On 10/10/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 2006, at 7:43 PM, Sarah wrote:
I think if you could explain your views on this it would help to illuminate what the differences are between your position and that of the editors who support WP:V.
I don't think there's a difference between my position and the position of editors supporting WP:V, except insofar as I don't think WP:V should rely on such an obviously broken page as WP:RS (Something you apparently agree about). Once the problems with our definitions of sources are settled, I may be able to more usefully articulate this. But as long as there's such serious doubt over our definition of WP:RS, we have to recognize that WP:V is, while necessary, also not currently in a functional form.
WP:V doesn't rely on WP:RS, and I don't know why anyone thinks it does. WP:V is the policy. WP:RS is just a set of opinions; it arguably shouldn't even be a guidline, because anything decent in it is just copied from V, and anything else is confusing nonsense.
WP:V, however, is very much in functional form and does a lot to keep the project safe.
Can you say a bit more about your position on the post from the folk singer's partner? That caused a lot of confusion, especially the bit about Jimbo saying Wikipedia should use WikiNews as a source (which just pushes the sourcing problem back a stage, given that anyone can edit WikiNews just as they can Wikipedia). The position you took on that does put you at odds with many, probably most, editors, so it's worth explaining, and you were pretty irritated about it at the time, which I couldn't understand.
Sarah