[WikiEN-l] Citationgate: expertise and verifiability

[Phil Sandifer]

On Sep 29, 2006, at 12:34 PM, David Russell wrote:

>
> First of all, if 'all the major sources agree on' a particular fact,
> then where is the problem in citing one of them? Good Articles need to
> demonstrate compliance with the Manual of Style at the very least (if
> not all the other various guidelines on different issue)

Baloney. MoS is a hellhole of process - exactly what Good Articles  
were made to get around. Good Articles need to be pretty darn good -  
not perfectly adhere to an absurd bit of process that grew  
organically in a manner similar to kudzu.

> - and if people
> had followed [[WP:CITE]] in the first place then there wouldn't be the
> problem with the GA review, would there? It's not as if it is a brand
> new guideline that may be under dispute or unknown - WP:CITE has been
> around since 2002, if some editors decided to ignore it then it's no
> surprise that others objected to their work being elevated to GA  
> status.

[[WP:CITE]] is unfollowable - both because it's impossible to edit  
practically while citing a source every line, and because it's  
another piece of crap MoS page.

-Phil