On 29/03/2008, bobolozo bobolozo@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.