bobolozo wrote:
If this group of wikipedia editors, which are probably
the most
experienced editors around and which as you pointed out contains
sitting arbitrators, if this group believes that totally unreliable
sources should be left in place, which is in fundamental opposition to
the letter and spirit of Wikipedia:Verifiability, then we have a problem.
I am not a full-time student of these matters, so I could be
wrong, but I suspect the "problem" here is that the letter of
Wikipedia:Verifiability has been written by a group of editors
with a much more rules-based and lawyerly mindset than the ones
on this list who are preaching for more a less stringent, more
fluid stance. Which group more appropriately reflects the spirit
of what Wikipedia's verifiability policy truly ought to be,
I couldn't say. (Well, I suppose I could, but for now I won't.)
Yes, when the _de jure_ policies diverge too far from the _de
facto_ actions of a population, it can certainly be a problem.