I think the {{fact}} tag should be split into two tags - one for quotes,
figures and potentially controversial material; and one for information
which, although relatively uncontroversial, could do with a reference.
The former would be used to "challenge" material, and if no source is found
within a reasonable period of time (for example, a week), the information
would be removed. The latter would not be used to "challenge" material, but
suggest that a reference would be useful, particularly when polishing
potential GAs or FAs.
2007/8/11, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>om>:
On 8/11/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Number 1 is clearly the best option. By marking
the statement you show
that you disagree with it, and are thus warning the reader to be
careful. The absence of sources should absolutely '''not''' be
the
reason for deleting an article. Nor does it justify jumping to the
conclusion that it is original research.
If I add {{fact}} tag, it simply means that it is a statement without
a source. Yes, I will do that mostly in the cases where I saw some
disputable statement, but it doesn't have to mean that. Readers should
carefully read all articles and should be able to check all
statements. Sometimes statements are trivial, sometimes are
disputable, but sometimes statements seem to be trivial, but they are
not.
I just made a gradation between possible actions: (1) it is the best
to add a source; (2) if you don't have a time, please add a {{fact}}
to mark that the statement should be referenced; (3) if both (part of
article and another article as a whole) are very problematic, remove
the part from the first article and mark the other for deletion.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l