[WikiEN-l] "Reliable sources" guideline being treated as absolute policy

[Stephen Bain]

On 11/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/11/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I see no reason why we should be flexible about sources. If it hasn't got
> > sources it can be deleted, regardless whether this is a policy or a
> > guideline. It may be kept if someone bothers to find the sources the author
> > should have included, but that might not happen.
> > The only way to make people use sources is hammering it in, because no
> > matter how many times it is said, people will ignore it. Perhaps deletion
> > will get some backsides into gear.
>
> One of the big problems with [[WP:RS]] is that it's grossly defective
> and being applied robotically and inappropriately.

Sure, and that's a reason to question whether a page that's so
disputed/unstable should be linked to from a major part of the
interface. But I think his point was something in the interface saying
that completely unsourced articles are likely to be deleted is
prudent, since everyone agrees that having no sources at all is bad.

-- 
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com