2009/9/24 stevertigo <stv...@gmail.com> > Risker <risker...@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. >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. Risker _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l