On 3/2/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Steve's version is definitely an improvement. "It is polite" is still a little wimpy; "editors are strongly advised" might be better. I would
Agree, though I have a preference for imperatives: "Please move it to..."
also make a small addition to have the one phrase read "the possible harm that could be done by leaving or removing it." Another thing that
Hmm...I was trying to make a point about factual inaccuracies being harmful to people doing research, and indirectly to WP's reputation. If you want to add 'removing', perhaps it should be done in a way to emphasise that the two sorts of harm are completely different.
could be taken into account is the nature of the material to reflect that the standards applied to commentary on video games will be much lower than those applied to biographies of real people.
Yes - though some people will disagree with you. If it's not there already, the special case of living people needs to be highlighted. WP:LIVING definitely trumps WP:V on any tolerance of unsourced material.
What needs to be stressed is a balanced approach to editing. For some editors enthusiasm far outstroips judgement., and techniques that would moderate their behaviour would be welcome.
The recent survey of 100 articles leads me to think there is a greater problem with reticence to add more information, than the small number of editors who add too much information to articles on frivolous subjects. Well...that's a pretty big claim to make. But if 90% of our content is stagnant, 5% is overflowing with low quality additions and 5% is just right, then let's work more on de-stagnating the 90%?
Steve