--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote:
How does that reduce the scope of the policy? That's
now 3
sources, 2 policies (V & NPOV) and a guideline, that
state
produce reliable sources or expect the material to be deleted. That's reinforcement, not reduction.
The question is how long should articles without
reliable
sources be allowed to remain. Should they be allowed to linger indefinitely?
In practice, yes, if:
- The information looks likely to be correct; and
Problem is that's subjective. How does one determine what is or is not likely?
- Even if it isn't, it doesn't matter all that much (not
potentially libelous, etc.); and
So, now we have the same subjectivity as 1) along with a test: If it causes legal problems, delete.
- It looks likely that a source can be procured in the
future.
Back to subjectivity. How does one determine whether a source is likely?
Sometimes an article that's lingered for months with an unreferenced banner will be proposed for deletion, since that's taken as evidence against #3. But there are plenty of things that linger unreferenced, even though everyone knows they're basically correct---and you can even roughly verify them by doing some google searches---because nobody's taken the time to edit them into a properly referenced article. A bunch of stubs of locations and figures of classical antiquity fit this
So then it is no problem to put a warning that it will be deleted in x days if no sources are added. For the articles that have easily found sources, these can be readily found and added and the deletion warning will be removed and the article remains. Those that still fail to produce sources are deleted.
should be prominently tagged with the "unreferenced" banner, of course, so our readers know that they aren't considered good/reliable articles yet.
An indefinite banner stating the article is unreferenced, i.e., citations needed, like {{fact}}. If the banner also says, as you say, "this is not conisdered a good/reliable article yet", then sure. As it is, it requires the reader to decide whether or not the lack of sources is significant. Considering that signifiant, verifiable sources is policy, it seems that the banner needs to be more explicit, i.e., honest, in stating that the lack thereof makes this article highly unreliable.
At this point, there seem to be 2 reasonable alternatives: 1) Create a time limited deletion warning permitting deletion upon expiration without reliable sources. 2) Create an indefinite banner that clearly states that the article/section is in a highly unreliable state should not regarded as accurate.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.