"Steve Bennett" wrote
I am somewhat staggered that with the number of times that terms like "verifiability" and "no original research" are bandied about, we can not as a community agree on two simple matters:
- Should we remove material which would be perfectly acceptable in
Wikipedia if only the (presumed existing) source was actually cited? 2. Should we remove material which presents verifiable facts simply because those facts have not been published by another source?
In the first case, I'm talking about removing common knowledge or non-contentious material which no one is actually disputing.
Such cuts can even descend into vandalism.
In the second, I'm talking about removing information like content of computer games, movies, or websites, where sufficient information can be given to make it verifiable, but for which no secondary source exists.
There is an issue here about 'ephemera', certainly. Without splitting hairs too much, it is clear that websites are ephemeral (updates are out of our control), and even films are released in different cuts, making assertions a bit harder than might seem.
These are pretty fundamental questions, but I've only seen a small amount of discusson on them (and lots of disagreement about other issues which arises from unstated differences of opinion on these issues).
Bear in mind that there are the versions we want to present to those who have been editing for three days; and the versions that will make more sense to those who have been editing at least three months and seen some contentious matters come up. It is highly desirable that no one has to unlearn anything, in passing from the first to the second. So it is fine to say 'don't include your own slant in the article': that doesn't change. It is not 'upwardly compatible' to say 'you may cut unsourced claims', while it is OK to say 'please back up your edits with good sources'.
Charles