The problem is that the bulk of our content has no explicit source.
It may be correct and unchallenged, but no source is listed.
Additionally, a slightly more sophisticated level of vandalism would
simply list a spurious source. Beyond that lies referencing a source
which is known to be in error.
Fred
On Nov 29, 2005, at 10:58 PM, Brian wrote:
In light of the recent USA Today article:
In the same way that we are currently enforcing proper image tags
using a bot, could we do the same with unsourced articles? Start
out by placing {{unsourced}} in all the articles lacking sources,
and then, if it is not sourced in a week, create something like the
{{copvio}} page-replacer to hide the unsourced content (the entire
article), explaining with a detailed message that the article must
be thoroughly sourced.
In my mind, at least, it doesn't seem like there should be any
difference between enforcing sources for images and sources for
articles. If anything we should be enforcing the latter more, since
articles form the basis of the encyclopedia. I know this won't
solve everything, but I think it should be a vital part of
Wikipedia; since we do not know who edits an article, we need to
know that it is based on information that we can verify ourselves.
brian0918
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l