Jimmy Wales 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.
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.