On 11/29/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
I was thinking of an idea that articles could be trimmed down to what's been sourced and the longer (albeit unsourced) article could go to some sort of Crappopedia where it awaits confirmation. Stuff that is confirmed with a source could be added back. That way, Wikipedia could maintain integrity and the other wiki could be a development grounds.
On 11/29/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
e) Once tagged, there should be no big rush about deleting the material, but it should not remain indefinitely, either. How long? Assuming that there's no specific reason to doubt the material, months and months.
The _only_ objections to this I can think of is that that the tags are ugly--which is true but susceptible to a technical fix--or that we are not serious about verifiability and don't truly want to restrict Wikipedia content to things that are supported by published material.
I don't think deleting accurate, high-quality, unreferenced material is in Wikipedia's best interests. Asking for a source, yes. Adding sources, yes. But *deleting* good material? No.
Steve
From a top-down point of view, a free open encyclopedia based on a free open
knowledgebase, with "interesting notable facts" with supporting citations and references and the like, would be an interesting project.
It is not, alas, the structure of Wikipedia, and I suspect it's not something WP can easily graft on the side.