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