Wikipedia talk:Read the source

Issues

 * This one-sided opinion piece, that is a very small minority viewpoint (4 editors)  presented as an essay of advise, advocates that all sources must be read "before" they can be questioned. This is not a bad directive prima facie but the essay, as written, makes it seem that this is some fundamental necessity that should be included with a WP:BEFORE on any source included in an article and the intended scope is too large. If notability is questioned because a source is used that is black-listed, an editor does not have to read the source in some attempt to determine if this, generally accepted as being unreliable source, "might" yet have some reliability in one instance and particular use on an article. The reason we have a reliable source noticeboard, a black list, and various other sourcing criteria is to insure reliability. If that is questioned (a source with a bad reputation) then reading a source is not required nor should really be advocated.  "If" there are sources such as "published university press books and journal articles" then use those sources and not advance that an unreliable source might yet have redeeming qualities. A better source should be found. It is "not" a requirement that an editor commenting at AFD question the motive of an editor-in-good-standing if they point out a source has been verified as being unreliable, and the editors knows there is consensus for this, it is a waste of time to try to read through a source to determine "if" now, in this particular instance, there is a redeeming quality to allow the use of the source to try to create or bolster notability.
 * Since some of the "advise" has logic it should include the "other side of the coin" or "the rest of the story" for neutrality.  --  Otr500 (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)