[WikiEN-l] Another sourcing problem

[FT2]

Can you explain and suggest what you mean here?

FT2

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 9:46 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com> wrote:

> (Snip)



> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>