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

[Steve Bennett]

On 11/29/06, 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.

If we come up with a workable policy, people might follow it. Our
policies basically state the undesirable and infeasible goal of "every
statement must be backed up by a reliable, verifiable source". What we
actually *want* is far less than that though. Something like:

* Any statement that if false would be harmful, must be traceable to a source.
* Any statement that could never be backed up by a reliable source
should not be included.
* Where possible, provide sources to help readers determine the
accuracy of statements.

The corollaries of these three rules are that non-trivial, non-harmful
statements don't *have* to be cited, but *should* be. This is what
most people *do*, but is not what our policies *say*.

Anyone agree?

Steve