slimvirgin(a)gmail.com wrote:
On 5/7/05, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org>
wrote:
We
don't have the resources to do any of this, which is why we rely on
sources that do. Usenet isn't one of them.
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. However, it is not
Wikipedia policy.
Sean, I've asked three or four times if anyone can point me to any
part of Wikipedia policy that states or implies that Usenet is an
acceptable source, and so far, no one has done so. My understanding of
the policy pages (e.g. WP:NOR) is that it's not, and I sent you a link
to the section that seems to back me up. It doesn't mention Usenet
explicitly, but the description of what type of source is acceptable
would definitely exclude it. I'd say you're the one operating on the
basis of your opinion only, not me. But if I'm wrong, show me.
I do not see any explicit reference barring the use of Usenet as a source. I
suspect that you may have a much stricter interpretation of NOR than at
least some other Wikipedians. I think most of us would agree that individual
postings on Usenet would not be of much value as a citation for any
particular claim made about a specific subject (other than documenting what
that poster said at a particular point in time). However, many usegroup have
FAQs and other moderated documentation which are produced in a similar
manner as the Wiki model and are roughly about as accurate as much of the
content in Wikipedia. I see no basis for barring such content
indiscriminately. Like most everything else on Wikipedia, determining the
merits of any particular claim and the references supporting such a claim is
a matter of open-ended discussion and revision.
The worthwhileness of any citation in Wikipedia is dependent on having
multiple readers, where if the citation is being used to support a
controverisal claim, some of those readers are willing to examine the source
and provide a separate evaluation. You say we don't have the resources to do
any of this, but I thought that was precisely the strength of the Wiki
editing model--hundreds, thousands, or even potentially millions of
readers/editors, some of whom have the interest and motivation to cull out
the worst crap and revise and improve that which is worth keeping. I've seen
numerous attempts to use mainstream sources to support claims that upon
closer examination were not actually supported by the sources. Without
someone willing to examine the sources and evaluate the merits, anyone can
make up citations that "look" good.
Bkonrad