Based on the recent "Unreliable sources, or no sources
at all?" thread, it appears that the great majority of
the members of this list have major disagreements with
Wikipedia:Verifiability.
WP:V says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia
is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this
context means that readers should be able to check
that material added to Wikipedia has already been
published by a reliable source. Editors should provide
a reliable source for quotations and for any material
that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or
it may be removed".
WP:NOR states it more succinctly. "Wikipedia does not
publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia
must be attributable to a reliable, published source".
However, the members of this list clearly do not agree
with the above. The consensus here seems to be that
unreliable sources are better than no sources at all,
and that therefore unreliable sources are acceptable,
while not preferred.
As the people here are obviously not new or uninformed
editors who merely misunderstand our policies, but
instead are likely our most experienced editors who
pay attention to and think about the meaning of our
policies, this implies that a major rewriting of our
basic policies, and especially WP:V, is in order.
If unreliable sources are acceptable, this means that
WP:V becomes a mere suggestion, not a policy. We
would still have WP:NOR, we still would need to avoid
original research, but this could be done by insuring
that our articles were based on anything written
anywhere outside of Wikipedia.
WP:V could then be replaced by a rewritten version of
Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which could be renamed
Wikipedia:Sources. We could, and of course probably
would, value higher quality sources better than lower
quality sources, and WP:S would explain how to go
about determining the relative quality of sources.
To avoid the claim that I've misinterpreted the
position of the members of this list, here are some
pertinent quotes from the recent thread:
"It is better to have a source than no source at all".
"Removing references because "WP:RS says this
reference isn't good enough" is counterproductive.
There is no deadline, and the reference will be
improved or replaced by a more reliable source one
day. Until then, it looks nice to have something
there".
"Removing sources is contrary to the spirit of the
encyclopedia and the point of our sourcing
policies.... Having information in Wikipedia that is
wholly lacking in sources is poorer information to
information that is properly sourced to a second-rate
source".
"We're better off with having sources, even if their
reliability is questionable".
.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs