bobolozo wrote
If this group of wikipedia editors, which are
probably
the most experienced editors around and which as you
pointed out contains sitting arbitrators, if this
group believes that totally unreliable sources should
be left in place, which is in fundamental opposition
to the letter and spirit of Wikipedia:Verifiability,
then we have a problem.
I doubt we have any disagreement on "totally unreliable sources". I doubt we
have disagreement on "totally reliable sources" - there aren't any, in
practical terms. So let's first be clear that this is all a grey area.
And let's be clear on WP:V. It merely states that factual claims should (in principle)
be verifiable from reliable sources. It means that a way to challenge WP content is to
assert that no reliable source exists for what is claimed. It is certainly to be applied
"per fact", not "per source".
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from
www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam