User:Paragon Deku/RSP is not the Gospel

"Then Wikipedia said, 'Let there be RSP!'; and there was RSP. And Wikipedia saw that the RSP was good; until editors started ignoring context beyond RSP discussion. Wikipedia called it a wash" -Gospel of Reliability 1:3-5

WP:RSP is a useful tool in the right contexts, and can make it easy to separate the chaff from the wheat when trying to figure out how much stock to put in a source that is used consistently throughout wikipedia. However, RSP is not a perfect system, and it is not an infallible gospel on what sources can or cannot be used. Sometimes a source that has been found through consensus to be generally unreliable is reporting on something trivial or self-evidently factual. Other times, a source that is generally reliable makes a mistake in reporting, or biases in political standing or funding lead to the introduction of fallacious spin to a story or statistic.

Many generally reliable sources that could be trusted in almost all cases have reported false information around historical events in the heat of the moment, such as during the Vietnam War and Iraq War, and some discussions may even reflect a bias towards Western sources, despite having clearly propaganda oriented goals such as in the case of Radio Free Asia (which at the time of this essay being written is considered generally reliable despite questions on accuracy and biases). In such potentially controversial cases, case-by-case analysis of a source is still to be considered important, and should not be wholesale replaced simply because of a general consensus on a source.

Applications on RS discussions

A tendency to take the discussions and consensus of RSP as gospel has as of recently leaked into RS discussions in general. Several times editors who were questioned on the specific reliability of an article have started discussions about the general reliability of the source they drew the article from. Not only is this ultimately loaded in favor of the person starting the discussion (as often the source in question is generally reliable), it doesn't answer the original question of reliability raised by the other editor in any capacity. Such a discussion only serves to overwhelm the questioner, as a slew of uninvolved editors are robbed of the context of the original discussion.

Among some editors, there is also a tendency in the opposite direction: rather than reaffirm the general reliability of a source, perennial or not, when questions are raised on specific reliability, the general unreliability of a source is used as a cudgel to prevent case-by-case analysis of the reliability of specific articles. This behavior is akin to bible-thumping preachers, reaffirming the gospel of the RSP as the end all be all for inclusion of a source. However, this can lead to potentially significant information not reported in reliable sources being neglected, even when such information is self-evident. Not only does this stifle discussion in situations in which a source declared generally unreliable could be reliable, it can also potentially reinforc biases present in articles. This can often arise in a conflict between two ideologically or geopolitically interested parties, in which reliability granted to Western media sources could cause a bias to manifest due to the opinions of other media sources being stifled or deemed unreliable.

Conclusion

RSP is useful in many contexts, but it should not be used as the end all be all for discussions regarding reliable sources. When questions are raised about reliability or due weight in specific contexts, make sure that if an RSP consensus exists, it is not the only reason for your opinion on the inclusion of a source in a reliability discussion.