[WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

[Ray Saintonge]

Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>No, that's not what we mean, and has never been what we mean. And you seem to be conflating things. We don't talk (much) about "verifiable sources": we base everything on "reliable sources". We talk about verifiable edits, really: we want to constrain editors into only adding material that is verifiable, from reliable sources, accessible to them. Some of the most reliable sources, in the scholarly sense, are some of the least accessible to the general public. (And, frankly, reliability of newspaper reports can vary inversely with circulation. And scholarly monographs with the best information on particular matters are apparently now printed in runs as low as 300.)
>>    
>>
>For an edit to be verifiable it has to be verifiable by someone other
>than the person that made the edit. We're not talking about
>reliability of sources - it's obvious that a TV show is a perfectly
>reliable primary source 
>
I've seen interesting documentaries on sasquatch sightings. Area 51 and 
perpetual motion machines. :-)

I would venture to say that more than 300 people have recorded each and 
every Stark Trek episode.  i.o.w. Stark Trek episodes are more 
verifiable than academic monographs. ;-)

Ec