[WikiEN-l] Thousands of *awful* articles on websites

[Ray Saintonge]

Bogdan Giusca wrote:

>Wednesday, January 3, 2007, 7:05:16 PM, Ken wrote:
>  
>
>>On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Bogdan Giusca wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>The problem is that around 95% of those articles are not sourced (or
>>>they are sourced from forum and blog posts) and at least 70% won't be
>>>able to be sourced because they were never mentioned in the mainstream
>>>press -- and probably very few were mentioned in books and journals.
>>>      
>>>
>>Perhaps that means you need a broader view of what sourcing is.
>>    
>>
>Maybe I spent too much time editing history articles, where the source
>credibility matters, but accepting blog/forum/usenet posts as valid
>sources would be a great mistake, IMO.
>
Absolutely for history. But history is far removed from webcomics, and 
we all know the tendency that some writers have to spin historical 
material in support of their own POV.  It goes with the territory.  
Consider historical novels.  They contain some germ of historical 
information, but how do you go about sorting out fact and fiction in a 
work like Tolstoy's "War and Peace".  You can't seriously use it as a 
reference for Napoleon's campaign in Russia.

Ec