bobolozo schreef:
The question is whether or not we're better off with unreliable sources or with no sources at all.
We're better off with having sources, even if there reliability is questionable.
1) Unsourced statements are indistinguishable from OR.
2) Sources are information themselves; our mission is to give as much information on a subject as possible.
3) An unsourced statement says that something is true. A sourced statement says that something is true, according to so-and-so. The latter is obviously and verifiably correct, unlike the first.
4) It enables a reader to make his own evaluation of the reliabilty of the information.
5) It makes it easier to correct invalid information. If someone spots an error in a tripod-sourced fact, he can communicate that to the original source, as long as there is a reference to it. In that way, the correction can be evaluated by the tripod-site owner, who is probably more of an expert on the subject than a random wikipedia editor, and the source material can be corrected as well.
6) If I come across a fact in Wikipedia that I think is incorrect, I'll google around to see what the truth is. Often, I'll arrive at another tripod-like site, and now I want to compare the reliability of that site woth the original source of the statement in Wikipedia. If no source is give, I will assume that Wikipedia is most likely correct (because our quality lies way above the internet average!) and I'll not correct it... However, if the source is given, I can compare both sites to see which answer is more likely to be correct, and to determine what the WP article should say (perhaps even include both statements, explaining that the truth is not known in this case).
7) It's a courtesy, in some cases perhaps even an obligation, to someone with a website whose information we use.
By all means insert a template expressing doubts about the reliability of a reference, and inviting people to replace it with another reference. And please make that template hideable in my personal CSS.
Eugene