On 2/27/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
That's an extreme interpretation of that rule. We should shy aware from removing information simply because it is unsourced. We should only remove it if it is unsourced *and* we find it suspect.
In short, you do not agree with the verifiability policy, http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V
You may see comments from me on the talk page there. I actually think people reworded it more strongly than they meant to. Verifiability was never, IMHO, intended to mean "delete everything that isn't sourced", or else 95% of the encyclopaedia would be wiped tonight. It should be a way of resolving disputes about accuracy, and improving the quality of our material.
If the verifiability policy currently says (I can't check it right now) that all unsourced material should be removed - end of story - then yes, I disagree with it.
That is very nearly exactly what it says:
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
(It doesn't say "should" yet.)
I added "3. If an editor adds something controversial, the obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."
I can't stand "reputable" either, but that's another discussion.
What I'm interested in is the behavior that the new policy permits and encourages--namely, aggressive deletion of other people's contributions, which can be backed up by The Official Policy.