On 2/27/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/27/06, Daniel P. B. Smith
> 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://
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.