Active discussions
WikiProject Baseball (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated Start-class)
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

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)
Return to "Retrosheet" page.