Jimmy Wales wrote:
Steve Summit wrote:
With equal emphasis on the "edited in some fashion to remove the need" part, bearing in mind that in many cases the appropriate edit is simply to remove the tag. Although many instances of the {fact} tag are properly applied to surprising or dubious facts which do need to be cited or removed, many others refer to obvious facts or facts which are in fact supported by an article's existing references. So (as ever) some care is needed here; anyone who got the idea that "any fact left uncited for 7 days may/must be removed" would be setting themselves or the encyclopedia up for a fall.
Yes, of course. My feeling here is that the fact tag is in essence a request: "Could some other human look at this and confirm for me that this sounds sketchy and either needs to be referenced or removed?" And so there are (roughly) three possible responses: (1) reference it (2) remove it (3) note (on the talk page, I think) that the fact tag was removed because the claim is not, after all, sketchy.
I don't see the need to become compulsive about removing the tag in all instances. Sometimes the right action is to just leave the tag in place as an equivalent to "buyer beware." If I am reading about a relatively obscure subject I could be inclined to add the tag to a statement which may be correct but would be strenghthened by being referenced. When I do that I am hopeful that someone someday will have the necessary tools to fact check the point, but since the topic is relatively obscure I have no illusion that the evidence will be found so quickly as in seven days. If the tag remains for a year no harm is done, and the reader is warned that the "fact" is not entirely confirmed.
Becoming compulsive about correctness strikes me as unwiki as political correctness.
Ec