[WikiEN-l] Reliable sources: problems with [[WP:RS]]

Phil Sandifer Snowspinner at gmail.com
Tue Oct 10 00:23:53 UTC 2006

On Oct 9, 2006, at 7:06 PM, Matt Brown wrote:

> I disagree.  Lots of editors disagree.  Because, if you look closely,
> the reliability of a source has more to do with who is writing it and
> their reputation, how well they are trusted, and the nature of the
> subject matter, than defining something simply by what medium it
> appeared in.

The problem here is that we have two reliabilities in play. The first  
is "is the source reliable enough to be used in the article," which  
we're basically sane about. Nobody has gone in and eviscerated [[Spoo]].

The second is using reliability as the latest code for notability, In  
this case, a standard for notability that is flagrantly different  
from the practical standard used in articles is used as a cover for  
deleting articles, often being used to ignore the numeric consensus  
on AfDs because [[WP:RS]] is cited in [[WP:V]], essentially giving it  
a pseudo-policy status, despite its deep flaws. What is particularly  
dangerous here is that it tends to be done unilaterally, and then  
supported on DRV, which has, as has been previously noted, been  
overrun by lunacy.

[[WP:RS]] is merely comically useless in the first case. It is wildly  
dangerous in the second, and such unilateral moves should be just as  
unilaterally overturned until such a time as we have a process for  
reviewing them that is not dominated by an unrepresentative sample of  
the community.


More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list