[WikiEN-l] Another sourcing problem

[Charles Matthews]

Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Carcharoth wrote:
>   
>> But really, if something is obscure enough that it doesn't get
>> published in reliable sources, you are stuck. What I would support in
>> such cases is an external link to a page documenting this. Kind of
>> like further reading.
>>     
>
> The *character* is in a reliable source, it's just that the fact that it was
> based off a fandom joke or that the character's "creator" thought it was
> preexisting are not in reliable sources.
>
>   
Why is this any different from any other kind of "arcana"? And do people 
really lose sleep over this sort of thing? There must be a huge amount 
of insider-like knowledge associated with politics, sport, business, 
whatever. If we wait until this becomes "information" - is documented in 
at least some literature about the area - that should be fine. Most 
specialist areas have at least a magazine. I don't think simply 
multiplying instances where at the margin the content policy works as it 
is intended to by itself undermines its purpose.

Charles