[WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy

[jayjg]

On 5/30/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> On 30 May 2007 at 12:59:56 -0400, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > WR doesn't qualify for citation under [[WP:V]] or [[WP:RS]].
>
> That straw man has resurfaced so many times that I'm tempted to coin
> a new term, "[[Bobblehead doll]] argument", for one which keeps
> bouncing back up every time it's knocked down.

Maybe because you aren't really knocking it down; that's only part of the issue.

>
> As others have said, it's not as a source in an article that anybody
> has been or intends on using that site (except perhaps for a future
> article on the site itself, if it should become sufficiently notable,
> or maybe on [[Criticisms of Wikipedia]] -- the sole thing that it
> would ever be a source for would be about itself and the views
> espoused by its participants).  The places it might turn up include
> discussion and project pages, which are not subject to WP:V, WP:RS,
> or even WP:NPOV.

Yes, but no-one has explained what value they provide their either;
given that the content of the site couldn't be used in an article
anyway, there's no need to link to it on discussion and Talk: pages.
The purpose of those pages is to discuss article content; in case
people have forgotten, the purpose of Wikipedia is to create
encyclopedia articles.