--- Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Pop onto AfD for a bit. Or to articles on popular culture. Or [[WP:FAC]]. Sourcing disputes are a more or less constant din - both with articles that are accurate being taken to task for not being well-sourced enough (This has become a pernicous flavor of deletionism in the past year or so) and with articles that are complete shit getting a pass because they have sources, even if the sources are bollocks.
Even for the best policies and guidelines, there'll always be some people who try to abuse, wikilawyer, or generally twist them to their own ends. NPOV disputes are more or less a constant din, too, but that's no reason to nuke NPOV.
In cryptography, there's this rhetoric about people who view crypto as "magic pixie dust" that somehow makes a system secure if you just sprinkle some about. The same holds for RS and CITE: they don't magically guarantee quality by themselves, but they are great tools for doing so if not abused.
By all means, let's discuss where we need to improve things, but let's not throw the proverbial baby out with the, well, you know.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship. http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk