On 12/11/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I'd be fine with just adding {{unreferenced}} if {{unreferenced}} included a statement that the article will be deleted if no source is added within 24 hours. Is that an adequete compromise?
What purpose does deleting the article within 24 hours serve?
It serves multiple purposes. It helps eliminate false information from the encyclopedia. It saves new page patrollers and others time doing research from scratch. And probably most importantly, it provides an incentive to add references.
What purpose does deleting images with no source provide? It's pretty much all the same things.
Wikipedia is a project to eventually produce an encyclopedia; not to produce a perfect one by some deadline. The information should only be deleted if it is *unverifiable* (by reasonable means, anyway), not only because nobody has bothered to try to verify it yet. In the latter case it should be marked as unverified, and await either an expansion and verification or eventual decision that it cannot be verified and deletion. Removing information that could be verified by hasn't yet would be a net harm to the project's goal of producing a quality encyclopedia in the long run.
-Mark
I don't see why. The article is still there, it isn't actually deleted, it's just hidden from the view of non-admins. I'd prefer it if non-admins could see the text too, but a different argument.
In my opinion it is never acceptable to keep false information in the article namespace. There are places where eventualism is acceptable, but presenting false information as true information is not one of them.
Oh well, whatever. Two separate people seem honestly and irreparably opposed to the idea. I'll just drop it.
Anthony