--- On Fri, 13/5/11, Delirium <delir...@hackish.org> wrote: > From: Delirium <delir...@hackish.org> > Isn't this just a failure to actually think through what > verifying > information with a reliable source means, rather than a > problem with the > principle? It's quite possible for the Guardian to be a > good newspaper > in general, but for a random list in the "Diversions" > section, with no > apparent investigative reporting involved, to *not* > constitute reliable > verification of that point.
I actually think it's malice, rather than a failure to think through what verification means. And it's malice in most cases where editors insist that some tabloid claim should stay in a biography, based on "verifiability, not truth." They don't like the subject, and enjoy taking pot shots at them. > I guess I see that kind of critical source analysis as > completely in > line with the idea of "verifiable information cited to > reliable > sources", though. At least as I read it, the WP:V/WP:RS > combination > asks: is this given citation sufficient to verify the fact > it claims to > verify? So I wholeheartedly agree that bright-line rules > like > "everything in The Guardian is reliable" are wrong, but I > don't think > that ought to require abandoning the WP:V/WP:RS view, at > least as I've > understood it. Isn't there even some text on WP:RS (there > used to be, > anyway) about how reliable sources may be context-specific, > e.g. a > newspaper may be a reliable source for some claims but not > for others? Yes, those sections are still there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NEWSORG I don't see editors quoting them much. A. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
