Talk:Retrosheet
Appearance
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Valid source?
[edit]I'm seeing Retrosheet popping up as a source reference in wikipedia articles. Since it is entirely possible for the same people to be editing both, I say it is not a valid wikipedia source, at least not by itself. What say y'all? Baseball Bugs 17:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- They appear to have better fact-checking than Wikipedia, but it's still a volunteer project. Unfortunately I have to conclude that it's not a good source for Wikipedia articles, unless Retrosheet's information can be confirmed from another source. Too bad, it's a really cool project. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Where I specifically question it is where they use it to contradict official MLB statistics. If someone wants to say "according to the Retrosheet researchers..." that's one thing, but it should always be tempered, where possible, with "However, according to the official figures provided by MLB..." Baseball Bugs 18:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Categories:
- Start-Class Baseball articles
- Low-importance Baseball articles
- WikiProject Baseball articles
- Start-Class Websites articles
- Unknown-importance Websites articles
- Start-Class Websites articles of Unknown-importance
- Start-Class Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Websites articles