On 03/10/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
--- David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem is how to come up with a sources
> criterion that can't be hoaxed.
> There's enough trouble with stupid AFD nominations
> on en:wp by people
> who couldn't find the subject on Google and presumed
> it therefore
> didn't exist.
> Will we forbid print sources unless a scan is lodged
> with the WMF?
Obviously not (Copyright?). I think you are beind
sarcastic, but it is hard to be ceratain.
It is somewhat reductio ad absurdum. But there are those on en: who
seriously advocate that a reference can only be good if it's easy for
a normal person (presumably in the US) to find.
"How to
come up with a sources criterion that can't be hoaxed"
is only a the problem with the proposed solution of
requiring sources. I think this is large enough
problem that requiring sources should be thrown out of
consideration for this particular problem.
Coming up with a rigid rule that would catch this hoax without causing
ridiculous quantities of collateral damage will not be easy.
[[:en:Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] is marked "guideline" but phrased
didactically, so when applied robotically - and people do apply it
robotically - is disastrous in practice, gutting articles and causing
the sort of PR disasters over living bios it was written didactically
so as to avert.
- d.