On 8/11/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
However, if
someone is working on some article, such person should
find sources instead of putting {{fact}} there.
That's preferable, but not always practical. If I'm working on
something else and find something debatable on some marginally related
other article I prefer to avoid getting off on a tangent that could take
up as much time as what I'm really working on. Better to put the
fact-tag and retain focus on what I'm really doing. In other cases I
don't personally have access to the proper sources. Where the material
is in most "standard" texts on the subject it should be enough to refer
people to those works in a more general way.
My point here was related to people who are working on that
"marginally related article", not on "active visitors" (like you are
in such cases and like I am the most of time).
Also, adding source (instead of {{fact}}) should be encouraged while
dealing with articles which are rarely edited because one such
{{fact}} may stay for a years.
This is
completely unacceptable and not only for encyclopedia.
Referring to own work is possible only as "see *" constructions. I
removed all of those "references".
That's a bit hasty.
I was thinking about my action (was it wrong or not? do I need to fix
something, to readd?), but... If I think that something is wrong on
Wikipedia, I will try to fix it. It is much better to change an
article on Wikipedia then not to change and talk how much it is wrong.
If I am wrong and I edited an article, it is easy to recover article
to previous edit. If I am right and I didn't edit an article, article
would stay wrong.
One of the usual answers to outsider's scream "This fact is not
correct on Wikipedia!" is "Go and fix it." And one of the usual
Wikipedian reaction (including my usual reaction) when something is
not correct on Wikipedia is not to go and not to fix it. So, I am
trying to fix at least my reaction :)