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

[Phil Sandifer]

On Jan 24, 2007, at 9:54 PM, bbatsell wrote:

>
> 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.
>

Our policies should not be goals - they should be policies. If we  
cannot meaningfully implement the policy across all of our pages then  
it's a bad policy. This isn't actually a problem for most of our  
policies. [[WP:NPOV]] is actually basically understandable by any  
reasonably intelligent person, can be kept in mind, doesn't really  
require extra work. As a result, most of our pages do make a passing  
effort on NPOV. That is not true for sourcing.
> 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.
>

There's a difference between having sourcing policies and making it a  
goal that we have sources and references. A good encyclopedia article  
should point towards further reading, yes. That's not what  
[[WP:CITE]] or [[WP:RS]] say, though. This should be something akin  
to adding images to an article - something we like to do, but not  
something that we freak out over.

> 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.

Pop onto AfD for a bit. Or to articles on popular culture. Or  
[[WP:FAC]]. Sourcing disputes are a more or less constant din - both  
with articles that are accurate being taken to task for not being  
well-sourced enough (This has become a pernicous flavor of  
deletionism in the past year or so) and with articles that are  
complete shit getting a pass because they have sources, even if the  
sources are bollocks.

-Phil