[WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

[jayjg]

On 3/4/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've been trying to get my head around why we even have a rule about
> what an acceptable source is. It seems to me that this is how things
> should work.
>
> A WP article must only exist if its subject has been referred to in a
> reputable source (notability, mostly). This source should, but need
> not, be cited.
> Information in WP articles must be verifiable. This means either:
> - the information is directly verifiable (eg, you could figure out
> who to ring up to find whether a train timetable was accurate)
> - or, the information has been published by a secondary source. The
> source must be either reputable or cited. Ie, if the information has
> been published in a peer reviewed journal, then not having cited that
> source is not a major problem (someone else can find it later).
> Similarly, quoting a weblog is ok, as long as the source is given,
> since readers can evaluate its reputability for themselves
>
> Is this a reasonable ruleset?


Absolutely not.  Weblogs are not reliable sources for anything except a
discussion of  the weblog itself, *unless* they are the weblog of a
well-known an reputable individual.  And we only use reputable sources;
otherwise we will be faced with people inserting all sorts of ranting and
nonsense that would fail our NOR requirements, not to mention our Reliable
sources requirements.

We are Wikipedia editors, and that implies some care for ensuring the
accuracy and reliability of article contents.

Jay.