On 9/16/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
- 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)