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

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

Guy Chapman wrote

>  We have WP:V and WP:NPOV
> and WP:NOR - we absolutely must have a decent, working definition of
> what defines a source, so that we can apply these.  

It's the carpet we sweep the dust under. Which makes the rest of the place look a damn sight tidier. Remember, though, that it is the wikilawyers who run this 'you haven't defined your terms' riff into the ground, for their own sordid 'gain'. I'm happy enough that articles which, after best efforts to add reliable sources, do not have much to show, should be deleted at AfD. 

I think we should admit that the pool of 'reliable sources' is dynamic, and certain things that are premature creations at the moment will in the future be much easier to source. This kind of argument helps keep us straight on celebrity (Warholinan 900 seconds) versus notability; and that WP cannot, be definition, itself be the pioneer reliable source on anything.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information