Actually, it's an interesting extreme, but to be honest, this is the way a lot of articles are written. Generally I write from what I know and find sources to support "what I know" and to fill in the gaps in what's in my head. To begin with, when I didn't know how things worked, I didn't even realise that I was supposed to be providing sources.
Today there are two main ways I write, but in both cases I tend to work from what I already know. When I write about science I write without sources, but my knowledge is based on sources that I have read. The challenge is to find the sources to support the info I got from them. On the other hand, when I write about Trinidadian topics I am writing from personal experience, which I must then find sources to support. This can be difficult, because when I read academic sources (especially those written by outsiders) I tend to find myself picking out their mistakes. All sorts of great article ideas go unwritten or remain as stubs because I can't find acceptable sources.
Is it POV to discard a source if it fails to support your narrative? Absolutely. But if the alternative is to use an obviously flawed source, what do you do? In my experience, it has been "not write the article". But if someone else were to use to flawed source and assert something that is inaccurate, I'd be in a very difficult position - knowing, on one hand that the material was flawed or one-sided, but lacking the sources to support an alternative narrative.
To the person working from oral sources, there's a problem with Wikipedia. Since the written sources are largely controlled by outsiders or certain classes, systemic bias will be re-inforced by simply sticking to verifiable sources. On the other hand, "because I grew up there I know the place" isn't good enough for an encyclopaedia either
Ian
On 3/2/06, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
To be blunt, which bit of saying that every bit of info must be supported by a verifiable and reputable source is unclear?
In this instance, the information is clearly unverifiable, so it shouldn't be added.
Jon
Nicholas Moreau beaubeaver@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Africa was brought up in discussion of verifiability. This raises an important question, should/can we be lax references for African content in en?
Suppose a tribes' elder writes an article on his village, he'll do it based on oral history, or one-off documents. This information may be recorded in books, but these books are stashed away in libraries miles upon miles away.
What happens then? It's true information, but there's little or no available sources for the writer to cite.
Nick/Zanimum
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yahoo! Photos – NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l