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

[Steve Block]

Phil Sandifer wrote:
> 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.

No and stop being stupid is sadly unworkable, because you get told not 
to be stupid back.  And I don't see why we can't have an article on Moon 
Knight's throwing arrows if you throw WP:CITE and WP:RS out.  I don't 
see why we can't have an article on anything then.  You need to come up 
with something better than telling people not to be stupid.

> 
>> 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!")

I'm well aware of what POV pushers do with sources, but imagine how much 
worse it would be if there was no rquirement to source.  But look, I can 
just add what I want and you can't stop me.  WP:3RR used to be enough to 
stop that, but it won't anymore.  Wikipedia has simply gotten too big.

> 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.

That's not my point but it's a side issue, I'll hope you will agree. 
Sourcing has nothing to do with Siegenthaler but Siegenthaler also has 
nothing to do with the argument that WP:CITE and WP:RS should go.

> 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.

No Phil, I'm just aware that a lot of people currently attempting to 
edit Wikipedia are, to borrow your phrase, dithering idiots.  I make no 
assertion that WP:RS is the source of common sense and judgement.  It is 
simply somethin that can be pointed to.  I'm already having issues over 
whether a fansite is a reliable source or not because RS doesn't mention 
fansites.  There is an indication of what the problem will be if we do 
away with this.  Look, I honestly don't care what the rules say, I'm 
hopeful I'm pragmatic to make the right call in different circumstances, 
but I see too many people who seem unable to work out how to best 
compromise.  Good articles get deleted, bad articles get kept, people 
get tied up in process when they should be editing, Wikipedia has become 
a game.

  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.

No Phil, it won't work.  I've been in, and still am in arguments where 
it is me against one other person, and every cry for help goes ignored. 
   There are too many rules now for this to work.  POV pushers can 
enlist advocates to run rings around uneducated people like me, push 
each and every button, accuse you of bad faith and god knows what, 
misrepresent you, troll you, stalk you and make you feel like crap, and 
all you've got at the end of the day is the idea that WP:CITE and WP:RS 
mean something.  We do need something that written down that let's us 
work out what works from what doesn't, because otherwise it's you 
against me, and the mob rules.  And trust me Phil, the mob is a lot 
bigger now.  I can't see this as working one jot.  I won't deny WP:CITE 
and WP:RS aren't broken, but I can't work out what the hell we're 
supposed to be doing here.  It seems like we just muddle through and 
hope to hit gold somewhere along the way.  Whatever floats your boat I 
guess.  Policy has become the source of how to remove stuff, because 
we're spread too thin.

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

Phil, if you get 50 people pushing on one side and five on the other, 
who calls the consensus.  Consensus may not equal mob rule, but mob rule 
can override consensus.  Look at every fractious issue we've had 
recently; the userboxes, the admin channel, they all occur because 
nobody is interested in discussing to reach a consensus, they have too 
much invested in their own opinion to budge one jot.  Consensus demands 
that all sides discuss with the aim of reaching a consensus, not with 
the aim of winning the day.  Mob rule can easily sweep aside consensus.

  > 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.


Look, I've written my fair share of crap process, and got my fingers 
burnt when I tried to take it back, but WP:RS and WP:CITE don't enshrine 
a bureaucracy.  That bureaucracy is everywhere.  Look at the hoops one 
has to jump through to do anything now.  You can't speedy delete 
anything anymore because it ends up at DRV, you can't speedy close a DRV 
anymore because it ends up at WP:ANI, you can't write an article anymore 
without it being prodded, hell you can't clean up an article without it 
going to afd.  Christ, you can't do anything without working out what 
all these acronyms are.  Wikipedia is a bureaucracy, and ironically, you 
can't make it one because of the bureaucracy involved in changing 
WP:NOT.  First you would have to discuss, it, then get a consensus, then 
make the change, then engage in a revert war, then have the page 
protected and god knows what.

WP:RS and WP:CITE are valuable.  Remove WP:RS and WP:V loses half its 
meaning.  What you are railing against is not two pages, but the 
cluelessness of many wikipedians.  Sadly, we can't say that on Wikipedia 
because we have civility policies.  The people who invest time gardening 
at the process pages or using them as deletion tools are the problem, 
not the people using them to create and improve articles.


-- 
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