[WikiEN-l] Widespread disagreement with Wikipedia:Verifiability

[David Gerard]

On 29/03/2008, bobolozo <bobolozo at yahoo.com> wrote:

>  However, after reading the various responses and WP:V
>  and thinking about it all, what I found surprising was
>  that the majority here were actually saying, "No no,
>  even if a source is totally unreliable, don't remove
>  it, any source is better than no source".  And even at
>  times "Personal websites may be ok if they're well
>  written and seem to be accurate", which is the sort of
>  understanding of "reliable sources" one generally has
>  to correct in new and unexperienced editors.


In uncontroversial fields, though, they are in fact enough. This is
the point you're missing.


>  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.


The thing is that they're often not "totally unreliable" for the
purpose. They may be low-quality sources, but they are in fact an
improvement on nothing.

WP:RS remains utterly unsuitable as a source of robotic directions.
Stop trying to use it as one.


- d.