On 5/6/05, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org>
wrote:
So, to summarize, there is no policy stating that
Usenet is forbidden as
a source. Some people (you, for instance) do not consider it to be
reputable source, but nothing forbids some other people (me, for
instance) from disagreeing. And, most importantly, there is no policy
permitting anti-Usenetters to delete Usenet-based material /just
because/ it originated on Usenet.
Sean, did you read WP:NOR? For example, see this section
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication.…,
though you also need to read the whole thing through. Also read
[[WP:NPOV]]. Both state that sources must be published by
reputable/credible publishers. I believe [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]
says the same thing, though it's a while since I've read it. We've
also had this discussion many, many times on this list, and the
consensus seems to be that WP sources must be published and must be
credible.
This is ever so much policy-geekism. I certainly don't need to read
interminable pages of rules to tell me how to apply common sense. Much
of this should never be treated as anything more than guidelines. It
may be possible to develop applicable techniques to determine whether
something has been published, the determination of credibility (whether
of the work or its publisher) is essentially subjective. It's
impossible to say that something is credible without expressing a POV.
Ec