G'day David,
What is the rationale for dumping verifiability, and what cracksmoking maniacs thought this was a good idea and why?
I think --- based on one of Kirill (thanks!)'s quotes --- the thing is, they already *have* "we are an encyclopaedia" and "we don't do original research" as principles, and they're trying to decide whether or not to copy a supporting policy for NOR across as well; it's not a case of "why don't we get rid of this?" but "why do we need this extra thing?". No?
If that's correct, I can understand why they'd be wary. There is always --- rightly so[0] --- resistence even to codifying "editing best practices" because some fuckwit out there is going to misunderstand what it means and insist his version be enforced with a sledgehammer[1].
It doesn't mean they're abandoning a core principle, necessarily. As I see it, the core principles of English Wikipedia are:
1. _Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia_. This implies some things, such as we're a tertiary source, we don't fill our project with crap.
2. _Wikipedia is neutral_. That Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view is crucial to the success of an international, stable project.
3. _Wikipedia is free content_. Everything we do on Wikipedia is available under the GFDL or equivalent (I prefer the phrase "less silly") licence. We don't infringe copyrights: creating stuff (text, images, sounds) for Wikipedia is called "generating free content"; taking existing stuff and pretending we have a right to it[2] is called "bald-faced theft".
4. _Wikipedia contributors try to avoid being dicks_. I should hope this is self-explanatory, however many policies people cruft --- I mean craft --- to help out.
5. _Wikipedia does not have firm rules_. Good ol' IAR, here, boys. Much as Certain People may complain about it, it's one of the pillars on which rests our hopes and our success so far.
Now, '4' and '5' can be regarded as peculiar to the English Wikipedia. I don't know if they are or not (they're so gosh darn sensible I'd *hope* the other languages use them as well), but if people on, say, the Polish Wikipedia run around being dicks to each other I'm not going to lose any sleep. However, '1', '2', and '3' are *absolutely essential*. These three are the raison d'ĂȘtre of the international Wikipedia project, and for them to vanish from any sub-project would be very sad indeed.
The question is: do Russian Wikipedia plan to abandon the notion of encyclopaedia as a tertiary source, or are they just saying they don't want more process?
[0] I may be biased there.
[1] Maybe I'm being overly cynical. After all, English Wikipedia has been groaning with the strain of so many policies for a while now, and yet nobody's ever done *this* ... right?
[2] As opposed to *actually* having a right to it under fair use, of course!