Here we go again (wikipedia)

[xise]

It's information from secondary sources considered reliable by the general Wikipedia community.

This sounds great until you realize that the people involved in determining what is reliable or not seem to make those decisions without actually examining the sources cited. It's not just you A1 -most of the commentary on the state of Law of One article is very shallow when it comes to discussing reliable sources because no one has actually looked into all or even most of the citations.

Past a few legitimate concerns with self-published sources, thus far the wikipedia decision making process reads like a bunch of incompetent laywers arguing about case law (sources) without having actually haven read any of the cases.

Now, if someone argued that the burden to show reliability is on the proponent of the source that would make sense, except that doesn't seem be Wikipedia policy nor is it anyone's argument. Instead, people on the wiki site seem to be affirmatively deciding that the articles sources are not reliable based on titles, which is a total joke and destroys the credibility of the process. The outcome really has no integrity whatsoever.

And now deletion discussions are occurring over a half a year old page instead of the merits of the current June 2014 page because it was speedily deleted after an improper pruning. This whole thing is a comedy of errors and I'm glad I followed this because if what is happening to the LOO page is par for the course, then Wikipedia itself is clearly not a reliable source of information.