2009/9/24 stevertigo <stvrtg(a)gmail.com>
Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Using a _reliable source_ means that we depend on
the source to be
reliable;
the qualitative analysis is on whether or not the
source can be reliable.
Using a _source reliably_ means that it doesn't matter the quality of the
source, as long as we use it in a consistent ("reliable") manner; the
qualitative analysis has nothing to do with the source itself, but in the
way that it is used on Wikipedia.
The issue here is not reliable sources, or your inaccurate
characterization of my point that we use "reliable" sources
"reliably": (i.e. Even the Bible can be misrepresented, misquoted,
inaccurately cited).
The source I cited was already in the article in first position, use
specifically for the purpose of defining the context. The source gives
a "reliable" overview of the variance in the context term, and states
this variance to be subjective. We don't allow subjective concepts to
stand as encyclopedic contexts, without appropriate definition. Hence
my opposition simply wants to omit using that same "reliable" source
in a "reliable" way.
I wasn't commenting in any way on the sources you were using in any article.
I was responding directly to this sentence in your statement: "I would
prefer
instead that we 'use sources reliably.' "
I am questioning how that is at all a reasonable position.
A more recent argument suggested changing the current "reliable"
source to something more in agreement with the preexisting context
(subjectively "reliable"), and designating the current (objectively)
"reliable" source less "reliable" simply because it doesn't fit
the
context.
I sincerely hope that you aren't suggesting
that the quality
("reliability")
of a source is unimportant compared to the
consistency of the source's
use
in Wikipedia.
I dislike your mischaracterizing insinuation that I don't consider the
issue of "reliability" objectively. It reads as disingenuous.
Stevertigo, you suggest there is a problem with the theory that sources
should be reliable and instead suggest that we use sources reliably. The
word "objectively" didn't come into play in either the post I was replying
to, or in my response.
I have interpreted what you wrote in the comment I replied to as "Let's
change the way we use sources in xxx way". You haven't given me any reason
to rethink my interpretation, nor have you contradicted what I said except
to suggest I am being disingenous.
From what you are saying now, it seems more that you
want to change the way
that sources are used in a *specific* article. We have three
million
articles now. If you are going to propose a change in how sources are used,
please consider whether it is something that would make sense as a standard
throughout the encyclopedia.
Risker