Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote:
>> Cheney Shill wrote:
>>> WP has a high enough count and popularity. Why not
>> start
>>> actually focusing on content detail and enforcing the
>> long
>>> standing yet rarely applied policies?
Problem is,
under the scenario given, nothing
verifiable
supports the articles. That makes it a violation of
verifiablity, regardless of what guidelines you prefer,
but
WP:V does just happens to mention reliable
sources in
its 1st sentence.
And the very next sentence after that is "Editors should
provide a
reliable source for material that is challenged or likely
to be
challenged, or it may be removed." This reduces the scope
of the
policy's impact rather significantly.
How does that reduce the scope of the policy? That's now 3
sources, 2 policies (V & NPOV) and a guideline, that state
produce reliable sources or expect the material to be
deleted. That's reinforcement, not reduction.
The question is how long should articles without reliable
sources be allowed to remain. Should they be allowed to
linger indefinitely?
No, it's worse than original research, it's a
logical
fallacy. You stated that there were only two options:
I agree there are more options and limiting it to 2 is a
fallacy. Nonetheless, Wikipedia jokes and the rising
publicity and stature thereof are verifiable. How you
reason with it is up to you. One could reason that it
makes competing with Wikipedia easier and decreases the
liklihood that WP will be widely accepted as a reliable
source for citations.
~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/