[WikiEN-l] Invitation for review

[Risker]

2009/9/24 stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com>

> Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Using a _reliable source_ means that we depend on the source to be
> reliable;
> > the qualitative analysis is on whether or not the source can be reliable.
> > Using a _source reliably_ means that it doesn't matter the quality of the
> > source, as long as we use it in a consistent ("reliable") manner; the
> > qualitative analysis has nothing to do with the source itself, but in the
> > way that it is used on Wikipedia.
>
> The issue here is not reliable sources, or your inaccurate
> characterization of my point that we use "reliable" sources
> "reliably": (i.e. Even the Bible can be misrepresented, misquoted,
> inaccurately cited).
>
> The source I cited was already in the article in first position, use
> specifically for the purpose of defining the context. The source gives
> a "reliable" overview of the variance in the context term, and states
> this variance to be subjective. We don't allow subjective concepts to
> stand as encyclopedic contexts, without appropriate definition. Hence
> my opposition simply wants to omit using that same "reliable" source
> in a "reliable" way.
>

I wasn't commenting in any way on the sources you were using in any article.
I was responding directly to this sentence in your statement: "I would
prefer
instead that we 'use sources reliably.' "

I am questioning how that is at all a reasonable position.


>
> A more recent argument suggested changing the current "reliable"
> source to something more in agreement with the preexisting context
> (subjectively "reliable"), and designating the current (objectively)
> "reliable" source less "reliable" simply because it doesn't fit the
> context.
>
> > I sincerely hope that you aren't suggesting that the quality
> ("reliability")
> > of a source is unimportant compared to the consistency of the source's
> use
> > in Wikipedia.
>
> I dislike your mischaracterizing insinuation that I don't consider the
> issue of "reliability" objectively. It reads as disingenuous.
>

Stevertigo, you suggest there is a problem with the theory that sources
should be reliable and instead suggest that we use sources reliably.  The
word "objectively" didn't come into play in either the post I was replying
to, or in my response.

I have interpreted what you wrote in the comment I replied to as "Let's
change the way we use sources in xxx way". You haven't given me any reason
to rethink my interpretation, nor have you contradicted what I said except
to suggest I am being disingenous.