[WikiEN-l] Criticism sections on bios of living people

[Peter Jacobi]

Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> > 1. Is a "____sucks.com" blog a notable or reliable source?
> 
> I would say it depends on its content and readership. It might be,  
> but you have to take a look at it. In this case there seems to be  
> substantial readership and contents could probably be used in the  
> context. "Hostile critics, writing on ...sucks point out blah blah."  
> In some cases sites like this may engage in serious research which  
> can lead you to reliable verifiable material. (For example Xenu.net,  
> an anti-Scientology site).

I assume you want to inject some "ignore all rules here",
as [[WP:V]] quite clearly states:

> Self-published sources

> Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and 
> then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, 
> self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not
> acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, 
> professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known 
> professional journalist, has produced self-published material. 
> In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as 
> their work has been previously published by credible, third-party
> publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the
> professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone 
> else will have done so.

We all like [[Space opera in Scientology doctrine]], but if its
only source would be xenu.net, it would have been deleted.

Regards,
Peter Jacobi
[[User:Pjacobi]]

-- 
"Feel free" - 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat ...
Jetzt GMX TopMail testen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail