[WikiEN-l] Interesting debate over reliable sources

[Anthony]

On 7/9/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> And if you want to say "blog X said Y", then of course "blog X" is an
> excellent source for that. The question in both cases is more one of
> notability and relevance than one of reliability. What needs to stop
> is the blind worshipping of printed paper.
>
One problem with citing "blog X" when saying that "blog X said Y" is
that the blog might very well not exist in a few years.  A copy of a
New York Times story, on the other hand, will certainly exist for many
years.

The other problem is one of original research.  Sure, blog X might
have said Y, but if that's an important enough point to be made in an
encyclopedia article, then someone else will have discussed it.  As I
see it the purpose of barring original research is not so much to bar
unreliable facts as it is to bar original arguments.

It's to bar stuff like this, taken from the current [[George W. Bush]] article:

"The Commission found no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein
possessed stockpiles of WMD. On December 14, 2005, while discussing
the WMD issue, Bush stated that "It is true that much of the
intelligence turned out to be wrong."[35] However, Bush would remain
unwavered when asked if the war had been worth it, or would he have
made the same decision if he had known more."

Anthony