2007/8/21, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>et>:
Applauding aggressive and confrontational ultimata for
dealing with
sourcing problems does not make for a better community or a better
encyclopedia. Promoting a balanced and neutral approach would
accomplish a lot more, and would be more in keeping with the principles
that got this project where it is now.
Hear! Hear! I can remember once having had my edit reverted as
'unsourced', with the effect that my corrections were made wrong
again. After being angry, I added the references, with the effect that
the article had 10 citations to the same books in the places where I
edited, and none at all where I didn't. Apparently that made for a
good sourced article. Now they have been made to the end of the
paragraphs, and nobody minded that either. Apparently having an
unsourced article is okay, having sources without saying what they do
source is okay, but editing an article without giving sources is not
okay?
--
Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels