The Cunctator wrote:
On 2/28/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Agreed. This is policy wording driven through on the basis of controversial, edit-warred articles.
Here's some further thoughts:
I have only mild disagreements with the "policy in a nutshell":
{{Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.}}
However "The Policy" is a different matter.
a) The Policy says nothing about controversiality. b) The Policy says nothing about making challenges. c) The Policy says nothing about asking for a verifiable source.
Instead, the policy as stands says that unsourced entries can be immediately and officially deleted. The policy should reflect the "policy in a nutshell" that *all* editors have a responsibility to cite a source whether or not they were the one adding material. Removing valid information just because it wasn't sourced smacks of distrust of fellow editors and paranoia. I think that both neutrality and full sourcing are critical ultimate goals--that is, the Platonic Wikipedia is one which is perfectly comprehensive, perfectly written, and perfectly sourced. But the Wikipedia in actuality is only an imperfect approximation, but as long as the statistical effect of all edits is in the right direction, we can be happy (if not satisfied). We don't expect that *every edit* improves the encyclopedia, but we expect that most will. And our policies should reflect that approach.
A precise definition of "reliable and reputable" is also missing.
Ec