Jimmy Wales wrote:
J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
In contrast, how should we handle indiscriminate
deletions of unsourced (but
possibly verifiable) material?
Of course, any deletion of unsourced material is likely to bring forth
cries that it is "indiscriminate" by partisans who are too lazy or
dishonest to go find a source.
For this reason, in practice, it is generally to be applauded. :)
I find this to be
a disappointingly provocative attitude.
While repeatedly hearing from journalists and others who interview you
that Wikipedia is not reliable is bound to eventually have you believing
them, I cannot believe that the situation is anywhere near so bad.
There is no need to leave the impression that each such criticism
touches a raw nerve. perhaps the questioner has just not been thorough
in doing his homework.
Sure "lazy or dishonest" partisans will make the kinds of complaints
that you mention, but the reverse is not true. One cannot conclude that
the people who make such complaints are necessarily partisan, lazy or
dishonest. There are many who demand sources, and are just as lazy as
those they accuse of laziness.
Ultimately, the person who offers information as fact is responsible for
sourcing his information, but this does not imply any immediate need in
the absence of a meaningful challenge to that fact.
None among us who has lasted a significant amount of time around the
Wikimedia projects supports totally unsourced facts, but I also think
that we all realize that sourcing involves considerably more than
putting up an indiscriminate series of tags. It is a multifaceted
process where we cannot and must not rest comfortably just because new
information is accompanied by a tag that perfectly follows the
guidelines for good tag formatting. Certainly, there remain many
articles that are completely unsourced, and I commend those Wikipedians
who quietly make the effort to find sources for those articles without
raising a storm of criticism about the failures of the original editors,
who may themselves have contributed a couple of years ago. Where an
article is deficient collaboration is best accomplished by making the
article better, not by whining about the failures of others.
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.
Ec