On 3/31/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/31/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I agree with the idea of gradually deleting unsourced material. But 7
days
is too soon, for a lot of articles there's not really a hurry. People
could
tag stuff they don't like without even making an effort to find
sources. And
there's no doubt some large articles that require detailed research
that
takes time - much longer than 7 days.
I'd like to see a safeguard that proves at least attempts were made to source it before deleting articles. Instead of deleting the unsourced articles, focus should be on organizing processes and projects to
source
material. Properly sourced articles are better than deleted ones.
Mgm
Generally, I agree that time should be given for good sourcing. But if the creator gives no source - and nothing at all can be found after 7 days - then I see no need to keep the article hanging about.
How are you going to determine if nothing can be found in 7 days? Perhaps no one knew the article existed after the creator posted it and left. We need a fail safe that ensures an effort is being made.
What you say is right in principle - but in practice it has resulted in
a lot of crap hanging about.
Note, I'm not suggesting we delete things where the sourcing needs improving - I'm suggesting we delete things where no sources whatsoever are being supplied.
I know what you suggested, but what I meant is that we need to make a difference between no sources have been found and no one has tried yet because they haven't noticed the article.
We can always have a policy of any admin undeleting if someone comes
along with a source later.
People are unlikely to come up with a source if they don't know it was deleted in the first place.
I think stable versions would help a lot. Simply don't approve an edit when no sources are provided, but I'd also like to see a program that lists articles that have been created recently and are still in need of sources. A sort of extended NP watcher. If we extend your 7 days to 1 or 2 months, the program can assign people the task of fixing articles as they come in and give their interests (perhaps have SuggestionBot weigh in). Such a bot could also do tagging if assigning an article to a certain number of people haven't prompted action for over 2 months.
That way you ensure "Crap" doesn't keep laying around after it outstayed its welcome and you simultaneously make every effort to get things sourced and ready.
I also believe that a difference should be handled between existing articles and new ones. It's worth saving old articles because people may have looked them up before and are expecting to find them again. We can be a bit more lenient with those as a lot of them have been around for ages with barely any trouble. New articles however have a clear message near the edit box that says they need to be verifiable.
We also have bots that send people messages about mistagging images or not giving their source. We should have a similar bot that warns people their new articles need sources.
Mgm
In other words, I'd say take the technical approach to this and let some
program collect stats about how well it works.
Mgm