On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Ken Arromdee <arrom...@rahul.net> wrote:
> If "riddled with errors" means "has more (frequent) errors than other > sources", then this makes some sense. > > If "riddled with errors" means "has errors that we have recently had our > attention called to" or "has errors that happen to be about some subject we > are personally pissed off about", then it's a very bad idea. > I agree, and that's why I suggested any decision to "delist" a source as presumptively reliable be based on an analysis of a selection of published content. Shmuel wrote that the purpose of identifying reliable sources is to keep editors from making stuff up -- but we exclude all sorts of sources that aren't editors making stuff up, based on a potentially faulty assumption about their editorial review. So rather than aiming to prohibit hoaxes, rules about RS are an attempt to weed out chronically unreliable sources. If we find that a traditionally reliable source of facts has become chronically unreliable, then it should face the same scrutiny as blogs or personal websites prior to being cited. Nathan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
