Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Cheney Shill schreef:
Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And the very next sentence after that is "Editors
should
provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or
likely
to be challenged, or it may be removed." This reduces the
scope
of the policy's impact rather significantly.
How does that reduce the scope of the policy?
Because it says there is only a problem if the material is doubtful. An unsourced statement that is not challenged and not likely to be challenged -- and that is not libelous if untrue, I should add -- is not to be removed, according to WP:V.
That makes it highly subjective. What determines if it is doubtful or or likely to be challenged? To interpret WP:V this way is basically to say its not policy. There's no point for it, not to mention it violates NPOV, so now we have a pointless policy that violates NPOV. Submit whatever you like without sources. It gets to stay if not challenged. And if the challenge gets to stay if it's not challeneged. So Wikipedia is a collection of unsourced opinions and unsourced counter challenges. Long live the edit wars.
~~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--
____________________________________________________________________________________ No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail