On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:13:45 +0000, <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
wrote:
It's the carpet we sweep the dust under. Which
makes the rest of the
place look a damn sight tidier. Remember, though, that it is the
wikilawyers who run this 'you haven't defined your terms' riff into
the ground, for their own sordid 'gain'. I'm happy enough that
articles which, after best efforts to add reliable sources, do not
have much to show, should be deleted at AfD.
Yes, that is reasonable enough, although the idea of allowing spammers
to get us to waste time working up their drivel before finally
deleting it is profoundly unattractive.
I think we should admit that the pool of 'reliable
sources' is
dynamic, and certain things that are premature creations at the moment
will in the future be much easier to source. This kind of argument
helps keep us straight on celebrity (Warholinan 900 seconds) versus
notability; and that WP cannot, be definition, itself be the pioneer
reliable source on anything.
Absolutely. For many subjects, the best sources of all are not
traditional treeware. It's the authority of the source that matters,
not the medium, in my view.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG