But really, if something is obscure enough that it doesn't get published in reliable sources, you are stuck. What I would support in such cases is an external link to a page documenting this. Kind of like further reading.

Or, isn't this the point of IAR?

IAR isn't for a regular, predictable, situation where a generic agreed solution would be better, and not for a sourcing issue or "systematic problem" like this. More and more often there is a chance (small in any given case, large overall) that important information for an article may be blog published, so we do have a genuine issue here. I tend to use eventualism for filling out a page, not for correcting violations of NPOV (paramount policy).I don't expect to find myself thinking *"It's not balanced and gives undue weight but eventually we might get a source that fixes it"*. That's different from extra information that we don't need. As Charles says the problem is that RS is our filter to ensure what we do say is reliable. So the question is, that information in the blog - who says it's accurate? Why would a user rely upon it? My suggested view is to look at the purpose of RS. The aim of RS is part of a wider goal - not passing off dud information as good, and allowing users to see transparently where our information comes from. We do that to an extent with self published material. So I would be okay with a solution that extended and built upon SELFPUB. For example: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information, without the requirement that they be published by experts in the field or reliable sources, so long as:   1. the content is salient or NPOV would be compromised if absent;   2. the content is not published in a more reliable source;   3. the author's details and the origins of the material (authenticity) is   not in question;   4. the author's position to speak to the matter or viewpoint involved is   not in question;   5. the material is not unduly self-serving;   6. it does not involve claims about third parties;   7. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the   subject;   8. the article is not based primarily on such sources;   9. The material is clearly attributed to the author and the type of   medium made clear (personal website, blog, etc) for the reader's   understanding. This is more, a natural extension and rationalization of an existing norm, and puts SELFPUB on a platform with other material of a like nature. Worth proposing? FT2 On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Can you explain and suggest what you mean here? FT2 On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 9:46 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

IAR isn't for a regular, predictable, situation where a generic agreed solution would be better, and not for a sourcing issue or "systematic problem" like this. More and more often there is a chance (small in any given case, large overall) that important information for an article may be blog published, so we do have a genuine issue here.

it's a working environment where things do not need to be Fordist, and initiative and the guts to hold out for the right result are to be encouraged.

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Carcharoth wrote: The *character* is in a reliable source, it's just that the fact that it was based off a fandom joke or that the character's "creator" thought it was preexisting are not in reliable sources.

And even this excuse doesn't work for the Bradley example.  Having only one side of a dispute because one side of the dispute is a published author and can more easily get her side published in a reliable source certainly isn't "arcana".

On 16 July 2010 08:53, Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote: This is a problem that, in large part, eventualism will solve. I say that because our hard-arsed policies relating to free content have *directly* caused the freeing of quite a lot of content that wouldn't have been otherwise. Indeed, the US government bias you note has been a most useful thing to point out to countries that don't free up government works. en:wp does allow quite a few historic images under fair use. And no, they're not safe. But we're in this for the long haul, not a pretty page today.

Carcharoth wrote: OTOH it can be defended as an attitude of scholarly type. We want to know where our information comes from. We should be concerned about the provenance of historical images, also. It is now so easy to fake images in certain ways (as I hardly need tell you) that a degree of care in asking for background is going to pay off.

You are shifting ground there, of course. It is true that in a sense we have subordinated NPOV to RS, by saying we are not going to allow vague assertions that there is more than one side to a story, only things we can verify.

If your desire is to overturn a central plank of Wikipedia policy - verifiability - then it would probably be wise not to present a "joke comic character" and a "fan fiction" dispute as plausible grounds to do so.

We'd then have Wikipedia linking to something that's an unreliable source by Wikipedia standards.

It's not a "fan fiction" dispute in the sense that you imply.  It's about a published author claiming that there was a fan fiction dispute and being able to have only her side of the story on Wikipedia because the "fan fiction" author cannot publish her side in a reliable source.

If you really think it's unimportant because it's about fan fiction, then we shouldn't mention it at all.  That's no excuse to mention one side.