On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 21:52:39 +0800, "John Lee" <johnleemk(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
As I anticipated, the only reason the article was
deleted was a lack of
sources. That's perfectly fine.
What's not perfectly fine is how lazy people are when it comes to looking
for sources. I often see quotations tagged with {{fact}} that have sources
readily available on Google
There is nothing that says anyone is compelled to go and look for
sources if the original author can't be bothered to do it themselves.
Tagging with {{fact}} or {{unreferenced}} is reasonable, the person
tagging may be completely unfamiliar with the subject and the authors
of the article will be in a much better position to provide not just
any old reference but a good, authoritative one.
Some editors - Uncle G springs to mind - specialise in rescuing crap
articles on good subjects. Some specialise in identifying the crap
articles. Some specialise in Wikignoming. There is room for all
sorts.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG