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

[Ken Arromdee]

> But I can't say that these points really apply in many cases that we
> appear to be applying them: We would reject as reliable sources many
> hobbyist blogs (or even webcomics) with a stronger reputation to
> preserve, less obviously-compromised motivations, and _significantly_
> greater circulation than some obscure corner of Fox News's online
> product.  What can be the explanation for this discrepancy?

This is more an indication that we need to start using blogs as sources
rather than that we have a problem with how we use major media.

I recently had to leave a one-sided paragraph in [[Marion Zimmer Bradley]]:

     For many years, Bradley actively encouraged Darkover fan fiction and
     reprinted some of it in commercial Darkover anthologies, continuing to
     encourage submissions from unpublished authors, but this ended after a
     dispute with a fan over an unpublished Darkover novel of Bradley's that
     had similarities to some of the fan's stories. As a result, the novel
     remained unpublished, and Bradley demanded the cessation of all Darkover
     fan fiction.

We have the fan's side of this.  It puts a very different spin on things,
but it's in a Usenet post in the thread at
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/browse_thread/thread/2649a35b264175b8/b91ef5c1e50f3439?#b91ef5c1e50f3439
and it's completely unusuable under Wikipedia sourcing policies (even as a
self-published source, since it makes claims about other people).