bobolozo wrote:
If this group of wikipedia editors, which are probably the most experienced editors around and which as you pointed out contains sitting arbitrators, if this group believes that totally unreliable sources should be left in place, which is in fundamental opposition to the letter and spirit of Wikipedia:Verifiability, then we have a problem.
I am not a full-time student of these matters, so I could be wrong, but I suspect the "problem" here is that the letter of Wikipedia:Verifiability has been written by a group of editors with a much more rules-based and lawyerly mindset than the ones on this list who are preaching for more a less stringent, more fluid stance. Which group more appropriately reflects the spirit of what Wikipedia's verifiability policy truly ought to be, I couldn't say. (Well, I suppose I could, but for now I won't.)
Yes, when the _de jure_ policies diverge too far from the _de facto_ actions of a population, it can certainly be a problem.