On 3/30/08, ffm <ffm(a)intserverror.com> wrote: You could always have someone stand in front if holding a newspaper with the current date on it while traffic flows behind it. However, that might be OR. Best to use it to convince the "reliable source" to issue a retraction. Then use the retraction as a reference in the WP article. That's the drawback with referring to secondary sources exclusively. What do you do when those sources contradict something you definitely know to be true? Strictly following WP policy, the only thing you can do is not even mention whether or not a bridge is open.

On 3/30/08, Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw(a)armory.com> wrote: I would have to agree here. With the exception of a few "core policies" without which Wikipedia wouldn't be "Wikipedia" (such as NPOV and NOR) everything else is just a codification of "consensus", which can change. That's why "ignore all rules" is important. Is "verifiability" a "core policy"? I don't know. Arguments can be made both ways. It's defiantly important as it allows "non experts" to contribute. Anybody can add anything to any article as long as they can cite a source. (which probably pisses off "experts" who see no point in sourcing something they "know to be true") It also helps keep original research out. But as I said before, the drawback is what happens when the sources contradict something that numerous reasonable people know to be true.

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Ron Ritzman <ritzman(a)gmail.com> wrote: Wow, pure comedic genius. I'd say this is a good case to IAR when it comes to POINT -- sometimes we really need to poke fun at rampant lawyering, even if it is disruptive. -- Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers