User talk:Armedblowfish/Self-published sources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Prior discussion

This essay was started after a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Self-published_sources:_Can_we_simplify_this.3F Archive.

Other prior discussion on self-published sources (Feel free to add to the list)

[edit] Wikis as examples and general comments

As one suggestion, I would not talk about Wikis as much as you do ... the general consensus is that they are NEVER to be considered reliable. While I don't disagree with some of the other things you say, I am not sure I agree completely either. I do expect it to be a bit too much of a change for a newly approved policy page. I suspect that the folks at ATT are going to want to let things settle down a bit first, before they start considering any major changes. Be prepared for a long uphill battle to get this implimented. Blueboar 21:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikis do have a features for allowing only registered users to edit, and only approved users to get accounts. Theoretically, this could be used to ensure that only experts edited the wiki. I remember seeing a job for 500 articles on nursing, to be written on a wiki, posted on a freelancing website. However, the buyer did not specify the wiki in the public project description, and never chose (or has yet to choose) a service provider. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 21:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I think that you are right that it is better to be vague than include stuff with a low degree of consensus, I just deleted a bunch of stuff. Thanks for commenting, Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 22:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)