Talk:Capital Research Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Blog entries by random people are not reliable sources

Wikipedia is not a collection of blog entries. They are not reliable or neutral. Quotes from blogs to describe an organization is not NPOV. --Tbeatty 21:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources explicitly states that blogs may be used as a source of information about the owner of the blog. Gamaliel 22:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a random blog, it's their blog. If you look at the link, you'll see that it's a page at the Capital Research Center's website. As far as I can tell, you originally objected to it being included because it was unverified since the reference didn't work. All I did was fix the reference and add it back in now that it was verified. There shouldn't be a problem anymore. - Maximusveritas 22:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Where did you read that?

"At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. "

I don't mind citing web logs but you have to attribute the opinion to the poster. This blog was made by someone not officially associated with the group. I could easily go to any number of web sites and post my opinion about them, but it wouldn't be acceptable to cite that blog entry as fact about the group. In this case, the poster is irrelevant and therefore his opinion isn't worthy enough to be in an encyclopedia. --Tbeatty 19:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And this: The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly.

The context in this case is a secondary source (the poster is interpreting his view of animal rights groups, that makes it secodnary). It is not to be used. --Tbeatty 19:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. My bad., I thought this was a blog entry that any Joe Shmoe can make. Hodberg runs the blog at their site and that makes it a primary source. Got it. It's okay.--Tbeatty 19:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I added context to the quote. Sorry about not leaving a description. --Tbeatty 20:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)