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=669…
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonization_of_Mars&diff=669…)
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=670…
Another editor found the sources and put it in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonization_of_Mars&diff=670…
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(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l