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

[Kpjas]

On 10/3/06, 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?
Hi,

I've followed closely the thread about verifying content and citing
(book) sources.

My comment would be that obviously not all (book) sources that have
even been proven to exist are credible and reputable.

As I am a believer in "Work through WikiProjects" motto I think
WikiProjects could prepare lists of reputable printed sources in
different fields and eventually (dis)qualify a given source.

In my opinion we need more WikiProjects that are vivacious and full of
"experts". All dubious Wikipedia content should be directed towards
WikiProjects for verification.

Best regards,
Kpjas.

-- 
Wikipedia - World's Greatest http://www.wikipedia.org