RS problems and situations
problems with printed books for local material
- There are some problems even with printed books--on many special topics, the available books found in WorldCat will turn out to be Masters or doctoral dissertation. Many doctoral dissertation may be suitable and generally available through Proquest, but most of the older ones are not available this easily, and not all libraries will lend them. Almost all Masters theses ware in this category: a single copy at the originating university. This will be particular noted in local topics--many a history or sociology or education or library science master's thesis has been written about a single small community. (Some are in fact being used in WP--they often produce articles that look somewhat like over-literal copying, but almost nobody outside that university has an opportunity to check for plagiarism.) This material probably is best considered like unpublished manuscripts--not citable except for special purposes. DGG 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
general essay
Speaking generally, original thought or research that has been published on the internet should be treated exactly as original thought that has been published on paper: it must come from a reliable source. There are paper sources both reliable and unreliable; there are internet sources both reliable and unreliable. The unreliable sources are considered unreliable because they have a greater tendency to be untrue. For any particular source and fact, the reliability must be determined, and reliability is relative--there are different degrees. Things which are exceptionally unlikely to be true, such as UFOs, need exceptionally reliable sources. Things very likely to be true, such as peoples stated dates of birth and degrees received, can be taken from self-published internet sources that have some official character. Things visible to the direct inspection of everyone, such as the contents of a novel or a web site, can be taken from the novel or the site directly. Opinions of people or organizations --as distinct from factual information--can be take from any source known to reliably express their views, and self-published sources are reliable in this particular context. Some moderated mailing lists and blogs are reliable--it depends on the authority of the moderator. Some published books are not--it depends on the reputation of the publisher, and the otherwise known reliability of the author. Some self-published books or web postings are reliable, depending on the otherwise known reliability of the author. Something thought to be reliable can be shown not to be by independent sources, and something dubious can be confirmed by independent sources.In judging these things, we make use of our combined collective background of experiences and varied specialized knowledge, our individual common sense, and the increased wisdom of a consensus. DGG 23:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I do not know which article or edit you have in mind, but I think it is 'aquaphilia, and i will reply to the specifics on the AfD page for that article. I see from your comments there that you do talk about common sense, so we may well agree. (Talk:Lotusduck)
paraphilias
- But I have just seen your general essay on paraphilias on your user page, and it is more likely that for this particular article we will not. Primary literary or other media sources are sufficient to document a name for a type of behavior,and to document that this behavior is something which people either do or fantasize about. They by themsselves justify an article if the behavior is worth the description. For behavior with no established name but that nonetheless deserves discussion, we can use the most likely name constructed parallel to other such behaviors; if the ultimate name should change, the articles can be edited accordingly. (Talk:Vorarephilia)
User:DGG,
User_talk:DGG,
User:DGG/controversy,
/pages to revisit,
/RS,
/priorities.
/std talk pp,
User:DGG/userhelp, ,
User:DGG/deltalk,
User:DGG/journals,
/to insert, /
User:DGG/speedies,
/sandbox,
/projects,
/WP Projects,
/other wikis,
/tech notes /
User:DGG/sandboxuserified/
User:DGG/sandboxuserified2,
User:DGG/DelsToWatch ,
User:DGG/sandboxConferences ,
User:DGG/sandbox/libraries,
User:DGG/sandbox/LCC
RS problems and situations
problems with printed books for local material
- There are some problems even with printed books--on many special topics, the available books found in WorldCat will turn out to be Masters or doctoral dissertation. Many doctoral dissertation may be suitable and generally available through Proquest, but most of the older ones are not available this easily, and not all libraries will lend them. Almost all Masters theses ware in this category: a single copy at the originating university. This will be particular noted in local topics--many a history or sociology or education or library science master's thesis has been written about a single small community. (Some are in fact being used in WP--they often produce articles that look somewhat like over-literal copying, but almost nobody outside that university has an opportunity to check for plagiarism.) This material probably is best considered like unpublished manuscripts--not citable except for special purposes. DGG 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
general essay
Speaking generally, original thought or research that has been published on the internet should be treated exactly as original thought that has been published on paper: it must come from a reliable source. There are paper sources both reliable and unreliable; there are internet sources both reliable and unreliable. The unreliable sources are considered unreliable because they have a greater tendency to be untrue. For any particular source and fact, the reliability must be determined, and reliability is relative--there are different degrees. Things which are exceptionally unlikely to be true, such as UFOs, need exceptionally reliable sources. Things very likely to be true, such as peoples stated dates of birth and degrees received, can be taken from self-published internet sources that have some official character. Things visible to the direct inspection of everyone, such as the contents of a novel or a web site, can be taken from the novel or the site directly. Opinions of people or organizations --as distinct from factual information--can be take from any source known to reliably express their views, and self-published sources are reliable in this particular context. Some moderated mailing lists and blogs are reliable--it depends on the authority of the moderator. Some published books are not--it depends on the reputation of the publisher, and the otherwise known reliability of the author. Some self-published books or web postings are reliable, depending on the otherwise known reliability of the author. Something thought to be reliable can be shown not to be by independent sources, and something dubious can be confirmed by independent sources.In judging these things, we make use of our combined collective background of experiences and varied specialized knowledge, our individual common sense, and the increased wisdom of a consensus. DGG 23:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I do not know which article or edit you have in mind, but I think it is 'aquaphilia, and i will reply to the specifics on the AfD page for that article. I see from your comments there that you do talk about common sense, so we may well agree. (Talk:Lotusduck)
paraphilias
- But I have just seen your general essay on paraphilias on your user page, and it is more likely that for this particular article we will not. Primary literary or other media sources are sufficient to document a name for a type of behavior,and to document that this behavior is something which people either do or fantasize about. They by themsselves justify an article if the behavior is worth the description. For behavior with no established name but that nonetheless deserves discussion, we can use the most likely name constructed parallel to other such behaviors; if the ultimate name should change, the articles can be edited accordingly. (Talk:Vorarephilia)
User:DGG,
User_talk:DGG,
User:DGG/controversy,
/pages to revisit,
/RS,
/priorities.
/std talk pp,
User:DGG/userhelp, ,
User:DGG/deltalk,
User:DGG/journals,
/to insert, /
User:DGG/speedies,
/sandbox,
/projects,
/WP Projects,
/other wikis,
/tech notes /
User:DGG/sandboxuserified/
User:DGG/sandboxuserified2,
User:DGG/DelsToWatch ,
User:DGG/sandboxConferences ,
User:DGG/sandbox/libraries,
User:DGG/sandbox/LCC