[WikiEN-l] Widespread disagreement with Wikipedia:Verifiability

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/29/2008 4:01:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
bobolozo at yahoo.com writes:

I've
actually been using it as explained in WP:V, not
WP:RS, as  WP:V is policy and RS is not.  Note that the
subject of this thread  mentions WP:V)>>


-------------
That's an interesting take on things.  I think you may find that, may  I be 
bold to state, that every major contributor to V acknowledges that RS is  the 
place to go to ask about Reliable Sources.  Not V.
 
We have RSN to handle exactly the question of whether a source is a  reliable 
source or not.  The V talk page editors in fact, redirect these  sort of 
questions to RSN.  If you are trying to imply that RS should be  sort-of 
overlooked in favor of V I think you'll find the consensus is that it  should not.
 
As to your extreme position that "totally unreliable sources" should be  
glossed, I doubt anyone here would agree that anyone here is supporting that  
position.  By holding an extreme view, you discredit the people who would  much 
rather see these issues go to RSN for community discussion on *specific  
sources*.
 
What I think we do not want, is tendentious mass-deletions of sources,  which 
the editors in those articles have accepted, by a person who has not  
actually investigated the source, but is only characterizing it by its *type*  
instead of its veracity.
 
Wikipedia is nothing if not grey.  Which is why, on RSN, we generally  divert 
hypothetical discussion into specific discussions.  Hypothetical  discussion 
of types of sources ends up too many times generating situations that  we'd 
wish to avoid.
 
Will Johnson



**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL 
Home.      
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolhom00030000000001)