[WikiEN-l] Unreliable sources, or no sources at all?

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/25/2008 11:14:44 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
saintonge at telus.net writes:

This all  assumes that the "source" says what it is claimed to have 
said.  No  source at all is preferable to sources that support specious 
original  research.  Strung together these sources, which may each 
individually  be valid, can support a "Da Vinci Code" style of 
reasoning.  Properly  sourced from second-rate sources is still better 
than poorly sourced from  first-rate sources.>>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several unrelated concepts (imho) are linked together here. If the  source 
doesn't say what it is claimed to have said, that is a very different  animal 
than "original research by synthesis" which you then advance in the third  
sentence.  I wouldn't call this sort of research specious, but it is  something we 
frown on.  However these cases are very tenuous and borderline  and *each* one 
should be taken to NPOV seperately.
 
The other extreme which I'm sure you wouldn't want to champion, would be  
that we don't allow synthesis at all.  That position would of course, make  the 
project pages essentially unreadable.  All editors do synthesis at some  level. 
 The synthesis we frown upon is that which "serves to advance a  contentious 
position."
 
If Saint Louis is a city in Missouri, and Saint Louis has a million people,  
we can certainly say "there is at least one city in Missouri with a million  
people".
 
Will Johnson



**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL 
Home.      
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom00030000000001)