Erik Moeller wrote:
On 3/31/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
I wonder if we could start this by simply saying "Any article that remains unsourced after being marked as such for 7 days is deleted". It sounds draconian, but we now do it for images, why not articles? No, it will not solve all out problems, but it would be a workable step towards saying that it may be better to have no article for the moment than a crap one.
"No sources" != "crap". I disagree with speedy deletion. However, making the text of the various "no references" tags a bit more stern and adding a warning sign might be a good idea. For example, instead of:
"This article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources."
It could say:
"(!) This article lacks citations. This is is an article written by volunteers, and you should not rely on it unless and until sources are provided for all key statements. Please improve this article by adding references and removing questionable statements."
For obvious crap, we have existing deletion procedures.
Utterly inadequate. We've got real quality problems and just stiffening tags without any teeth, isn't going to make any difference.
No unsourced != crap. But if it isn't crap, it should at least be able to be given a rudimentary source.