The multiple non-trivial sources thing is to shut out self-promotion and ad campaigns. Unfortunately a neccesary evil. The point I'm trying to make is that your unsourced info may be accurate and useful, but it would be indistiguishable from spam or a hoax if you don't cite it. You'd effectively be making others spend more time tracking down sources you presumably have readily available. Do you really want to give others 15 minutes of work when you can fix it yourself in less than 5?
Mgm
On 1/14/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 1/14/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
At some point, though, Wikipedia has to decide what it is, a reliable
source
of information on the Internet, or a place for its editors. At one of
the
top 10 sites, it should be leaning towards the former, with, eventually,
all
information reliable and sourced.
See, if I *had* to make a choice, I'd choose the latter. In fact, I'd shut off the search engines through robots.txt and send everyone to one of the mirrors before I'd lose focus on the goal of *creating* the best encyclopedia. Being a top 10 website is not the goal (in my opinion). At best it is a means to attract new contributors - at worst it is a distraction due to people saying exactly what you just said.
Do I think a choice *has* to be made? No, not really. I think it's quite possible to have a single site that does both; or alternatively, for the foundation to run both sites.
Right now there is a place for some unsourced information, namely in articles tagged that they're unsourced, or "let the reader beware."
A lot of the obvious solutions (all information has to be sourced)
detract
from what I see as the primary Wikipedia force that will eventually make
it
THE most useful site on the Internet: anyone can edit.
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l