Sources are of varying reliability. There is no source whatever that can not make a mistake. There are no absolutely unimpeachable sources--we do sometimes use the word to indicate one that is considered to be highly reliable for ordinary purposes. There is no source, however biased, that is not reliable for at least some very limited purposes. What requiring RSs means is that we require sufficiently reliable sources in the context of the article to justify the inclusion. There will always be dispute over the reliability of a particular source in a particular context. There is some dispute about the general reliability of some particular sources in certain contexts. There is a practice of not rejecting non-controversial articles if it seems clear the sourcing, while still incomplete, will probably be obtainable. There is no real dispute whether sources are required.
I note that other Wikipedias interpret it a little differently. For example, deWP often does not seem to consider it necessary to give sources for routine material that will be in standard references, which sometimes gives problems with material taken from there.
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
bobolozo wrote:
If unreliable sources are acceptable, this means that WP:V becomes a mere suggestion, not a policy.
This conclusion does not follow.
We very strongly want everything in Wikipedia to be verifiable -- that's why WP:V is policy. However, we realize that providing unimpeachable references for every fact in Wikipedia is extraordinarily difficult. So we don't insist that every fact have an unimpeachable reference this instant.
Or at least, that's my take on it. But this question clearly touches on one of the core divides across Wikipedia, namely the eventualism/immediatism dichotomy.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l