[WikiEN-l] Invitation for review

[stevertigo]

Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Do I understand correctly, that yours is question based in a less than
one-dimensional reading of my statement, with particular emphasis on
the word "rather," such that my point is inferred to mean rejecting
'objectively reliable sources' with only the "reliable usage of
unreliable sources?" Or am I misreading what you are saying, that you
are misreading what I wrote, by taking it out of context?

The context, just to save you the trouble, is that the opposition
argument promotes "reliable" sources of only their choosing in accord
with a subjective (unreliable) scope. I promote the usage of the
extant (reliable) source, only in a more "reliable" way. Does that
satisfy your topical curiosity.

> 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.

Ha. That's not what I am suggesting at all. In fact if there were some
objective way to determine reliability of sources, why don't we do so
centrally?

> 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.

Fair enough. But I hope from my above answer that you understand that
I did not mean what you state your interpretation to be. If you can
agree to keep the contexts of arguments in mind, I will agree to try
and make my points more clear for you.

> From what you are saying now, it seems more that you want to change the way
> that sources are used in a *specific* article. We have three million
> articles now. If you are going to propose a change in how sources are used,
> please consider whether it is something that would make sense as a standard
> throughout the encyclopedia.

Again with the unnecessary mischaracterizations. I am suggesting no
such thing. In fact that is one of my opposition's arguments - that we
change up the source to fit a special case context.

-Stevertigo