charles
There aren't any high barriers to starting a website either. We should treat both the same.
Mgm
The issue is self-published sources. It's really the same if you blog or it you use a vanity press. It's the preponderance of blogs that causes them to be singled out. It's a readily available medium, and anyone can register a blog and spout off on whatever topic they want. The main issue is "be careful with self-published material"...whether it is a blog, a non-blog webpage, or a book published by a vanity press.
Ian
Guettarda wrote:
The issue is self-published sources. It's really the same if you blog or it you use a vanity press. It's the preponderance of blogs that causes them to be singled out. It's a readily available medium, and anyone can register a blog and spout off on whatever topic they want. The main issue is "be careful with self-published material"...whether it is a blog, a non-blog webpage, or a book published by a vanity press.
Being careful is key. I have a large number of book(let)s on philately and postal history. A significant proportion of these were privately published by the author out of a genuine interest in the subject, and there is no question of controversy. The one that I have in front of me now was limited printing of 65 copies. Similar situations arise in relation to many local histories. If we waited for professional historians to review this material we would never be able to use any of it.
Ec
On 3/27/07, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
The issue is self-published sources. It's really the same if you blog or it you use a vanity press. It's the preponderance of blogs that causes them to be singled out. It's a readily available medium, and anyone can register a blog and spout off on whatever topic they want. The main issue is "be careful with self-published material"...whether it is a blog, a non-blog webpage, or a book published by a vanity press.
Being careful with it is a fine admonision, but a lot of people take it too far. A lot of writers and pundits both blog and do columns and so forth. If they do a print publication column, what's the difference between that and a blog? One level of editing, maybe, but not much.
The prior people in thread noting that it's hard to tell the difference between a serious ongoing business and vanity publishing site. Even without getting your own server and learning FrontPage (or HTML / CSS / etc for the hardcore), there are plenty of options for putting info out there that look independent and professional but aren't.
And there are a lot of amateurish looking professional sources. Not everyone spends time making their website pretty as opposed to doing stuff.
On 3/28/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/07, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
The issue is self-published sources. It's really the same if you blog
or it
you use a vanity press. It's the preponderance of blogs that causes
them to
be singled out. It's a readily available medium, and anyone can register
a
blog and spout off on whatever topic they want. The main issue is "be careful with self-published material"...whether it is a blog, a non-blog webpage, or a book published by a vanity press.
Being careful with it is a fine admonision, but a lot of people take it too far. A lot of writers and pundits both blog and do columns and so forth. If they do a print publication column, what's the difference between that and a blog? One level of editing, maybe, but not much.
The prior people in thread noting that it's hard to tell the difference between a serious ongoing business and vanity publishing site. Even without getting your own server and learning FrontPage (or HTML / CSS / etc for the hardcore), there are plenty of options for putting info out there that look independent and professional but aren't.
And there are a lot of amateurish looking professional sources. Not everyone spends time making their website pretty as opposed to doing stuff.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.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
Folks,
As well, a growing number of news sites have blogs as well as traditional newspaper stories. The line between news items and blog items is fast diminishing.
We should bear this in mind when considering reliable sources. The common sense judgement that we should always use is how reliable is this information likely to be.
Regards
*Keith Old*
On 3/28/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Being careful with it is a fine admonision, but a lot of people take it too far. A lot of writers and pundits both blog and do columns and so forth. If they do a print publication column, what's the difference between that and a blog? One level of editing, maybe, but not much.
I guess editing, oversight and legal checking. Newspapers tend (I believe) to check columns before publishing, and reserve the right not to publish or to demand changes. And if there was a particularly scandalous claim, it wouldn't go through. Whereas the same columnist could make the same defamatory, unsourced claim on their blog.
Which is why it's better to cite a real newspaper than a personal blog, if defamatory claims are involved.
Steve