[WikiEN-l] Widespread disagreement with Wikipedia:Verifiability

[Ron Ritzman]

On 3/30/08, Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw at armory.com> wrote:
> On Sunday 30 March 2008 14:10, Ron Ritzman wrote:

>  > That's the drawback with referring to secondary sources exclusively.
>  > What do you do when those sources contradict something you definitely
>  > know to be true? Strictly following WP policy, the only thing you can
>  > do is not even mention whether or not a bridge is open.
>
>
> Which is why "strictly following policy" is stupid.
>
>  I've said it before, I've said it again: we need to make it clear to newcomers
>  that *policy is not prescriptive*.  It is not normative *AT ALL*.  It is
>  merely *descriptive*.

I would have to agree here. With the exception of a few "core
policies" without which Wikipedia wouldn't be "Wikipedia" (such as
NPOV and NOR) everything else is just a codification of "consensus",
which can change. That's why "ignore all rules" is important.

Is "verifiability" a "core policy"? I don't know. Arguments can be
made both ways. It's defiantly important as it allows "non experts" to
contribute. Anybody can add anything to any article as long as they
can cite a source. (which probably pisses off "experts" who see no
point in sourcing something they "know to be true") It also helps keep
original research out. But as I said before, the drawback is what
happens when the sources contradict something that numerous reasonable
people know to be true.