"Matt Brown" wrote
I don't disagree that sources should be reliable ones. I disagree with the idea that reliability can be so rigidly defined, against common sense.
Hear! Hear!
Phil Sandifer's original post on this is well-argued, though I don't particularly wish to follow him onto the ground of webcomics.
Common sense needs to apply, sooner rather than later. It indicates things like, oh, in religion and politics you are not going to have people 100% agreed onw what a reliable source is (do you believe the Bible or the BBC, sort of thing). Almost any source can be _fallible_ anyway. So we err generally in the direction of including sources, assuming a critical reader.
Common sense also says that policies that are written in very black-and-white terms do not necessarily trump others, which are apparently wishy-washy and aspirational and don't help you win your edit war on content.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information