On May 1, 2008, at 11:11 PM, Risker wrote:
Funny...for completely different reasons, I ran across
a block that
probably
resulted from exactly this "game" - relatively inexperienced user
trying to
remove "sourced content", warned by 3 different users, blocked by
another.
The only catch was - the now-blocked editor, as sloppy as his edits
were,
was actually correct. The information he was removing was being
attributed
to references that said no such thing. After a few similarly
unpleasant
encounters, the rarely posting editor flamed out and was indef
blocked.
Subsequent evidence suggests he was probably the subject of the BLP
for
which he was blocked.
Speed isn't quite everything.
Yet another reason why our fetishistic obsession with sources needs to
be toned down. By treating them as the be-all and end-all of content
we make it far too easy to get utter lies through by citing them to a
source. The worst are book sources - I know Danny, at one point,
created a hoax article cited to a non-existent book with the ISBN of a
Dr. Seuss book. This, of course, attracted no notice while we
zealously remove entire accurate articles on important subjects for a
lack of sources.
Wish I could remember what the article he created was so I could go
delete it. He did it under a sock. It was on an African politician. I
probably should have deleted it at the time, but I didn't feel like
starting a fight with Danny.
/sigh
In any case, the point is, our sourcing policies have a tangental
relationship at best to quality.
-Phil