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

[zero 0000]

Currently we try to classify some types of sources as
"reliable" and other types of sources as "unreliable".  This
is problematic because in fact almost all sources are reliable
for some things and unreliable for others.  So, instead of
fixing a yes/no classification of sources, let's establish a
general principle that each article should be based on the
most reliable sources available FOR THAT TOPIC.  Then we
can give guidelines to help editors make that decision.

For example, we could discount USENET articles if there are
articles in respected newspapers.  We could discount books
by popular writers if there are books by eminent experts.
And so on; it would take some effort to get it right of course.

Doing it this way might (one can hope) avoid some of the
absurdities of the present policy.  It would also allow us to
pay attention to the consensus in the relevant community
about what sources are best.  If every comics fan knows that
certain USENET postings are the final word on a topic, it is
really silly to exclude them.  Similarly, it is really silly to
apply the same rules about basic biographical details to
movie stars (who are the subjects of many articles by
journalists that can be consulted) as to scientists
(who are not, with very few exceptions).

Zero.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com