Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/23/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
In my opinion, any such statement should be removed on sight by any editor, with a firm statement on the talk page that Wikipedia is not the place for idle speculation or original research.
You have made this request several times, but it is a hell of a long way from common accepted practice. Are we actually going to clamp down on this and make it enforced law?
If it was made "enforced law" it'd result in a purge of proportions unmatched in Wikipedia's history.
As I've argued before when this sort of suggestion has come up, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Articles lacking sources aren't unacceptable, IMO, they're simply _unfinished_. They'd need to be properly verified before they were accepted for any sort of polished compilation, sure, but Wikipedia as a whole is not that compilation. It is the raw materials for one.
The German Wikipedia didn't wipe everything that didn't make it into the DVD version, to take an example, I don't see why English Wikipedia should do anything like that either.