On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 3:41 AM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/7/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/04/2008, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
We don't try to impose "the truth" on people, and we don't expect
that
they should trust anything just because they read it in Wikipedia.
All
we do is provide what we hope are the best and most appropriate sources, and a surrounding text that sums up what good sources are saying, in a way that we hope is readable and that makes readers
want
to know more. We enable them to inform themselves. That's the difference between us and, say, the Encyclopaedia Britannica. We empower readers. We don't ask for their blind trust.
Uh, the history of [[WP:RS]] is *precisely* an attempt to impose such upon the reader. Canonicalising given sources is training wheels for sourcing at best - it's a limited rule to teach beginners right at the introduction to the subject. Not a basis for going on.
RS has always been a troubled guideline. It's wavered between versions with long instructions about how to identify reliable sources, and versions that are basically just a repeat of WP:V.
Its also the one most editors tend to send newbies to. When you disagree with someone, you actually dont start by saying "we need verifiably, not truth!", you tend to say "I don't think that meets our guidelines for reliability." Its the training wheels, but 90% of our editors are in training at any given point in time. (Don't quote me on the figure.)
RR