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

[Matt R]

--- Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Even for the best policies and guidelines, there'll always be some people who
try to abuse, wikilawyer, or generally twist them to their own ends. NPOV
disputes are more or less a constant din, too, but that's no reason to nuke
NPOV.  

In cryptography, there's this rhetoric about people who view crypto as "magic
pixie dust" that somehow makes a system secure if you just sprinkle some about.
The same holds for RS and CITE: they don't magically guarantee quality by
themselves, but they are great tools for doing so if not abused.

By all means, let's discuss where we need to improve things, but let's not
throw the proverbial baby out with the, well, you know.

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com


		
___________________________________________________________ 
What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship. 
http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk