[WikiEN-l] Widespread disagreement with Wikipedia:Verifiability

[Steve Summit]

bobolozo wrote:
> If this group of wikipedia editors, which are probably the most
> experienced editors around and which as you pointed out contains
> sitting arbitrators, if this group believes that totally unreliable
> sources should be left in place, which is in fundamental opposition to
> the letter and spirit of Wikipedia:Verifiability, then we have a problem.

I am not a full-time student of these matters, so I could be
wrong, but I suspect the "problem" here is that the letter of
Wikipedia:Verifiability has been written by a group of editors
with a much more rules-based and lawyerly mindset than the ones
on this list who are preaching for more a less stringent, more
fluid stance.  Which group more appropriately reflects the spirit
of what Wikipedia's verifiability policy truly ought to be,
I couldn't say.  (Well, I suppose I could, but for now I won't.)

Yes, when the _de jure_ policies diverge too far from the _de
facto_ actions of a population, it can certainly be a problem.