Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Irpen (talk | contribs) at 06:52, 8 April 2007 (→Sources question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sources question

I would like a clarification on the source" "Bartłomiej Kozłowski, Wybory styczniowe do Sejmu 1957". What are the scholarly credentials of the source were this article is published. How academic is this publication. If it's not, it may or may not be OK depending on the credentials of the author. What are those? it is an important source since more than a half of the inline refs point to it. So, we better have it reliable. --Irpen 02:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

He is a journalist. The article was published on non-profit educational polska.pl/poland.pl portal (see this), an initative of Naukowa i Akademicka Sieć Komputerowa. As such it seems quite reliable - on the level of popular science magazines - and cerainly passess both WP:V and WP:RS.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

So, the source authored by an author with no academic credentials published in some internet portal is used for about a half of the inline refs. Please try to reference the article to something more reliable. --Irpen 04:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please try to read our policies. The sources, unlike your arguments, are quite reliable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What policy exactly considers material published in some internet portal by an author with no credentials of any kind as reliable? --Irpen 05:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:V, WP:RS, WP:ATT. Of course, it would help if you'd read my previous reply where I explain how the author and the portal are reliable. As it appears you intend to use your favourite tactic of ignoring key points others write and repeat your initial points, don't expect me to repeat myself. again-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:V, WP:RS and WP:ATT does not elaborate at what sources are considered reliable. But I am ready to accept any source, no matter where it is published, if it is authored by an established scholar. --Irpen 05:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly the above policies have less strict criteria. Consider joining Citizendium, which - for better or worse - has higher critiera of what is reliable than we. And no, our policies do elaborate on what is reliable and not (suprising, when you consider the name Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, don't you think so?). As I have quoted you relevant policies ad nausueam in the past years I will not do so again.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS does not list what sources are reliable. Go check yourself. We have to use some common sense. As for your asking your opponents to leave the project, this is a step forward, I must say, from attempting to achieve the same by endless complaints aimed at having them sanctioned. --Irpen 05:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And, while we do not know the academic creditentials of the person who wrote the article, the people who commissioned the author to compose the article seems credible to me. We take a lot less information and use it as sources. User:Zscout370 05:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if the article comes from a publisher with the scholarly reputation, the individual author's reputation becomes less of a concern. This source, however, is some internet portal. I do not object to internet portals on principle, but one of the two things has to be scholarly, either the author or the source. --Irpen 05:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And you will keep ignoring my post explaining that a NASK-run portal is considered highly credible, much more than some news portal, right?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

NASK is merely a NIC. In what way does it being associated with the domain name registry makes a site scholarly? --Irpen 05:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the sentence before 'It is also the national registry of the .pl domain'. Hint: the word 'also' means it is something else. Unfortunatly, yes, 99% of the article is in geek mode and concentrates on NIC aspect. But, long story short, NASK is also a University of Warsaw-affiliated research and development organization. Read homepage.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the claimed research that they do is in the field of computers and networks and the claimed association with the Warsawa University is with the Faculty of Electronics and Information Technology. In what way does this all establish an authority in the history of the post-war Poland? --Irpen 06:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

From speaking with Piotrus, the journalist does have a website at where we can ask what his C.V. is. User:Zscout370 06:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In the same way that University of Toronto Press (for example) estabilishes academic credibility for whatever they publish in fields other than printing presses or Toronto local information. It is an online academic publisher. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Our policies clearly say that publications from the university presses and publishing houses reputable known for their academic reputation, such as Routledge or Pergamon, are acceptable by default. Portals are not comparable to such sources and the articles need to be judged case by case. Is the portal known for scholarly publications in history? Of not, does the author have some otherwise established credentials in the field. If both answers are negative, the source is not reliable. --Irpen 06:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)