On 3/2/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)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