> -----Original Message----- > From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l- > boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Gray > Sent: 12 August 2011 18:09 > To: English Wikipedia > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WP:RSs > > Citing a print source is fine, but some (particularly querulous) > people will occasionally challenge the print source because they don't > believe what it says. In doing so, they'll argue that the person > citing it can't be trusted, or that the transcription referred to is > inaccurate, or - in this case - that there is something inherently > wrong with the scanned file referred to. See, for example, > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kurt_Meyer_(SS_general) which used > this style of argument before moving swiftly on to denying the > existence of anyone who'd ever read the book. > > It's a conceptually silly argument - it basically amounts to assuming > deliberate deception at some point in the chain of evidence, which > isn't a reasonable assumption in 98% of cases - but if someone is > insistent enough, they can probably stonewall with it until the other > party throws their hands up and gives in. And, sooner or later, we all > do. >
There is a difference between the sourcing concepts involved in verifiability and the concepts sources as Quality Control. In any other work than Wikipedia, when citing a source is required, print sources will usually (and sometimes erroneously) be preferred to online ones. That's often because an expert academic work is usually seen as more authoritative than a quickly written scribble from a journalist. Trust me, cite the New York Times in most quality reference works you'll be laughed off the planet. However, in most reference works it is assumed that the author will be honestly and correctly using his sources - the ONLY question is how authoritative the sources are. On the odd chance that the author is misusing the sources, he's got a lot to lose in the way of reputation. Wikipedia is different. We don't (for the most part) know the identity of the author submitting the information. We don't know his honesty, or his ability to accurately present the material he's taking from his sources. And he's got little to lose if he's at it. Thus our Quality Control often rests on the ability of another editor to check the source. For this reason alone, an online source is often better. Not because it is more reliable, but because there's a more realistic chance of source-misuse being identified. If the article's facts seem to check out with a general article printed in the NYT and available on line, that's better QC than having a reference to an academic work that could theoretically be read in some academic library - but probably no one will actually check. That's true even if said academic work is FAR more reliable than the NYT. I'd go further, and argue that we ought to insist on on-line sources for any negative material on a living person. Not because on-line is more reliable, or less biased, but because it is essential that we have a realistic Quality Control on such information (and also because a negative BLP claim which can't be found on-line is probably not remotely notable anyway.) Scott _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
