User:Zappernapper/Sources

Work in progress....

There seems to be an opinion within the Wikipedia community, or at least among a significant number of editors, that Reliable sources (WP:RS) can be used to discount any source of information that isn't a television show, academic book, or "... established literature created by scientists, scholars, and researchers around the world." Now while it is certainly appropriate to confine reliable sources to these when dealing with a subject of usual scholarly interest (e.g. the Jaguar), it is obviously much more difficult, perhaps even impossible, to find a scholarly source about a work of fiction (WP:WAF). Thankfully, WP:RS has a section that can help editors to decide whether a non-scholarly source is reliable. This allows editors to look beyond primary sources and see what the real-world is publishing about a particular aspect of fiction. Taken from this version of WP:RS, below is an undetailed list of those criteria:
 * 1) Attributability
 * 2) Expertise
 * 3) Bias
 * 4) Editorial oversight
 * 5) Replicability
 * 6) Declaration of sources
 * 7) Confidentiality
 * 8) Corroboration
 * 9) Recognition by other reliable sources
 * 10) Age of the source and rate of change of the subject
 * 11) Persistence

These criteria, and these criteria only, are what should be used to determine if any type of source is reliable. This list is commonly ignored when it comes into conflict with using blogs and fansites.