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

[Ray Saintonge]

Stan Shebs wrote:

>Steve Block wrote:
>  
>
>>How do we know reliable sources aren't lying.  Every newspaper and 
>>source in town reports Colin Montgomerie holed the winning putt in the 
>>2004 Ryder Cup, but it isn't true, Ian Poulter struck the putt that 
>>mathematically won the cup.  Monty's story simply made better press.  If 
>>we do, as you say, withhold judgement on whether a source is correct, 
>>why do you then say we can't use some sources because they may be lying. 
>>  Obviously some judgement is at play.
>>    
>>
>Well, if the source is lying, then by definition it's not reliable. Your 
>example is an object lesson in how newspapers are intermediate in 
>reliability; they are usually better than Joe Random's blog, but not as 
>good as a scholarly monograph that has had multiple layers of review 
>spread over multiple years.
>
We have no easy objective way of knowing that a source is lying.  A 
newspaper may print a retraction within a few days of the original 
article on the subject, but we would be hard-pressed to know if this 
happened.  Some newspapers like "National Enquirer" have a reputation 
for their unique interpretation of "truth".  An archeologist who 
discovers a cache of these lining clay pots generations after the paper 
has ceased publication may believe that he has a trove of insights into 
the way that people lived in the twentieth century.  As Walter Miller 
expressed it, a fallout shelter is a place where fallouts could seek 
refuge from the war.  So yes, a lying source is objectively not 
reliable, but we don't know if it's lying.

Ec