Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/23/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)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.