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

[Sarah]

On 10/10/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2006, at 7:43 PM, Sarah wrote:
>
> > I think if you could explain your views on this it would help to
> > illuminate what the differences are between your position and that of
> > the editors who support WP:V.
>
> I don't think there's a difference between my position and the
> position of editors supporting WP:V, except insofar as I don't think
> WP:V should rely on such an obviously broken page as WP:RS (Something
> you apparently agree about). Once the problems with our definitions
> of sources are settled, I may be able to more usefully articulate
> this. But as long as there's such serious doubt over our definition
> of WP:RS, we have to recognize that WP:V is, while necessary, also
> not currently in a functional form.
>
WP:V doesn't rely on WP:RS, and I don't know why anyone thinks it
does. WP:V is the policy. WP:RS is just a set of opinions; it arguably
shouldn't even be a guidline, because anything decent in it is just
copied from V, and anything else is confusing nonsense.

WP:V, however, is very much in functional form and does a lot to keep
the project safe.

Can you say a bit more about your position on the post from the folk
singer's partner? That caused a lot of confusion, especially the bit
about Jimbo saying Wikipedia should use WikiNews as a source (which
just pushes the sourcing problem back a stage, given that anyone can
edit WikiNews just as they can Wikipedia). The position you took on
that does put you at odds with many, probably most, editors, so it's
worth explaining, and you were pretty irritated about it at the time,
which I couldn't understand.

Sarah