[WikiEN-l] Reliable sources: problems with [[WP:RS]]

[Jossi Fresco]

On Oct 9, 2006, at 4:10 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>>> Not really. If there are no reputable sources for a topic, then that
>>> topic may not be suitable for Wikipedia. For example, if the only
>>> source for a subject is a bunch of USENET postings or a couple of
>>> blogs, the subject may not pass the threshold of notability.
>>
>> [[Spoo]] is a featured article whose references are mostly Comuserve,
>> GEnie and Usenet forum postings. Those postings turned out to be
>> reputable sources for information on Spoo, after intense scrutiny by
>> large numbers of editors. There are even articles that are about
>> entities that are solely or primarily confined to Usenet itself;
>> [[Kibology]] for example. It'd be hard to have any sort of article  
>> there
>> at all without basing it on Usenet postings in some way.
>
> Which is, I presume, why Jossi used the word "may".
>
> As usual the exception proves the rule; the vast majority of things
> verifiable solely from blogs are indeed uttery unsuitable.

If there are multiple sources and one of them is a USENET post or a  
blog, we *may* include that posting as an additional source. But if  
that is the *only* source upon which we make an assertion in an  
article, in particular when the subject is controversial,  we should  
deny the use of such source on the basis of lack of reliability.

For articles that there are not controversial, and that there is  
consensus from involved and knowledgeable editors, exceptions could  
be made, of course.

-- Jossi