Please debate either for or against this guideline, or propose an amendment or change to it. Also, ask questions if any of this is vague.

---

Sources of information should be verifiable such that sources provides a bibliography or a list of references if printed, or if a human source is used then the human should have appropriate credentials bestowed by an accredited institution.

This effectively excludes almost all websites.

Printed works, such as books and research papers, are preferential over testimonials or interviews, since they're easier to verify.

Eric, I have found that you can do searches on line for articles, research papers, thesis docuements, etc. that are fully attributed. A lot of times, you can get a long abstract, name of acredited university, title, dates, etc. Since the internet is perhaps the easiest and only way to find these abstracts, you may want to consider amending the exslusion of web sites. Often, a web site is the source of these documents in electronic form. Many universities ad "library" sites will extract a fee to download the full paper, and in fact it is sometimes the only way to get a paper. What do you think?

The articles you speak of, at least that I think you're speaking of, would fall into the printed category. An electronic form of a publication isn't exactly the defining factor, but that the publication, despite being online, is published an official journal that is peer reviewed.

Something like this, www.publish.csiro.au/paper/ZO9940001.htm , which is technically a website, shouldn't be cited as webpage, but should be cited as "Geiser, F (1994). Hibernation and Daily Torpor in Marsupials - a Review. Australian Journal of Zoology 42, 1–16." It's from a real life publication and that is what distinguishes it in quality and verifiability from internet only sources.

The idea that I'm trying to convey, and if anyone disagrees on this please discuss it, is that information obtained from peer reviewed journals and books are a better quality than Joe Bob's Glider Website. Peer review is the most important thing in science, as it allows kooky ideas to be weeded out.

These are only guidelines and shouldn't be considered as strict rules. Some topics simply may not have published documentation, so internet only sources would be inevitable. Perhaps a better way to think of this is not as guidelines, but as goals for a topic or article to try to achieve through collaboration.

Thanks much for the clarificaton Eric. That makes a lot of sense!

Printed sources can be hard to come by sometimes. I know the glider book I was given with my rescue is several years out of date. Online is much more dynamic, and more up-to-date a lot of times. That said, there are a lot of Joe Bob's websites on lots of things. Perhaps the guideline that accredited sources preferred, but allow info that can be verified from several sites, not just what Joe Bob and Sallie Sue heard on a forum? It's tricky business this fact checking!