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

[Phil Sandifer]

On Jan 25, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Steve Block wrote:

>
> 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.

No. That's a crappy stick, because quite frankly, West Coast Avengers  
#18-24 is a reliable source, and should remain a reliable source.  
(Because otherwise we get into a whole host of other problems.  
Primary source research like this is important.) The thing to tell  
someone who wants an article on Moon Knight's throwing arrows is "No,  
and stop being stupid." But we're doing a bad job of that, and so  
we've contorted our sourcing policies to try to cover this, which is  
a problem, because they do a very bad job of it.

> 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.

POV pushers are often insidiously good at sources - have a look at  
[[2004 U.S. Presidential election controversy]] for why sourcing  
doesn't really fix the problem (and if anything makes it worse  
because POV pushers can resort to "But it's sourced!")
>
> Actually, that's a flawed argument.  We don't know if they haven't
> prevented more examples like Siegenthaler.
>

Nonsense. Siegenthaler would have been fixed without recourse to  
sourcing had anybody looked at it. To try to solve a problem with a  
solution irrelevant to the problem is silly.
>

> 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.
>
You seem to be operating under the curious idea that [[WP:RS]] is the  
source of common sense and judgment in the world, and should it ever  
vanish everybody editing Wikipedia will become a dithering idiot. If  
someone puts a claim that reading comics makes you gay into  
[[comics]] we do not need any policy beyond "editors should exercise  
good judgment" to go "Ummm, that's an interesting claim you've got  
there, mate. I'm not so sure I believe it - you mind explaining where  
you're coming from?" And when the editor points to their website, we  
do not need a policy to say that they're being an idiot and that's  
not going in the encyclopedia. Policy is not the source of our  
ability to remove crap. Policy is an instruction manual for well- 
meaning editors who don't really understand what we're doing. But  
[[WP:RS]] and [[WP:CITE]] don't work as that - they're dense,  
painfully confused texts that try to oversimplify sourcing and  
research, which are both very complex topics. And they enshrine  
rigidity where flexibility, discussion, common sense, and consensus  
are necessary.
>

> 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.
>
One of the most common misconceptions and false attacks on Wikipedia  
has always been equating the consensus model with mob rule.
>

> 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.
>

The solution is, in part, to get away from a system of rules and  
towards a system of principles. [[WP:V]] is a good page. [[WP:NOR]]  
is a good page. That's because they enshrine principles and goals.  
[[WP:RS]] and [[WP:CITE]] enshrine a hopeless bureaucracy that we can  
never hope to actually get working. If you want a model where people  
look at the goal instead of the method, you need policies that are  
principles and goals, not processes. [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:CITE]] are  
the ugly processes we wrote to try to support [[WP:V]] and  
[[WP:NOR]]. Cut out the process, leave the goal.

-Phil