Cheney Shill schreef:
Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)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
(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.