On 17/09/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/17/06, Phil Sandifer
<Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Every other policy we have on Wikipedia
explicitly gives editors a
> wide berth to interpret it on a case-by-case basis. This is, for
> instance, the whole reason [[WP:NPOV]] works. But increasingly,
> [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] are written to be applied by machine. We need
> to return to trusting that editors will be able to work out what a
> reliable source is on a topic by topic basis, given a set of general
> guidelines on the matter. I have in the past recommended basing these
> guidelines on _The Craft of Research_, a book published by UChicago
> Press. This has long been one of the standard academic research
> manuals. It's flexible, sensible, and respected - exactly what we
> want and need.
You want book length policy pages? No thankyou.
We have book-length policy pages. At least we could have one that's
good and usable.
- d.