Hoi,
We should before we want to even consider policies whereby sources are
required consider what it would do to other projects. Many of the other
projects do not have the maturity to follow the lead of the English
Wikipedia they do not have sufficient content and burdening the content
creation with this zeal would put a damper on the creation of new
content. The idea that the English language sources are universally good
is problematic as well.
We should also consider how much work it is to source all the unsourced
articles. I assume that the amount of time involved is such that it is
not even feasible to source all English articles that do not have
sources in half a year. When an article has one source, it does not
follow that the article is sufficiently sourced. Uncompletely sourced
articles are as bad or worse than articles that have not been sourced at
all.
I am afraid I could not disagree with you more.
Thanks,
GerardM
James Hare wrote:
Well, if we make it a new criterion, we shouldn't
apply it retroactively. I
understand there was a time when sources didn't mean as much.
As for the unsourced articles that currently exist, we could do some very
long PROD deal with it -- articles tagged as having zero sources have three
months to get at least ONE SOURCE for any part of the article before it
qualifies for speedy. That's a generous amount of time.
On 9/30/06, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/30/06, James Hare <messedrocker(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Let's mkae a new speedy criterion: if there's no sources, nuke it. With
>> fire.
>>
>> On 9/30/06, daniwo59(a)aol.com <daniwo59(a)aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have just deleted an article, [[Porchesia]]. Any admins are welcome
>>>
> to
>
>>> read the history. It was created in November.
>>>
>>> Problem is, there is no such place.
>>>
>>> Hmmm.
>>>
>>> Danny