[WikiEN-l] WP:RS >> WP:V

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

"jossi fresco" wrote
 
> On Nov 22, 2007 3:11 PM,  <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > Exactly. "Reliable" is an everyday concept. We mentally class people as reliable or not, and I defy anyone to say exactly what that means. Doesn't mean it's not a helpful notion.
> >
> > Charles
> >
> 
> No one is arguing for the dismissal of the concept of "reliable
> sources", which is already explained in detail at [[WP:V#Sources]].
> What is being proposed is to redirect WP:RS to WP:VSources.
> 
> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V#Sources

People are coming up with some really bad ideas these days, it seems. Keeping the in-principle discussion of verifiability, which is a Foundation level policy, separate from the nitty-gritty discussion of what a reliable source is, is a very good idea. Mainstream press is usually reliable enough to use in WP, supermarket tabloids are never. There's a grey area in between; it makes no sense to me to have comments about that near the basic point that WP can't accept unverifiable factoids.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam