On Oct 9, 2006, at 7:06 PM, Matt Brown wrote:
I disagree. Lots of editors disagree. Because, if you look closely, the reliability of a source has more to do with who is writing it and their reputation, how well they are trusted, and the nature of the subject matter, than defining something simply by what medium it appeared in.
The problem here is that we have two reliabilities in play. The first is "is the source reliable enough to be used in the article," which we're basically sane about. Nobody has gone in and eviscerated [[Spoo]].
The second is using reliability as the latest code for notability, In this case, a standard for notability that is flagrantly different from the practical standard used in articles is used as a cover for deleting articles, often being used to ignore the numeric consensus on AfDs because [[WP:RS]] is cited in [[WP:V]], essentially giving it a pseudo-policy status, despite its deep flaws. What is particularly dangerous here is that it tends to be done unilaterally, and then supported on DRV, which has, as has been previously noted, been overrun by lunacy.
[[WP:RS]] is merely comically useless in the first case. It is wildly dangerous in the second, and such unilateral moves should be just as unilaterally overturned until such a time as we have a process for reviewing them that is not dominated by an unrepresentative sample of the community.
-Phil