<<I'm chary of experts determining what sources are reliable, as
Carcharoth suggests.>>
Experts do not determine what sources are reliable. Consensus does.
<< There are two meanings for "reliability." Reliability in RS, I
claim, depends solely on the publisher, and reliability in this sense
is about notability, and certainly not about reliability in the
ordinary sense, that we could assume that the material is "true." If
it's in independently published source,
it's reliably sourced. Sure, there are gray areas.>>
No. Reliability as we use it in WP:RS depends on an author and the
publisher's editor being known as producing resources which accurately
reflect their own underlying sources. It is not about the notability
of the publisher, because in that case a *famous* publisher like Ivana
Trump Enterprises could produce complete dreck and be called reliable.
WP:RS is a combination effect arising from the interface of
author-publisher-source. It's not dependent on one of these alone.
<<If we accept that fact in reliable source -- or "asserted fact", to
be precise about what can be verified -- is usable in the project, my
view is that RS establishes notability and that, therefore, the fact
belongs somewhere in the project, it should not be excluded because
someone, expert or not, claims that, say, the author is biased. Rather,
if that impeaching claim can be backed, itself, by reliable source, we
would provide both, and the original "fact" would be stated with
attribution, "according to ..." and probably likewise the rebuttal.
Even if there is no impeaching claim in reliable source, it is within
the sovereignty of local consensus to include attribution where it will
broaden consensus.>>
RS does not establish notability. Example among a few hundred other
deeds that Bogislaw I did, he also loved partridge pie. It's sourced
reliably, that doesn't necessarily means it's notable. Things which
are notable should be important, interesting, standard, curious, odd,
startling and so on, not mundane, bland and trivial regardless of the
source.
Next IF you have an example (I'm sure you do, you're just too shy to
tell us its Britney Spears or Scientology or both) where a single
expert has decided that a source is biased and is therefore blocking
that article, then tell us so we can go beat him or her up.
If you don't let's just say that a single editor should not be able to
OWN an article nor the use of a source or it's disuse. Community
consensus still prevails and there is an WP:RSN reliable sources
noticeboard where you can bring that forth and establish a community
posse to take out the varmit.
IF however your source states something that *the vast majority* (and I
characterize this as meaning "me") would say "that claim is outrageous"
then you have to recognize that fact and abide by the community
standard view. So "apple pie with whipped cream has been shown to cure
some types of cancer"... no. "Space Aliens tend to like to visit San
Diego more than Los Angeles".... no.
"Some medical studies show a correlation between high blood pressure
and doughnut-eating" (Source 1) "while other studies have found no such
correlation" (Source 2).
There is a point at which a claim falls off the face of the Earth
because most of the community is rolling around on the floor laughing.
So bring your example, mr shyness.
Will Johnson