On 3/30/08, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Sunday 30 March 2008 14:10, Ron Ritzman wrote:
That's the drawback with referring to secondary sources exclusively. What do you do when those sources contradict something you definitely know to be true? Strictly following WP policy, the only thing you can do is not even mention whether or not a bridge is open.
Which is why "strictly following policy" is stupid.
I've said it before, I've said it again: we need to make it clear to newcomers that *policy is not prescriptive*. It is not normative *AT ALL*. It is merely *descriptive*.
I would have to agree here. With the exception of a few "core policies" without which Wikipedia wouldn't be "Wikipedia" (such as NPOV and NOR) everything else is just a codification of "consensus", which can change. That's why "ignore all rules" is important.
Is "verifiability" a "core policy"? I don't know. Arguments can be made both ways. It's defiantly important as it allows "non experts" to contribute. Anybody can add anything to any article as long as they can cite a source. (which probably pisses off "experts" who see no point in sourcing something they "know to be true") It also helps keep original research out. But as I said before, the drawback is what happens when the sources contradict something that numerous reasonable people know to be true.