It sounds like your sensitivity on this is a little over the top.
1) I don't see the point of playing semantic games between facts and
articles. Any article bigger than a sub-stub is going to be composed of
a series of facts or alleged facts. So whatever ...
2) You're the one that suggested the 24 hour period before
deleting. Even AfD allows 5 days; you're proposing to make this an even
bigger fuck-up. If these articles absolutely have to be deleted instead
of being fixed, a month would be a more reasonable period. For those
who don't spend a lot of time on their editing a 24-hour period is a joke.
Ec
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I find it hard to believe that you read anything that I
actually said.
You've completely misrepresented my points in two substantial ways.
1) You talk about "non-referenced facts", while I am talking about
non-referenced articles. Not just facts that don't have sources,
entire articles without a single reference to anything outside the
encyclopedia. 2) You talk about how it's impossible for us to fix
"every unreferenced article" within 24 hours. But I am not talking
about *old* unreferenced articles, I'm talking about *new ones*.
Fixing all the unreferenced articles we currently have will be hard,
and it will take a long time. But we'll never get finished if we keep
creating new ones.
This isn't a quick fix. It's the first step in a long process.
Anthony
On 12/15/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
>Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
>
>>On 12/15/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The crux of the problem is in what the endgame should be for an
>>>unreferenced article. Is it deletion or improvement? I would easily
>>>support improvement. If an article is unreferenced that does not imply
>>>that it is wrong; we just don't know if it's right.
>>>
>>>
>>There's no question over the endgame. The question is over what to do
>>in the meantime. If we don't know whether or not something is right,
>>it shouldn't be in an article. Doesn't mean it can't be in user
>>space, or on a talk page, or in the edit history, or in the deleted
>>articles history. That's my interpretation of
>>[[Wikipedia:Verifiability]], anyway.
>>
>>
>We can begin with some kind of "unreferenced" tag, maybe even a flashing
>red "CAUTION" sign. :-)
>Beyond that, we need to remember that most of our non-referenced facts
>aren't controversial at all. Look at how long it has taken to put
>category tags on all articles. That's a much simpler task than
>referencing. Of your four suggestions only putting material on the
>article's talk page will even give a sporting chance for review. If you
>outright delete an unreferenced article there will not even be a link to
>Xxxx's talk page so that the material can be reviewed and documented.
>Have fun finding it!
>
>Assuming good faith needs to be extended to the articles themselves. It
>recognizes that a contributor who was himself deceived by the
>information was probably acting in good faith. Fact checking an article
>is a tedious process that needs to apply to every statement in an
>article. It may be easy enogu to have a bot tag every unreferenced
>article with a notice that if it is not referenced in 24 hours it will
>be deleted. If ALL of us were to devote ourselves to that task for that
>24 hours without sleeping there would still not be enough of us for the
>job. So when your second bot comes along and clears out the still
>referenced articles what would we have left? We need common sense, not
>impatience.
>
>
>>>Actions based on a deletion endgame consistently attract bitter disputes
>>>and needless stress. In planning new strategies this should be
>>>considered from the beginning. in the hope of avoiding the stress.
>>>Without that this will be no different from AfD.
>>>
>>>Ec
>>>
>>>
>>The endgame in either case is a well referenced article. The question
>>is how do we get there.
>>
>>
>Of course, but we can't depend on any kind of quick fix.
>
>Ec
>
>