[WikiEN-l] [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] are destroying Wikipedia

[Matt Brown]

On 9/16/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2) Their definitions of acceptable material were written with an eye
> towards only a handful of Wikipedia's articles, and render large
> portions of the site functionally un-editable.
>
> The majority of our policies in this area, and [[WP:RS]] is by far
> the worse offender here, were clearly written to provide us needed
> protection against nutjobs on our more pathological articles. They're
> excellent policies for keeping the Israel/Palestine articles sane,
> keeping the LaRouchies and Scientologists at bay, and telling Gene
> Ray that he should take nature's four-sided harmonious time cube
> elsewhere.

Wholly agreed.  WP:RS is written as a club to use on a few
pathological articles to keep the nutjobs out.  The fact is that what
sources are reliable varies from subject to subject.  There is,
seriously, NO way to have a one-size-fits-all policy about this.

I would also suggest, personally, that the consensus behind WP:RS is a
consensus only of those trying to forge the policy.  I suspect there a
lot of editors like myself and yourself who disagree with its
approach, but find the prospect of reforming it in the teeth of
strenuous opposition simply not worth my time.

I don't disagree that sources should be reliable ones.  I disagree
with the idea that reliability can be so rigidly defined, against
common sense.

-Matt (User:Morven)