Any mass action is disruptive unless there are urgent reasons to do so. I would suggest finding a reliable source and updating the pages accordingly. No one would yell you for that and you would be more satisfied in what you are doing. It is always tempting to kill the patient to cure them but remember we want to avoid the patients death. - White Cat On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 11:49 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

bobolozo schreef: We're better off with having sources, even if there reliability is questionable. 1) Unsourced statements are indistinguishable from OR. 2) Sources are information themselves; our mission is to give as much information on a subject as possible. 3) An unsourced statement says that something is true. A sourced statement says that something is true, according to so-and-so. The latter is obviously and verifiably correct, unlike the first. 4) It enables a reader to make his own evaluation of the reliabilty of the information. 5) It makes it easier to correct invalid information. If someone spots an error in a tripod-sourced fact, he can communicate that to the original source, as long as there is a reference to it. In that way, the correction can be evaluated by the tripod-site owner, who is probably more of an expert on the subject than a random wikipedia editor, and the source material can be corrected as well. 6) If I come across a fact in Wikipedia that I think is incorrect, I'll google around to see what the truth is. Often, I'll arrive at another tripod-like site, and now I want to compare the reliability of that site woth the original source of the statement in Wikipedia. If no source is give, I will assume that Wikipedia is most likely correct (because our quality lies way above the internet average!) and I'll not correct it... However, if the source is given, I can compare both sites to see which answer is more likely to be correct, and to determine what the WP article should say (perhaps even include both statements, explaining that the truth is not known in this case). 7) It's a courtesy, in some cases perhaps even an obligation, to someone with a website whose information we use. By all means insert a template expressing doubts about the reliability of a reference, and inviting people to replace it with another reference. And please make that template hideable in my personal CSS. Eugene

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 5:23 PM, bobolozo <bobolozo(a)yahoo.com> wrote: You are confusing irrelevant, spammy sources with relevant, unreliable ones. -- Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers

On 25/03/2008, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote: One point that bobolozo is missing, in his enthusiasm to get mass-deleting, is that [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] is itself ... not a reliable source. It's a guideline, and one with truck-sized holes in it. Applying it robotically is a recipe for bureaucratic stupidity. Thinking it can be applied bureaucratically suggests a lack of the level of judgement one should have before performing such a drastic mass action. Precis: if you think WP:RS justifies such a course of action ... you shouldn't even be considering the action in question, and need to go back and think more first. - d.

On 23/03/2008, bobolozo <bobolozo(a)yahoo.com> wrote: No, of course you're allowed to remove that. This is a strawman - there is a very major distinction between maliciously-added spam links and good-faith but-not-very-good actual sources. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 25/03/2008, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote: This case is also not what the original question was about. - d.

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 7:11 AM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote: Of course; however, you should always check the history and see what that reference was initially introduced as supporting. Quite often careless editors will by insertion, deletion or moving of content dissassociate the reference from the content it originally supported. It's quite possible that the reference IS needed - just not for the info it's now next to. I wasn't intending to place my *full* personal rules for referencing above, but one of them is that if the reference no longer is required it can be removed. It could have been wholly replaced with a better reference; the content it supported could have been removed; or it could indeed have always been useless. -Matt

bobolozo wrote: These I do generally remove. A more realistic example: some spammer operating a travel site goes through and adds their unreliable ad-filled travel-to-some-island.biz site as a "source" for the article on some-island. I usually remove these as spam, as the "source" is worse than not having any, and is in any case spam. Occasionally if it seems like it actually was the source of the information, I'll leave it commented out as a note to future editors. -Mark

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote: Though, I would say it would be best to tag it {{fact}} or {{real citation needed}} or whatever it is, and remove it if none can be found, if it is in the least bit questionable or dubious. Self-published sources are not reliable. I do agree, though, that the questionable information should be removed along with the reference. Better to have it clearly marked "We got this from a crappy source" then to just have it there with no provenance at all. If the information is poorly sourced, it should be taken out until and unless a real one can be found, not just the source removed. -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.