Jimmy Wales wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
WP:V is deliberately vague on this point and editors have to use common sense. If an article says "John Smith is a killer" and there's no source, remove it immediately. But an edit saying "Skiiing is Switzerland's top sport" can be tagged (but please remember to go back at some point to see if a source has turned up), or better still, the editor who's questioning it could look for a source himself. There are so many gradations of unsourced material between these two examples that we couldn't possibly be algorithmic about it, so editors have to be sensible: the more harmful or the sillier an unsourced edit looks, the faster it should be removed.
Precisely!
I too find this a good basis.
An unfortunate tendency when you make a pronouncement is that people generalize when they read them. It is one thing to say that unsourced statements about living persons should be deleted immediately, but quite another to say that all unsourced statements should be deleted immediately. When you begin with the former, and during a later message in the thread you assume you are talking about the same thing when you shorten your reference, you can be sure that their will be those who never read the first message and who will interpret the second message as general policy.
It's hard to imagine how people will misunderstand you in the year 4039 when you have the same headstart as Jesus now has.
Ec