On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 6:40 AM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Reliable sources? For an episode? Let me think how can we get that... Hmm... Hmm... Oh RIGHT! How about the episode itself? Its quite reliable and verifiable. Each time you watch it it is the same story, same plot.
- White Cat
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 2:58 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:22 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com
wrote:
in fact, there are usually review sources discussing each individual episode. True, only some of them are the conventional published sources that we use. What we need for both the conventional and the nonconventional is editors prepared to track these down, and add
them
to articles.
We should be writing an encyclopedia such that someone who is
friends
with a fan of a series, can learn enough from WP to be able to understand their interests and understand their conversation about
the
events and motivations of the individual episodes of the
series--not
the way a true fan would, but at least a casually interested other. that a parent, for example, could understand what a child was
talking
about without having to watch all the childrens' series. That's
part
of the very purpose of a general encyclopedia--the applicability to real life, not just background for the academic study of things.
And if such sourcing does exist, -and is reliable- (e.g., not fansites, blogs, forums, etc.), that's well and good. But let's make sure we don't lose sight of the reliability requirements here. What
we
should avoid is "I watched the series and saw that..." being used to support a full article. We can do some very basic, indisputable
things
from primary sources only, but the meat of an article should come
from
secondary, independent, reliable sources. If we can't do that,
because
such sources aren't in existence, we shouldn't have a full article, just a list entry. I applaud people who find sources, usual or unusual, so long as they're reliable.
There is no algorithm for determining the reliability of a source. David's example of a valid episode summary was good. We are not
looking
for a series of academic treatises about the significance of each episode of "Lost". If a viewer misses an episode he will feel quite lost himself. Having a good summary available will help keep him in
the
loop.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Great. Then (s)he can find such a summary on a fansite.
Or, if we have reliable sources, and only if, on Wikipedia.
-- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That is not a reliable, independent, secondary source.