On 3/30/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > On 3/30/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> Anthony wrote:
> >>> On 3/30/07, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> >>>> With that in mind, I do think we have the resources, and accomplishing
> >>>> it would be really simple. Just set a hard and fast rule that
> >>>> everything in an article must be sourced, and then make it clear that
> >>>> removal of unsourced statements is exempt from the three revert rule.
> >>>>
> >>> OK, apparently this is already the case, at least for biographies of
> >>> living people, according to wp:3rr.
> >>>
> >>> So I guess I'm wrong.
> >> And also in this particular instance the false information _was_ sourced. :)
> >>
> > Which instance, the one about Ellen Fanning?
> >
>
> The one about Mugabe's daughter.
>
Ah, I see. I was still replying on the original incident pointed out
by Jimbo. I guess I was behind on this discussion :).
Sourcing seems to be necessary but not sufficient. So it's not a
complete rule. And the other parts are much more tricky. If the
source is completely unreliable, then it's best to leave the fact out
completely. If the source is somewhat reliable, then you can state
the fact with attribution to the source. But where do you draw the
line between what should be left out, what should be attributed, and
what should be simply stated as fact?
NPOV and consensus are good principles to strive for in this regard,
but I'd argue that they're unachievable goals. In this respect I
think Larry Sanger has a great theory - let anyone contribute and try
to reach consensus, then let the experts settle the disputes which
inevitably arise.
Of course, I've already admitted that I'm dead wrong in my thinking on
this matter. So best to just ignore my thoughts here, I suppose.
Anthony