[Foundation-l] Ensuring veracity of articles based on print sources

[James Hare]

For those books not mentioned in Google, we would of course do our best to
compile a list. Then once the list is made, knowing Google, it would only be
a matter of time that the list of old books would be listed on Google,
therefore making my testing mechanism work.

If we were to compile a list of these books, we'd probably have to protect
these pages from editing to prevent misuse/fraud.

On 10/3/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 03/10/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As Erik pointed out, it is very easy to make a hoax seem legitimate if
> you
> > cite a phony print source. What's not needed is new rules involving the
> use
> > of print sources, but to utilise something we had all along: Google.
> > Something we could do is Google the title of the book being referenced,
> and
> > then see if it exists (beyond being mentioned in wiki mirrors). If it
> > doesn't exist, then we take further action. One thing we could do is for
> > every print source approved in an article, we can note that said print
> > sources have been verified to be true on the talk page (via some sort of
> > yellow talk page box). Comments?
>
>
> I use lotsa references that aren't in Google and probably never will
> be (e.g. for indie rock). There's a whole world between 1923 and 1995
> in that category.
>
> A list could be nice, of course.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>