[WikiEN-l] WP:RS rewrite proposed

[Sarah]

On 10/10/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Top-to-bottom_rewrite_proposed
>
> WP:RS is an essay, not a guideline. I can say that because the
> incumbents are now blindly edit-warring to their preferred version,
> even against corrections of grammatical errors. That's the sign of a
> process that has become way too introverted and really, really needs
> to be brought back in touch with the real world.
>
Wow, David, I've just seen your personal attacks on me on the RS talk page.

You should have checked the edit history. Just two days ago, I tried
to copy edit it with the summary "it needs to be tightened; there's
too much fluff, too much preaching, and some of it is wrong or hard to
understand," but I was reverted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources&diff=80182215&oldid=80181982

But you concluded from that: "Most of the problem with WP:RS is that
SlimVirgin sees the world in black and white, and will edit-war in
perfect good faith sincerity to her preferred version" and "Slim is a
librarian, not a researcher."

I've *never* defended the tone of RS, and have stayed away from it
recently because it's been turned into a such a mess.

I do defend NOR and V, however, because they're good policies, and
they keep the project safe.

I wish you'd stop assuming that you and only you understand how to
write and do research.

Sarah