In contrast, how should we handle indiscriminate deletions of unsourced (but
possibly verifiable) material?
2007/8/10, michael west <michawest(a)gmail.com>om>:
On the English Wikipedia the simple answer would be to delete the
unsourced
section and then move the "crazy" text to the talk page. If text was
really
crazy delete it and forget. If text might be true tag with a mention that
it
needs sources (inline or <!--hidden-->
Be brave, be bold, make Wikipedia Good :-)
mike
On 10/08/07, Yury Tarasievich <yury.tarasievich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This one of five pillars, how is it enforced, exactly?
Many a vocal "defender of faith" feels safe to put forward one's own
perception, oft mythologised, as a basis for contention of
"unconvenient" sources, no matter how fundamental.
I had this impression that sources are to be countered only by other
sources, not by somebody's own claims?
And if not countered, sources fall under the NPOV policy ― all major
academic POV are to be represented, with balanced language?
---
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l