On 5/8/07, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
Worse, I often find {{fact}} applied to
statements that are plainly in
the listed sources.
Yeah, I've been finding a lot of this in my attempts to wade through
some of that category. Sometimes a {{fact}} tag will be applied to a
statement that not only appears in the sources, but even has an inline
footnote right near the location of the tag! It looks like a lot of
{{fact}}-tagging is being done in a drive-by fashion by people who
haven't read the article in question, so I've just been removing these.
I know! This is really one of the most irritating things for me - I hate a
surfeit of unnecessary footnotes, so I try to collate them as much as
possible in one footnote, but the result is people keep tagging cited
material with {{fact}}! We really need a way to mark which statements are
covered by which footnote.
A good proportion of the rest (probably 50% of my sample) are in
articles that are completely unreferenced, but
strangely have random
sentences (usually not even particularly contentious ones) *also* tagged
with {{fact}} in addition to an {{unreferenced}} at the top. This is
clutter really; such articles should use a single {{unreferenced}} at
the top and no {{fact}} tags, since using the latter makes it harder to
use these categories. Specific sentences that for some reason are even
more problematic than {{unreferenced}} generally implies for all
sentences should probably be either tagged {{dubious}} or removed
entirely, rather than tagged {{fact}}.
Alternatively, I think there's something like {{more sources}}, which can be
used instead of {{unreferenced}} for such articles.
-Mark
Johnleemk