Steve Bennett wrote:
On 12/27/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
No, a source is only required for anything that is disputed. That's pretty fundamental, WP:V. Quite workable and highly desirable.
That's not quite what WP:V says (unfortunately):
- Articles should contain only material that has been published by
reliable sources. 2. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
Point 2 is pretty bad - it turns WP:V into a process, rather than a state. Were a particularly pedantic editor to show up, an article would basically have to cite a source for all "material".
Removal by any editor is paticularly harsh. There is no obligation that the deleting editor have any clue about what he's doing. We've been known to have a few like that.
Ec