Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/2/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email)
<alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
A better wording would be:
"New material added to an article that lacks a reputable source is
likely to be removed without warning. It is courteous for the editor who
removes this material to re-insert it on the talk page of the article,
along with a note about why it was removed."
Why do we keep coming back to this strange policy? It doesn't make
much sense (95% of Wikipedia is "likely to be removed without
warning"?), and it certainly doesn't reflect current practice.
With any luck it's keeping the original research out.
So now keeping original research out depends on luck? Being willing to
sacrifice the 95% to ensure eradication of the 5% that's bad does not
seem like a cost-effective strategy.
This situation
is starting to remind me of police who tell the public
"if you do X or Y, you WILL be caught", when the actual apprehension
rate is vanishingly small.
Don't forget that we're working towards 1.0 and a million featured
articles...
We've been talking about 1.0 for the last two years (or more?). When
people are seriously ready to do something about that, I hope that they
will apply common sense to their selection criteria.
At one featured article per day that will be enough for about 2740
years. We have plenty of time to get ready for that.
Is it not silly
to have the most fundamental policy we have be so far
removed from a) current practice, and b) what we actually want? We
want sources, but we also want material to be added - we don't
actually remove material except as a last resort. Maybe we need
something like:
"When considering removing unsourced material, take into account the
likely factual accuracy of the material, the possible harm that could
be done by leaving it, and the chance that a subsequent editor could
find a source for it. Libellous material or copyright violations
aside, it is polite to move the material to the talk page with an
explanation for your removal."
Good, much better than my version. But we also need to encourage people
to cite their sources (where possible) and remind them that anything
which doesn't seem quite right *is likely to be removed*.
Steve's version is definitely an improvement. "It is polite" is still
a
little wimpy; "editors are strongly advised" might be better. I would
also make a small addition to have the one phrase read "the possible
harm that could be done by leaving or removing it." Another thing that
could be taken into account is the nature of the material to reflect
that the standards applied to commentary on video games will be much
lower than those applied to biographies of real people.
What needs to be stressed is a balanced approach to editing. For some
editors enthusiasm far outstroips judgement., and techniques that would
moderate their behaviour would be welcome.
Ec