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