Talk:Salon.com/as a source for Wikipedia: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 324:

Csloat, I find it strange that you are making a strenuous argument for the undisputed reliability of Salon.com on Wikipedia and yet you refuse to address the obvious repercussions from such an argument. The repercussions from allowing Salon.com to be used as an undisputed, stand-alone reliable source are evident. There will be a systemic increase in liberal bias on Wikipedia. There has to be checks and balances in place. One of these checks and balances is that reliable material should pass the litmus test of being published in other reliable and reputable media. Goldberg's article does not meet this criterion. It is apparent you are misunderstanding my argument. I am trying to stay focused on Wikipedia policy relating to [[WP:BLP]] while you are taking off on some tangent about my comments somehow applying to the whole of Wikipedia and that I am trying to remove all references to Salon.com on Wikipedia. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 00:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

:SSS108, the reason I am getting frustrated is you are mischaracterizing my position. I am not arguing for the "undisputed reliability" of Salon. Please re-read my points. I am arguing '''against''' its '''presumptive unreliability'''. My point above - as the heading of this section should have clued you in on - is that we should be citing the author and not the magazine. Your claim that allowing Salon citations will lead to a "systemic increase in liberal bias on Wikipedia" is silly; one can similarly say that allowing citations from the National Review will lead to a "systemic increase in conservative bias." You then claim you are not trying to remove Salon quotes from wikipedia -- if that is the case, we have nothing more to argue about. But it does fly in the face of your claim about systemic bias.[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 01:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Csloat, since I have already my made argument several times, I will keep this brief. Regarding BLP, Wikipedia depends on sources published in reliable and reputable media. One cannot simply cite an author and claim reliability on that basis alone. Doing so could violate [[WP:NOR]], [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]]. Published reliable sources are a requirement, unless it is on the page of the person in question (which is not the case in this matter). [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 02:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

== An arbitrator has spoken ==