Jossi Fresco wrote
The main issue here is if we are dealing with a controversial topic, a biography of a living person, or an ongoing enterprise. In these cases, the need for reliable sources is paramount.
Correct. But some of us have always objected to having the most controversial articles driving policy. So, please, not the 'main issue'. The main issue is getting the encyclopedia written, in the large, not that some people want to write on controversial areas. Policy in this area is basically defensive, and hence rather negative.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On 10/11/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Jossi Fresco wrote
The main issue here is if we are dealing with a controversial topic, a biography of a living person, or an ongoing enterprise. In these cases, the need for reliable sources is paramount.
Correct. But some of us have always objected to having the most controversial articles driving policy. So, please, not the 'main issue'. The main issue is getting the encyclopedia written, in the large, not that some people want to write on controversial areas. Policy in this area is basically defensive, and hence rather negative.
I've written a proposal for a new policy that would replace [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]], and would get rid of [[WP:RS]], except as an advisory page about how to look for reliable sources. It's more to the point and I think easier to understand. It also accommodates Phil's point about the need for exceptions for pop culture.
Please see [[Wikipedia:Attribution]]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution
Sarah