Steven Walling wrote:
That was the original idea, I agree, but we've moved on from that. We long ago accepted that simply adding what you know doesn't work since there is no way for people to trust it. We now do require people source things, we just aren't very good at enforcing it (I believe it was Jimbo that said people shouldn't be tagging dubious statements with {{fact}}, they should just be removing them completely).
Exactly. The days of unsourced facts, much less articles, being okay to leave unchallenged is long over.
Challenge it, certainly. That's how to improve it. Delete it, not so much. Deleting an article generally _doesn't_ improve it.
I've been arguing for years that we could avoid this entire fundamental conflict if only we could finally get flagged revisions of some sort. Then the deletionists could be made happy by flagging uncited articles so that they don't show up on DVDs or what have you, and the inclusionsists could be made happy by not having half-finished articles deleted. _Massive_ sigh.