[WikiEN-l] Interesting debate over reliable sources

[poore5 at adelphia.net]

---- Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote: 
> On 7/9/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/10/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Erik, the important point about newspapers is that all but the tiniest
> > > have processes in place to detect errors, and particularly legal
> > > problems, prior to publication. We can only hope they use the
> > > processes correctly; if they don't, that's not our fault. But
> > > Wikipedia has no such process, which is why we rely on what we call
> > > "reliable sources" who do.
> >
> > Our own history is an example. Virtually all of it is documented
> > through electronic mailing lists and edits to the wiki. It is possible
> > to fake mailing list posts just like it is possible to fake them on
> > Usenet. So, are we going to dispute that Larry Sanger wrote the "Let's
> > make a wiki" post on those grounds?
> >
> > We need to be very careful that dogma does not take the
> > place of common sense.
> >
> The policy is based on common sense, not dogma. When you send a letter
> to a newspaper for publication, you're expected to supply your name,
> address, and telephone number so that someone from the newspaper can
> check that you really did send it. Nothing like that exists for
> Usenet. It's all very well to say that if X didn't write the post, and
> we quote from it, X will tell us soon enough. But what happens if X
> claims that, in purporting to quote him, and in leaving that unchecked
> quote on Wikipedia for months until he spotted it, we have damaged him
> in some way? Newspapers have processes in place to avoid this
> scenario, and they have libel insurance for when things go wrong. We
> have none of those things, which is why we piggy-back on other
> people's, by using only material that has already been checked.
> 
> Sarah

Almost without exception Media sources outside the Internet have well established codes of ethics and other standards that the individuals and institutions must follow. 

For example: when a media outlet publishes or broadcasts some new piece of information about a person or an agency, it is expected per ethical and industry standards that some one will make contact and get a response before publication/broadcast. 

Wikipedia has no way to verify information, seek clarity, or simply get a response.  For this reason it is essential that we stick with reliable third party sources and sparingly use primary sources to fill in details for already verified incidents. 

Sydney Poore aka FloNight
Georgetown KY