Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
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.
The Internet is available to hundreds of millions people. I think that
disqualifies anything on it from being insider information.
My experience on working on BLPs exactly contradicts that. You find
postings to BLPs often consist of "well-known" "facts" that have been
publicised using the Web, but are positive PR or attack material
designed to harass, and not reliably sourced at any point in their
life-cycle, though there will be "insiders" who know the truth of it all.
And the policy isn't working as it's intended
to. The reliable sources rule
isn't supposed to rule out arcana. We have rules that are actually about
arcana to handle that. (Though I'm not sure exactly what the reliable sources
rule is for. It's not, of course, about truth.)
Correct, in the sense that the assertion "this is true because I know it
to be" appeals to authority. That the policy is not working out as
intended is what is required to prove here.
And even this excuse doesn't work for the Bradley
example. Having only one
side of a dispute because one side of the dispute is a published author and
can more easily get her side published in a reliable source certainly isn't
"arcana".
You are shifting ground there, of course. It is true that in a sense we
have subordinated NPOV to RS, by saying we are not going to allow vague
assertions that there is more than one side to a story, only things we
can verify.
Charles