[WikiEN-l] Reliable sources— some of these babies are ugly

[Charles Matthews]

Nathan wrote:
> Obviously it would be an impossible task to study all potential
> sources and make a proactive determination of reliability. We hope to
> some extent that folks citing academic sources have vetted them in
> some way as to their credibility, but with mainstream news sources
> even that expectation is set aside. So instead, perhaps we could have
> a reactive policy of reassessing the assumption of reliability for
> specific sources based on a history of errors. When Fox News articles
> are shown to be riddled with errors of basic fact, indicating that no
> effort was made to verify claims, we should stop granting it the same
> deference we extend to other institutions with more integrity.
>   
There are various WP articles that are in parts more explicit than 
WP:RS. And have the advantage of talking about broadly accepted 
approaches to "reliability", rather than representing the status quo on 
an endlessly-edited wiki page. [[Historical method]] may be the most 
interesting; [[source criticism]] and [[source evaluation]] also have 
something to say.

Charles