On 29/03/2008, bobolozo <bobolozo(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
However, after reading the various responses and
WP:V
and thinking about it all, what I found surprising was
that the majority here were actually saying, "No no,
even if a source is totally unreliable, don't remove
it, any source is better than no source". And even at
times "Personal websites may be ok if they're well
written and seem to be accurate", which is the sort of
understanding of "reliable sources" one generally has
to correct in new and unexperienced editors.
In uncontroversial fields, though, they are in fact enough. This is
the point you're missing.
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.
The thing is that they're often not "totally unreliable" for the
purpose. They may be low-quality sources, but they are in fact an
improvement on nothing.
WP:RS remains utterly unsuitable as a source of robotic directions.
Stop trying to use it as one.
- d.