On 25/03/2008, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/03/2008, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
An extreme example of this, but... suppose some spammer goes through and adds references to 1000 articles in random unsourced paragraphs, with the source given being mortgage-refinance-online-low-prices.biz, totally off topic from any of the articles. We're now not allowed to remove this spam without gutting all of these articles or spending hundreds of hours digging up sources?
No, of course you're allowed to remove that. This is a strawman - there is a very major distinction between maliciously-added spam links and good-faith but-not-very-good actual sources.
I frequently run into references where the linked reference does not support the information added to the article. If I have time to try to find a better reference, I will; however, if not then I remove the non-supportive reference. Depending on the nature of the information being sourced incorrectly, my next steps will vary. If it is essentially non-contentious, it probably didn't need a reference in the first place, and I'll leave it alone. If it is BLP-related and is potentially contentious, the information has to go according to our own policies; removing it is not vandalism. If it still needs a reference but is not a BLP issue, I'll stick a {{fact}} tag on.
To me, having a reference that doesn't support the information written in the article is more harmful to the project than having an unreferenced statement, and I'll remove such references without hesitation.
Risker