Talk:Max Näther

Reliable sources
What makes http://wwi-cookup.com/ and Theaerodrome.com WP:RS? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I inherited http://wwi-cookup.com/ from a prior editor. I backed it up with another cite as can be seen. Should have deleted it at that time. Thanks for the heads up.
 * The Aerodrome has a bibliography, which by consensus makes a website reliable. We in the WWI aviation history community established that some years ago in a consensus. Also, some of the world's most published and greatest authorities on WWI aviation are behind the site--Greg VanWyngarden, for instance. These are the same historians that we cite when they publish in print. It makes no sense to say they are reliable in print, but not on the internet. Kinda reminiscent of the argument that paper encyclopedias are better than Wikipedia.
 * Now, off to zap http://wwi-cookup.com/.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Er, paper encyclopedias are often reliable sources according to WP:RS; whereas, Wikipedia is never considered a reliable source (WP:CIRCULAR). I will post this to WP:RSN for feedback from uninvolved editors. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I realize that, in my haste, I have been ambiguous. I am not plumping for WP as a self-referential source. And I realize that WP has to legally cover its butt by insisting that, overall, changes will happen. However, the concept that only print sources are grist for an internet encyclopedia goes against the flow of events. MSM is fading as Internet news picks up. Information storage is rising into the Cloud. WP is pretty unchanging except for growth; not much deletion going on.
 * The Aerodrome website has a bibliography page buried deep within. Pain in the tail to find. Some biography pages in the site cite the source(s) at the foot--where the historians cite the very books I use when I can find them.
 * Aerodrome forum as source is forbidden, of course.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)