On 11/28/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"MacGyverMagic/Mgm" wrote
I see no reason why we should be flexible about sources.
I do. Inviting inflexibility on sources is to ignore 'good taste'.
If it hasn't got sources it can be deleted, regardless whether this is a policy or a guideline.
But it need not be deleted. Especially if it is a good article, otherwise. If people hold back a needed article because they are afraid of deletion, we lose, not gain.
It may be kept if someone bothers to find the sources the author should have included, but that might not happen.
Certainly won't, if it's already gone.
The only way to make people use sources is hammering it in, because no matter how many times it is said, people will ignore it. Perhaps
deletion
will get some backsides into gear.
Stick, carrot, what's the difference? Mainly stick is an easier, more clear-cut policy. Which will drive away people who feel they have to master 'reliable sources policy' (bad joke) before posting anything.
Look at it this way: good Wikipedians are those that post material that survives into later versions of pages. Aggressive deletion of unsourced material cuts down the pool of 'good Wikipedians'. It has always been a bad idea to imply, for example, that you need an academic library handy, to work on scholarly topics.
Charles
I'm not questioning the type of source. I'm trying to get people to source articles to start with. Whether it's an academic library or a website. Of course, we should make an attempt to source articles that don't have any as I discussed in the unsourced speedy centralized discussion, but we should do something to actively discourage a bad practice. If forcing people to write down what they read to get the information drives people away there's something wrong with their attitude.
Mgm