Jimmy Wales wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
But even you, even now in this very instance
you're using as an example
of what you think should be done, _didn't_ ruthlessly remove the
unsourced information. If you really believe that we have to be
absolutely ruthless about removing all unsourced information why did you
deliberately leave the married-with-two-young-sons thing in?
I asked her personally and she said it was true, and at that moment I
assumed we can find a source quickly enough and and I know that bringing
the section in question to the attention of good editors will bring
about quick positive change.
I am not advocating some kind of weird radical knee jerk attempt to take
out every single thing in Wikipedia TODAY that does not have a source.
Sorry, I interpreted "we have to be absolutely ruthless about removing
"I think I heard it somewhere" pseudo-information from Wikipedia" to
mean something along those lines. I guess I'm a bit knee-jerk about
reacting to knee-jerk reactions.
Thanks for clarifying your position, it sounds much more reasonable this
way (ie, more like my own philosophy :)