Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Precisely. It has all the flavor of an urban legend. I found many many messageboard posts which claimed it as fact, but no one seems to have a source. Perhaps it is true, after all, but the initial evidence seems to suggest otherwise.
This opens up the question of whether we need "a source" or "an original source". If we don't accept original research, we shouldn't be demanding it. Tracking these possible urban legends to their ultimate beginnings should not be required. Naturally, some source would be necessary, the more reliable the better, and messageboards are questionable at best. If another reputable source questions the claim that too should be mentioned in the interests of NPOV.
"Flavor" is not evidence; it is nothing more than strong instinctual suspicion.
Hmm. We might be talking past each other.
For claim X, when it seems that X may be an urban legend, we ought not to assert X unless and until we find a proper source for it. And "proper" is an editorial judgment which will depend on the context, and about which reasonable people ought to be able to find some compromise or consensus.
For claim X, when it seems that X may be an urban legend, we ought not to assert that X is an urban legend, unless and until we find a proper source for it.
Generally speaking, anytime a claim seems reasonably suspect, we ought to try to remove it while we sort things out.
Yes, some trolls will use such a policy to try to remove things like "Thomas Jefferson was the 3rd President" until we get a source. But we should set our standards assuming rational people as our colleagues, and deal with the trolls as a separate behavioral issue.
--Jimbo