[WikiEN-l] Interesting debate over reliable sources

[Daniel P. B. Smith]

> From: "Matt Brown" <morven at gmail.com>

> On 7/9/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I've had letters published in many different newspapers and other
> publications.  While all or almost all require such information, I
> have never, ever had any of them check back.
>
> I'd imagine if I was claiming to be a well-known individual, they
> MIGHT check it, but even then, I have my doubts whether they would do
> so every single time.

I've had perhaps six letters published in the Boston Globe over the  
last fifteen years. They require the city you live in and a telephone  
number for verification. I've been telephoned for verification twice.  
I'm not sure exactly what they were verifying--all they did was ask  
if I was who I said to be, and ask if they had permission to publish  
the letter.

I haven't been called the last three or four times. I don't know  
whether they have anything on file or whether they just didn't bother.

Just a data point.

I personally think there's a BIG difference between occasional,  
casual checking and the _ability_ to verify, and no checking at all.

On the other hand, in the case of, say, a Usenet post that appears to  
be from, say, a university professor named Dr. John Doe at XYZ  
University whose email address is john.doe at xyz.edu, whose email  
address is available from an online directory at www.xyz.edu... if  
you email that address and say "Are you Dr. John Doe and did you post  
this?" and he replies "Yes," that's perfectly reasonable  
verifiability, at least as good as a published letter to the editor.

A news story with a credited reporter's name, with a by-line in which  
the newspaper's name appears (i.e. not a stringer), in which the  
reporter says "so-and-so said thus-and-such" is a much higher level  
of verifiability, though.