[WikiEN-l] Another sourcing problem

[David Goodman]

I like the approach, but  sources are more or less reliable, not
absolutely R or not-R.  The factors you list affect the degree of
reliability, but where to put the bar so it can be used in  Wikipedia
will vary with different subjects, and with different purposes. (for
example, the bar for documenting biographical facts about the subject
is considerably higher for claims of excellence than for routine
biographical details. ) Perhaps a rewording not using absolute terms
might work better--NFCC has shown the disadvantages of using in an
absolute sense things that need to be interpreted

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 1:31 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> IAR isn't for a regular, predictable, situation where a generic agreed
> solution would be better, and not for a sourcing issue or "systematic
> problem" like this. More and more often there is a chance (small in any
> given case, large overall) that important information for an article may be
> blog published, so we do have a genuine issue here.
>
> I tend to use eventualism for filling out a page, not for correcting
> violations of NPOV (paramount policy).I don't expect to find myself
> thinking *"It's not balanced and gives undue weight but eventually we might
> get a source that fixes it"*. That's different from extra information that
> we don't need. As Charles says the problem is that RS is our filter to
> ensure what we do say is reliable. So the question is, that information in
> the blog - who says it's accurate? Why would a user rely upon it?
>
> My suggested view is to look at the purpose of RS. The aim of RS is part of
> a wider goal - not passing off dud information as good, and allowing users
> to see transparently where our information comes from. We do that to an
> extent with self published material. So I would be okay with a solution that
> extended and built upon SELFPUB. For example:
>
>
> Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of
> information, without the requirement that they be published by experts in
> the field or reliable sources, so long as:
>
>   1. the content is salient or NPOV would be compromised if absent;
>   2. the content is not published in a more reliable source;
>   3. the author's details and the origins of the material (authenticity) is
>   not in question;
>   4. the author's position to speak to the matter or viewpoint involved is
>   not in question;
>   5. the material is not unduly self-serving;
>   6. it does not involve claims about third parties;
>   7. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the
>   subject;
>   8. the article is not based primarily on such sources;
>   9. The material is clearly attributed to the author and the type of
>   medium made clear (personal website, blog, etc) for the reader's
>   understanding.
>
> This is more, a natural extension and rationalization of an existing norm,
> and puts SELFPUB on a platform with other material of a like nature. Worth
> proposing?
>
> FT2
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>> >> Sure there's something you can do: fix the definition of reliable
>> source.
>>
>> Or, isn't this the point of IAR?
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG