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

[Carl Peterson]

On 9/17/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Sep 2006, at 17:20, Phil Sandifer wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Sep 17, 2006, at 2:14 AM, David Mestel wrote:
> >
> >> On 17/09/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> In essence, we have written a set of policies that fail to reflect
> >>> how we do work, should work, or could possibly work. And, due to the
> >>> frighteningly large number of contributors who, given a piece of bad
> >>> policy, will follow it rigidly without thinking about it, this is a
> >>> solidly dangerous thing. (Something to remember: IAR is our most
> >>> ignored rule.)
> >>
> >> I have to disagree with you on the IAR point - I just clicked on the
> >> "random article" button five times, and not one of the resulting
> >> articles had a single source.  I think that our problem may be that,
> >> because we place such a great demand on our sources, people don't
> >> bother to source articles at all.  Perhaps we need to demand less in
> >> order to achieve more...
> >
> > It should be noted what IAR means, though. The heart of IAR is that
> > the rules are not and cannot be a substitute for actually thinking.
> > Carelessly leaving out sources is not following IAR. Citing J.
> > Michael Straczynski's web posts in a Babylon 5 article because you
> > know they're reliable no matter what [[WP:RS]] says is following IAR.
> >
> > Put another way, following policy for policy's sake violates IAR.
>
> There's an interesting parallel to IAR in the New Testament.
> Jesus complains that they are just parroting prayers without
> really thinking about what they mean, and says they should
> make up a relevant prayer each time. They ask him for an
> example of what such a prayer would be like.
>
> He gives them the Lord's prayer.


While I'd disagree with your application, the point is valid. We all IAR
when we feel there's a superceding principle to uphold. Isn't there a
military reg that says you can disobey an order under certain circumstances
(conscience, legality, etc.)? In the case of spoo (and being a B5 fan
myself), I'd say that who said it is more important than where it was said.
JMS clearly said something, and whether it was on Usenet or in personal
correspondence, I'd say it qualifies as a valid source, especially given the
relationship JMS had and has with the franchise (being more than just the
creator/exec, but having written the vast majority of the material in one
way or another).