Wikipedia talk:Assessing reliability

Comments
The colors in the table are nice, but then they aren't actually used for anything.

Wikipedia page names don't need to be run-ons, like "assessingreliability". Something like "Assessing reliability" (two words, second NOT capitalized) is much more the norm. You might want to rename (move) the page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Page moved. Billscottbob (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Studies have shown there is no correlation between length of time that material is present and the reliability of the information. Of the errors found by the Nature comparison with Brittanica some of them appeared in the very first edit. My only bias this that of many subject that standards of earlier wWP articles were very much lower than at present, and material from that date is dubious.
 * Some of the controversial articles are the very best of ours, because of the attention from multiple good editors. The least controversial material also often gets the least attention. I dont think there is a necessary correlation here either. DGG (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've only read as far as blogs are unreliable. (I may be back with more later.)
 * There are blogs, and then there are blogs. Wikipedia is a bit behind the times on this, and will have to get over its kneejerk rejection of anything called a blog.  I won't claim it's easy to sort them, but just any newspaper journalist basing an (often 'cute') article on a press release seldom is as good as an expert blogger who really knows and cares about her/his area of expertise.
 * My interest is in circadian rhythms. I've been reading Bora Zivkovic (no, not that Bora Zivkovic), AKA Coturnix, on the subject of chronobiology for years.  His private blog was Circadiana.  Now he blogs on ScienceBlogs.com, having been invited to, as have the other 65 bloggers there.  Bora's is A Blog Around the Clock.  I trust him and his colleagues on ScienceBlogs, and Wikipedia will have to learn to, too.  It's just too silly that any old journalist can write about a study or article and be acceptable as a source, while real experts are not accepted.
 * BTW, Bora is one of the editors of the annual book containing the year's 50 best science blog entries. Wikipedia would accept the book, no questions asked.  --Hordaland (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a very good essay and I hope you merge most of it into WP:EVAL. MilesAgain (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that blogs can be acceptable, depending on the blogger. This has been tough going here,but there has been some success in arguing that the ones on scienceBlogs were acceptable sources. DGG (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for response and support, DGG. We're talking about a process which shouldn't be rushed but mustn't be ignored nor rejected. --Hordaland (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Response
I have changed the section on reliable sources to state that some blogs are reliable.

MilesAgain: are you saying that you would prefer that this essay is merged into WP:EVAL instead of eventually moving this essay into the Wikipedia namespace? For the time being, I don't think that WP:EVAL and this essay have quite the same objectives. However, with reason, I'm willing to bend.

Thanks for all your valuable input. Billscottbob (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Two more additions: this essay will inherently give assumptions about reliability. If you see wording that is too definite, and you can think of a valid substitute, then be bold and change it. For example, "controversial subjects are unreliable" should be changed to "controversial subjects are likely less reliable". At this point, it is difficult - and too lengthy - to provide exceptions to every assumption about reliability. As for controversial subjects, however, I have changed added that soemtimes controversial subjects are the most well edited because it is certainly a valid point.
 * As for the correlation between the age of an article and its reliability I was thinking more in the short-term. I will clarify this in the essay. Billscottbob (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)