On 6/6/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Folk with eccentric points of view such
as splinter political
parties
often maintain websites and sometimes even publish
books.
But when there is a source for some fringe idea at least we can attach
the source, so people can judge the quality of that source themselves,
rather then leave it 'some people'.
Attaching sources doesn't require that we judge the sources, but our
lack of judgement doesn't prohibit our readers from judging the
source.
There is a source for every idea you can imagine, and many you can't
imagine. Just because you can source an idea doesn't mean it is
encyclopedic. Policy is clear on this; extreme fringe views can find
some
other venue for promoting their bizarre notions.
The goal is that
Wikipedia
become an encyclopedia, not a collection of the
POVs of everyone who
ever
managed to put up a webpage or self-publish a
book.
I think we're talking past each other here.
Nowhere did I suggest that we need to include every idea, just that
there is nothing about the fact that you can cite crazy people that
lessens the advantages of citing sources.
You said "Attaching sources doesn't require that we judge the sources, but
our lack of judgement doesn't prohibit our readers from judging the source."
In fact, it's our responsibility to judge sources all the time, and
(despite continued claims to the contrary) it's often a very tricky to do,
which is why content dispute resolution of some sort or another would be
quite helpful.
Jay.