Currently we try to classify some types of sources as "reliable" and other types of sources as "unreliable". This is problematic because in fact almost all sources are reliable for some things and unreliable for others. So, instead of fixing a yes/no classification of sources, let's establish a general principle that each article should be based on the most reliable sources available FOR THAT TOPIC. Then we can give guidelines to help editors make that decision.
For example, we could discount USENET articles if there are articles in respected newspapers. We could discount books by popular writers if there are books by eminent experts. And so on; it would take some effort to get it right of course.
Doing it this way might (one can hope) avoid some of the absurdities of the present policy. It would also allow us to pay attention to the consensus in the relevant community about what sources are best. If every comics fan knows that certain USENET postings are the final word on a topic, it is really silly to exclude them. Similarly, it is really silly to apply the same rules about basic biographical details to movie stars (who are the subjects of many articles by journalists that can be consulted) as to scientists (who are not, with very few exceptions).
Zero.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com