[WikiEN-l] Interesting debate over reliable sources

[Andrew Gray]

On 09/07/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> I'm not sure if this is a retaliatory effort for the deletion of some
> meme or not, but there is a deletion debate on both Lumber Cartel and
> There Is No Cabal, based on the assertion that the cited sources for
> these Usenet phenomena, being themselves on Usenet, are not reliable.
> We have some references from Eric Raymond which to my mind amount to
> reliable sources, but it's an interesting point.

(Surely these can be cited from the Jargon File?)

Someone, a while ago, claimed that anything posted on Usenet could
never ever ever be a reliable source; and, indeed, they modified WP:RS
to say so:

"Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs,
are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. This is because
we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them."

On my questioning them on IRC, their original aim seemed to be to say
that you couldn't use blogs, usenet posts, etc. as *primary sources*
(ie, to indicate the existence of frenzied discussion about
$astroturfed_topic), which makes sense, but it did seem to throw the
baby out with the bathwater. Unfortunately, I was tired, and forgot to
do anything about this...

Fundamentally, it's meaningless for anything with value. I want to
cite a post by, oh, Henry Spencer to clarify some erudite aspect of a
topic? Of course I can tell he posted it, and I can tell he's a
reliable source. Refusing to accept that Usenet posts can be reliable
is about as useful as saying "a letter published in a newspaper isn't
a reliable source because we have no way of telling the guy signing it
was actually the author".

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk