On 12/16/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
It sounds like your sensitivity on this is a little
over the top.
1) I don't see the point of playing semantic games between facts and
articles. Any article bigger than a sub-stub is going to be composed of
a series of facts or alleged facts. So whatever ...
The difference between removing all unreferenced facts and removing
all unreferenced articles is a huge one, and it is more than just
semantics. Yes, articles consist of facts, but not all unreferenced
facts are in an unreferenced article.
2) You're the one that suggested the 24 hour
period before
deleting. Even AfD allows 5 days; you're proposing to make this an even
bigger fuck-up. If these articles absolutely have to be deleted instead
of being fixed, a month would be a more reasonable period. For those
who don't spend a lot of time on their editing a 24-hour period is a joke.
Ec
That wasn't my point. Try reading what I said again. Take a few
breaths first. Read all the sentences. Don't just look at the number
24 and then start ranting.
This would only apply to brand new articles. And the time you have to
add a single reference is unlimited. The article would simply be
deleted (or moved somewhere) in the mean time. 24 hours is plenty of
time for one person to find one source for all but the most obscure of
topics. For those obscure topics the burden of proof should be on the
article creator, not on the rest of us.
Alternatively, look at it this way. If we are creating new articles
so quickly that we don't have time to find a single source for each
one, then we should slow down new article creation and beef up on
quality control.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>I find it hard to believe that you read anything that I actually said.
> You've completely misrepresented my points in two substantial ways.
>1) You talk about "non-referenced facts", while I am talking about
>non-referenced articles. Not just facts that don't have sources,
>entire articles without a single reference to anything outside the
>encyclopedia. 2) You talk about how it's impossible for us to fix
>"every unreferenced article" within 24 hours. But I am not talking
>about *old* unreferenced articles, I'm talking about *new ones*.
>Fixing all the unreferenced articles we currently have will be hard,
>and it will take a long time. But we'll never get finished if we keep
>creating new ones.
>
>This isn't a quick fix. It's the first step in a long process.
>
>Anthony