> 2009/3/3 Matthew Brown <mor...@gmail.com>: > >> I see no reason why having an article on someone need include >> information not published in reliable sources. Â If they're well-known >> for something in the public eye but details of their life elsewhere >> are not prevalent, then that's how our article should be as well. > > > This will promptly become a "your source is great"/"no yours sucks > mine rules" battle. When we started requiring references, that became > the target of the querulous. And everyone is convinced the term > "reliable sources" is actually (a) objectively definable (b) invariant > for all topics. > > And never mind that people who know about the construction of ontology > and how it works usually have a degree or two in the subject, I'm sure > a bunch of people who've been on a wiki for a few months can make up > something that passes all muster, and if it doesn't then reality is > wrong. And the New York Times is gospel, but anything in the subject's > own blog must be first assumed to be a tissue of lies, and the subject > themselves buried in initialisms. > > > - d.
How about something a little more helpful? Fred _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
