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

[Steve Block]

Phil Sandifer wrote:
> 
> 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.

In all honesty if that happens I will probably walk.  As someone who 
edits in an arena of pop culture, comics, I don't think I could stand it 
if these crutches were taken away.  Comics have been published for over 
70 years and I would seriously have no other stick with which to beat 
the people who think Wikipedia can readily summarise the plot of every 
single character and adventure depicted.  Why does that matter?  People 
need to ponder how maintainable six billion articles on comics would be. 
  Think I made that article up?  People quite reasonably believe the 
batarang deserves an article.  Extend that to Moon Knight's throwing 
arrows, which I could quite happily add an article on the basis of West 
Coast Avengers #18-24 or thereabouts.  The best stick we've got at the 
moment to cut away at this is reliable sources.  Now I know that there's 
a split in what Wikipedia is, and I know there are a lot of grey areas. 
  I will defend any article I believe is well written regardless of 
source issues, and if there are such articles at afd please give me a 
call, but I will more readily defend the ideal Wikipedia was founded on. 
  We need to focus on the general reader and focus on getting those 
books into the hands of those African kids that Jimmy often mentions. 
What value are those books going to be if they contain facts sourced 
from my webpage?  And if you abandon reliable sources and citing, why on 
earth do you think we'll have quality articles?  How are you going to do 
it.  Sorry, but I'm battling POV pushers on too many fronts to even 
entertain this idea humourously.

> 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.

Actually, that's a flawed argument.  We don't know if they haven't 
prevented more examples like Siegenthaler.

> 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."

Ugh, no.  People doubt the validity of?  What on earth is validity? 
Well, it's stuff that people of note have said, or, well it's stuff that 
is of importance to the subject.  It's just more looseness, and it's too 
loose.  Wikipedia either has to have standards or throw of the pretence 
of being an encyclopedia and allow original research.  Hey, want your 
stuff in Wikipedia?  Chuck up a web page and then source it.  This 
applies to popular culture as much as it does any other field.  Want to 
posit the idea that reading comics makes you gay?  Chuck up a website 
and then cite it in Wikipedia.  Well no, don't even cite it, just put it 
in and stick to your guns, because hey, it has validity.

  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.

Okay, I realise here I'm going to get shot at, but it is my 
understanding that it is not enough for information to be accurate.  It 
has to be relevant and it needs to be .  Wikipedia is simply too big now 
to be built like it was in the old days.  America doesn't operate the 
way it did in the Wild West, Wikipedia can't operate the way it did back 
then.  Enforce mob rule and then watch as we lose the battle to the mob. 
  We're walking a tight line as it is, at the outer edges like 
Siegenthaler.  I'd hate to see the centre go.

> 
> 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.

Look, I agree that there are issues, but those issues aren't with the 
policies.  They are with the editors who can't seem to apply, what for 
better words I'll call common sense to the policies.  They can't seem to 
grasp that there is a need to compromise, a need to facilitate other 
opinions and a need to deal.  They can't grasp the concept of 
collaboration, they can't grasp the idea that life is not black and 
white.  They can't see the future is reached by groping about in the 
dark as much as it is reached by walking clear lit corridors.  Too many 
times an obvious decision is delayed due to one person in a far off 
field crying out "Process".  What we need is a way of enforcing the idea 
that it is the spirit of the rules that are observed, not the words. 
Too many people are invested in the fight, not the book in the hands of 
that African kid.

What we need is perhaps better management.  Kelly used to talk of an 
elected chamber which would debate issues.  I'm starting to see the 
value.  But that's a whole nother can of worms.


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.10/651 - Release Date: 24/01/07 18:48