Editing Talk:Corydoras paleatus
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
This page is not enabled for semantic in-text annotations due to namespace restrictions. Details about how to enable the namespace can be found on the configuration help page.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
− | I know this is a ten-year old discussion, but, thought I'd add a comment. In the days of print resources, an encyclopedia would reference other printed sources whether it was freely available or not. The thought process is that given a wide enough audience, someone out there would have the source available to verify it's reliability. Editors of articles in Wikipedia and other online sources also use printed media such as books, newspapers, and magazines, as well as online sources. This is certainly legitimate as long as the editor considers it a reliable source, considering the reliability of the author of those works. It certainly can be verified by someone, although not by everyone. The rest of us just needs to trust those who can. Even scientific papers can get it wrong, but, if other sources not using that one as a source seem to come to the same or similar findings, it could be considered reliable, but, if no one else agrees, one may find it suspect | + | I know this is a ten-year old discussion, but, thought I'd add a comment. In the days of print resources, an encyclopedia would reference other printed sources whether it was freely available or not. The thought process is that given a wide enough audience, someone out there would have the source available to verify it's reliability. Editors of articles in Wikipedia and other online sources also use printed media such as books, newspapers, and magazines, as well as online sources. This is certainly legitimate as long as the editor considers it a reliable source, considering the reliability of the author of those works. It certainly can be verified by someone, although not by everyone. The rest of us just needs to trust those who can. Even scientific papers can get it wrong, but, if other sources not using that one as a source seem to come to the same or similar findings, it could be considered reliable, but, if no one else agrees, one may find it suspect. |
[[User:Arvil|Arvil]] ([[User talk:Arvil|talk]]) 15:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC) | [[User:Arvil|Arvil]] ([[User talk:Arvil|talk]]) 15:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC) |