[WikiEN-l] Invitation for review

[stevertigo]

Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Using a _reliable source_ means that we depend on the source to be reliable;
> the qualitative analysis is on whether or not the source can be reliable.
> Using a _source reliably_ means that it doesn't matter the quality of the
> source, as long as we use it in a consistent ("reliable") manner; the
> qualitative analysis has nothing to do with the source itself, but in the
> way that it is used on Wikipedia.

The issue here is not reliable sources, or your inaccurate
characterization of my point that we use "reliable" sources
"reliably": (i.e. Even the Bible can be misrepresented, misquoted,
inaccurately cited).

The source I cited was already in the article in first position, use
specifically for the purpose of defining the context. The source gives
a "reliable" overview of the variance in the context term, and states
this variance to be subjective. We don't allow subjective concepts to
stand as encyclopedic contexts, without appropriate definition. Hence
my opposition simply wants to omit using that same "reliable" source
in a "reliable" way.

A more recent argument suggested changing the current "reliable"
source to something more in agreement with the preexisting context
(subjectively "reliable"), and designating the current (objectively)
"reliable" source less "reliable" simply because it doesn't fit the
context.

> I sincerely hope that you aren't suggesting that the quality ("reliability")
> of a source is unimportant compared to the consistency of the source's use
> in Wikipedia.

I dislike your mischaracterizing insinuation that I don't consider the
issue of "reliability" objectively. It reads as disingenuous.

-Stevertigo