On 8/23/06, Ruud Koot r.koot@students.uu.nl wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Thanks for raising this issue, it's something that had bothered me. I see a lot of these little changes (frequently population changes, number of career wins of some sportsperson etc...) and am torn between assuming good faith (and respecting the wiki model that people are making small improvements), and suspecting vandalism.
If you can't distinguish between a small correction or vandalism, this probably means the fact isn't sourced. Either add a source, or if you can't at least a {{citeneeded}} or related tag.
Sure, but extremely few dates anywhere are sourced. Consider a midlength article with no sources at all, and someone comes and changes one date. Sure, you can put {{citeneeded}}. But will it help?
We're not quite at the point of treating unsourced information as the exception as the rule :)
Indeed. I believe edit summaries should be made mandatory, that would really help to detect vandalism.
Um, what does "mandatory" mean. If you're talking about a technical solution, it's a waste of time.
Incidentally, I have managed to get my edit summary usage up to 100%. It was tough, but I've finally changed my habits.
Steve