[WikiEN-l] Jimbo on "reliable sources"

[John Lee]

On 5/31/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 5/30/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 30/05/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 5/30/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/05/wikipedia_is_ju.html
> > >
> > > > It says: "Rather than specifying at the beginning what the rules
> would
> > > > be, Wales let the community evolve its own rules, in response to
> real
> > > > needs."
> > > > Not quite true, though. NPOV and NOR were pivotal in making
> Wikipedia
> > work.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm particularly talking about idiocy like declaring all blogs
> verboten.
> > >
> > All blogs haven't been declared verboten, except in BLPs, unless it's
> > a blog run by the subject.
>
>
> Try telling that to the people who claim otherwise.


Indeed. I was astonished to see a discussion on [[Talk:Paul Krugman]]
referring to BLP and RS to support the contention that blogs can never be
cited as sources. I've written more than one FA based on, among other
sources, a blog which has been cited by no less than the BBC. Should these
FAs be defeatured?

Johnleemk