On 12/5/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2006, at 3:49 PM, wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org wrote:
From: Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Puppy wrote:
Excellent solution, may I borrow your prod content for my own use?
Yes, but the case I'm worried about is one where the targeted article is not libelous or about living people, still would have content if the questionable material is removed, and actually does have sources, but which are not referenced in the recommended one-footnote-per-sentence way. The policy is letting people use the rules to disrupt by picking any of that 80% of articles and saying "you'd better source this, now, or I put your article up for deletion."
Nothing about the verifiability policy requires _inline_ sources.
And please stop asserting 80% of our articles are unsourced, when my informal check suggests that the number is more like 20%.
Ah how great random page is for sampling articles... Here's my 10 article "study":
[[Susan Ruttan]] - external link to IMDB page [[Gudvangatunnel]] - no sources or external links [[First Serbian Uprising]] - one broken external link [[Amador County Arts Council]] - external link to council website [[Estrume'n'tal]] - external link to homepage and to band info at gollygeerecords.com [[Workplace wellness]] - no sources or external links [[Norman Brown (guitarist)]] - external link to official site [[Nun (letter)]] - no sources or external links [[Unfinished portrait of Franklin D. Roosevelt]] - no sources or external links [[Zenon: Girl of the 21st Century]] - ISBN link
40% no sources or external links, 30% one external link, 10% one broken external link, 10% one ISBN link, 10% two external links. Of the working external links, 3 were to primary sources, and 2 were to secondary sources.
Of course, 10 articles is hardly a scientific sample size.
Anthony