Conservapedia talk:Sources

On a talk page, Aschlafly wrote:

Wikipedia apparently allows any and all citations to newspaper stories, but we shouldn't here. Journalistic opinions, for example, are not authorities. Journalists are also not authorities on scientific issues. Many journalists chose that field because they don't like math and science!

Newspapers have a puffery and sensationalistic component needed to boost (or maintain) sales. I wish I had a dollar for every newspaper story in the past 50 years claiming discovery of evidence of life in outer space. Of course they were all based on speculation, and all false. So in general I don't think we should be citing newspaper articles for scientific claims. Why can't we cite the scientific article directly?--Aschlafly 21:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I think this could be turned into a policy statement. Like:

• We should not allow any and all citations to newspaper stories. Journalistic opinions are not authorities, and journalists are not authorities on scientific issues. It is better to cite the scientific article directly.

Anyone else like this idea? --Ed Poor 19:57, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Does this include blogs and other wikis? --Mtur 19:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Darn good question. At other encyclopedia wikis where I've helped out, "self published" materials are deemed less reliable than books. Fact-checking and peer review are important.

As for other wikis, I'd like to get some clarification on that myself ... but I'm guessing the short answer to that they'd rather we didn't. On the other hand, if you linked to a specific version . . . ;-) --Ed Poor 20:04, 28 March 2007 (EDT)