User:Andjela.kaur/be bold

Being bold is important on Wikipedia. This is important because boldness is fun. At the same time, Wikipedia tells you to use only existing sources, which impedes boldness. For example, if you want to boldly summarize the abuses of children laborers on banana plantations, but there is not a single book written about it you must rely on newspaper coverage. This is a made up reference for this and it should not be there.

WIkipedia guidelines for sources is this.


 * Independent sources, that is, those not directly related to or authored by the subject. OK. Though a single reference in the mix is okay, right?
 * Sources known for fact-checking and neutrality, such as academic presses, peer-reviewed journals, or national or international newspapers. OY, this is a serious problem. Like, you know, The New York times often publishes articles that are totally biased, and reputable academic presses publish books by very rich people who make very biased claims.
 * Reliable publishers that represent a general consensus in the field. You mean, like once upon the time there was a consensus that people's brains have different sizes?

Look, I don't mean to be difficult, but encyclopedias are not neutral. The organization of the information, the choices on sources and subtopics, and the tone all contribute to the epistemic value of an article. I wrote a piece for an encyclopedia that tells a story of VR differently because it uses sources that the VR is oblivious to (for their own purposes) and it reads as good encyclopedic writing.

Why blog are not good sources? Many real people with disabilities challenge the "reputable" knowledge in their blogs?'

WHERE IS THE SAVE BUTTON? OH MY, I HOPE I DON'T HAVE TO PUBLISH THIS. OR IS IT SAFE TO PUBLISH IN SANDBOX FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS TRAINING.