I think it's most useful to detect original research and speculation. For example, in [[Colonization of Mars]], I noticed two recent additions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonization_of_Mars&diff=6694... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonization_of_Mars&diff=6695...) that weren't common knowledge and I was wondering where the heck they found this information.
I added the dreaded {{fact}} template: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonization_of_Mars&diff=6703...
Another editor found the sources and put it in. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonization_of_Mars&diff=6707...
I don't see how this would be the actions of a CITE Nazi, and indeed, it prevented me from simply reverting the two additions.
On 8/14/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Im not exactly the most citatious Wikipedian, but nor do I have any tendency to make claims which arent easily verifiable. Over the years though Ive encountered a number of Wikipedians (I wont name names) who abuse or violate a clean interpretation of CIVIL by referring to CITE or V as a basis for what is essentially ownership of an article; in the form of a revert, rather than a constructive edit, correction, or (gasp!) a collaborative and helpful attempt to find a source.
Im not sure on the stats, but it is my impression that this demand for verifiability is 1) deletionistic 2) one sided, and not applied to one's own person and 3) comes with some attached notion of "reliable sources" by which material from any deemed "unreliable" sources can be deleted.
Thats the topic. Discuss.
Wikilove, -Stevertigo
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l