Tony Sidaway wrote,
>As far as I'm aware, there are no useless or unacceptable
>sources (even /dev/random has a value in the right context), only useless
>and unacceptable citations.
You are not being clear, but I think you are saying that all sources are
valid, but they can be used properly or improperly (for example, Nazi
propaganda about Jews tells you very little about Jews, but tells you a lot
about Nazis). I agree. When I said that some sources are unacceptable, I
thought it was understood that I meant in relation to a particular point
concerning a particular item in a given article (this is I think how the
policies are written so I thought that would be obvious; maybe the policies
could be clearer although I really thought it was obvious).
In any event, conflicts over how to use sources is at the heart of many
content-centered problems at Wikipedia, and arguments over the relevance
and proper use of sources is at the heart of many edit and revert wars that
go on for months and months. This is the problem, and we do need to
address it.
I have stated my views: first, this sort of problem often does not involve
the violation of behavioral guidelines, so the mediation and arbitrations
committees will not address them; second, on many topics there relatively
few of the editors active at Wikipedia have enough substantive knowledge to
evaluate such conflicts over content (they can of course help in editing
the language to make it clearer -- but clear expression is different from
the validity and value of what is being expressed), so the ordinary
mechanism of free content/anyone can edit often does not work. For these
two reasons, I think we need to figure out some other mechanism.
I know many people reasonably disagree with me over the solution. But the
problem itself is real.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701