[WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

[bbatsell]

On Jan 24, 2007, at 8:39 PM, Phil Sandifer wrote:

> Consider this another entry in that time-tested genre of "obviously
> futile suggestions to nuke things that nobody is ever going to nuke,
> but probably should anyway" posts. (The classic, of course, being
> Nuke AfD. Which we should still do.)
>
> We should nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]. They are not working. They
> have never worked. It is not a feasible project to go and add sources
> to everything, and new contributors who are editing casually are
> never going to be willing to do the extra work of having sources. The
> result is a rule where we are always going to be playing catch-up.
>
> Nor do the pages prevent incidents like Siegenthaler, which was a
> problem with exactly one cause, which is that nobody had ever
> actually looked at that page after it was created. No policy in the
> world will fix a page that nobody is editing.
>
> Yes, we need to ensure that people do not add crap information. This
> can be covered easily with "Information that people doubt the
> validity of should be sourced." And we can then leave the community
> to deal with issues on a case by case basis with the direction that
> they should be careful to make sure that information is accurate. And
> we should shoot people who continue to add dubious information over
> the objections of other editors. Which is basically how we wrote an
> encyclopedia that has proven pretty trustworthy, and, more to the
> point, is how we actually operate now on the vast majority of our
> articles, since [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]] are not actually useful  
> pages.
>
> But to have a pair of policies that cannot be honestly implemented
> serves only one purpose: causing debates among editors that waste
> time and good faith.
>
> Nuke them.
>
> -Phil

Sorry to quote the whole thing, but there weren't really any sections  
I felt I could snip.

I'm not sure I understand what your reasoning behind this is.  You  
say that [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]] are "not actually useful pages"  
and "cannot be honestly implemented."  To your first statement, I  
think they're incredibly useful and I didn't see a shred of letters  
exhibiting why they are not in your e-mail.  As to your second  
statement, that's true of nearly all (if not all) of our policies.   
Those are *goals*.  Of course it's not feasible that every single  
sentence in every single article across every localized Wikipedia be  
sourced from reliable sources.  That's ridiculous.  But in order for  
an article to be a good one, it must be sourced from reliable  
sources, and that's what those policies state.

Encyclopedias are tertiary sources; if they're good, they provide an  
adequate summation, but hardly the whole picture.  Encyclopedias,  
when used correctly, are merely a "jump-off point" for new reading  
and learning.  If we alter our goals so that we do not strive for  
providing sources and references, then not only will we have failed  
in providing a credible encyclopedic article, we will have failed in  
providing an article that serves any sort of purpose for our readers.

I have no idea where the idea that all WP:CITE and WP:RS do is cause  
debates among editors, because I personally have seen nothing of the  
sort.  I'd really appreciate some background perhaps to better  
understand where you're coming from.

Just my $0.02,
[[User:bbatsell]]