Phil Sandifer wrote:
On Feb 24, 2007, at 10:26 PM, geni wrote:
For an impossible task it appears to have been done an awful lot of times. Anyone writing a review article will establish what is and is not a reliable source.
Yes. But they don't do it in an absolute, black and white sense that is proscriptive for all other review articles.
Sorry to breach etiquette, but did you not mean "prescriptive" instead of "proscriptive"? There's a big difference.
It generally fairly well known which journals can be trusted and which ones need to be used with caution that the reactions they describe may only work one time in 10.
But [[WP:RS]] lacks a list of those. And no such list readily presents itself in the humanities.
Taking this to it's logical conclusion, a claim that a source is reliable is a statement that should itself be reliably sourced.
Depends on the area you are looking at. I'm seeing a lot more citations.
Citations != quality. And are, in fact, at times antithetical to it. The more citations to secondary sources [[Jacques Derrida]] has, the worse of an article it will be. Guarantee it.
An excess of citations can have the appearance of a snow job.
[[WP:AGF]]
We are talking about stuff off wikipedia here. AGF does not apply. Thus there is no reason to make assumptions of any type.
We're talking about well-intentioned critiques of how Wikipedia is working. The prerequisite for assuming good faith is not an account - it's a contribution to the conversation. Noah, McCloud, and Straub have all contributed to the conversation and deserve at least an assumption of good faith.
Yes! Geni's rejection of Assume Good Faith gives the impression that this maxim was newly invented for Wikipedia. It has long been a fundamental principle for anyone to get along.
Ec