[WikiEN-l] Let us not attack sources as unreliable without reason

[Robert]

Slim writes:
> Would you please post your correspondence with him on
> the Talk page, as you indicated you would, so that other
> editors can judge whether he was evasive in response to
> your enquiry? Your claims about Mitchell Bard as a
> source have implications for a number of Wikipedia
> articles in which he is quoted.


This makes no sense.  Are you seriously suggesting that
Wikipedia should consider sources as unreliable if one of
our thousands of anonymous editors doesn't get instant
gratification from a writer and scholar that they have
never met?  There are hundreds of respected researchers out
there who do not waste their time answering e-mails from
the millions of people on the Internet.

Having mommy buy you a computer and pay for your AOL
account does not make you a colleague of any academic or
writer, and does not mean that they have to answer you
correspondance.

Every week on the Phyics and Chemistry Usenet newsgroups we
have people (kooks, really) claim that mainstream chemistry
and physics is wrong. Their proof?  They sent their own
letters, questions and theories to leading scientists, and
the scientists did not respond.

Is this really proof that we shouldn't trust these sources?
 No, it is only proof that writers and researchers don't
answer every demand they get from people with an AOL
account.


Robert (RK)



	
		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail