> Citing sources doesn't help because if Wikipedians don't
> like the
> sources, they want to know why we've chosen this source and
> not some
> other. No matter how canonical it is, it'll be questioned,
> because
> they don't realize it's part of the canon.
You can make an argument based on how well the source is cited. That's one of
the additions that survived in [[WP:IRS]]:
"The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the
source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the
scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes."
German Wikipedia has a similar principle in [[WP:BLG]].
A source that has received 150 citations is more relevant to the article than
one that's received 3.
Andreas
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
