Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:41, 17 April 2006

Revision as of 23:30, 17 April 2006

Line 1:

----

==Initial comments==

Line 748 ⟶ 747:

::Wiki can either use good sources or poor sources. The more artificial restraints imposed on the editors against their will the poorer the sources. Quality degradation defeats our mission. [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] 20:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

:::But how do we deal with reliability of those sources, if there's an extra requirement (maintaining login id's) imposed upon editors interested in ensuring reliability? I'd personally prefer to have no source at all (and remove the content reliant upon it) than have content whose source only extreme partisans will take the time to check on. -[[User:Kasreyn|Kasreyn]] 21:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

::we're talking here about sources like Google.books and the New York Times. They contain high quality information, higher quality than most open sources. Shutting ourselves off from vetted sources lowers the reliability of Wiki. It's like saying no one can use a book XX because that book is not in every local library. Extreme partisans are not "more likely" to use those sources; they prefer websites maintained by other extreme partisans. Most editors who are keen on reliability will gladly suffer the extra indignity of using a password to get free access to high quality material. [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] 23:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)