On 3/1/06, slimvirgin(a)gmail.com
<slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Part of
the problem is with the permissive word "may", which is too
often read as though it were "shall".
We have to assume people can read English. Saying that an unsourced
edit MAY be removed is clearly not the same as saying it MUST be or
SHOULD be.
I also couldn't come up with a more ambiguous expression if I tried.
Two different meanings:
1) An unsourced edit could end up being removed - be warned
2) You have the permission to remove unsourced edits
How can we better word this?
At present it says:
"Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable
source, or it may be removed by any editor."
A better wording would be:
"New material added to an article that lacks a reputable source is
likely to be removed without warning. It is courteous for the editor who
removes this material to re-insert it on the talk page of the article,
along with a note about why it was removed."
--
Alphax -
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: