[WikiEN-l] Are phone books reliable sources?

Fri Jun 2 16:41:00 UTC 2006

On 6/2/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> >On 6/1/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>No, it doesn't.  However, it does mean that a phone book isn't a
> >>*reliable* source.
> >>
> >>
> >I don't think it's ever been stated that Wikipedia only incorporates
> >material from known, infallible sources. Our minimum requirements are
> >much more vague however - words like "reliable" and "verifiable" get
> >used a lot, but with no clear definition.
> >
> >Given that, providing the source of all information and taking steps
> >not to ridiculously misuse sources (eg, quoting speculative material
> >from a tabloid and presenting it as established fact), is what we
> >should be aiming for. So far, we're not even close.
> >
> I essentially agree.  Some people still argue that Wikipedia itself is
> not a reliable source.  On the other hand "Scientific American" for this
> month used [[Sudoku]] as a reference in an article on the same subject.
>
Wikipedia *isn't* a reliable source.  I certainly don't think it
should be used as a reference in another encyclopedia article.

Unless Scientific American was using the Wikipedia article for a
trivial piece of information which is already obvious, I think they
made a big mistake.  Even Jimbo has said that Wikipedia shouldn't be
used, for instance, as a reference in an academic paper.

Anthony