Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/2/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email)
<alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
A better wording would be:
"New material added to an article that lacks a reputable source is
likely to be removed without warning. It is courteous for the editor who
removes this material to re-insert it on the talk page of the article,
along with a note about why it was removed."
Why do we keep coming back to this strange policy? It doesn't make
much sense (95% of Wikipedia is "likely to be removed without
warning"?), and it certainly doesn't reflect current practice.
With any luck it's keeping the original research out.
This situation is starting to remind me of police who
tell the public
"if you do X or Y, you WILL be caught", when the actual apprehension
rate is vanishingly small.
Don't forget that we're working towards 1.0 and a million featured
articles...
Is it not silly to have the most fundamental policy we
have be so far
removed from a) current practice, and b) what we actually want? We
want sources, but we also want material to be added - we don't
actually remove material except as a last resort. Maybe we need
something like:
"When considering removing unsourced material, take into account the
likely factual accuracy of the material, the possible harm that could
be done by leaving it, and the chance that a subsequent editor could
find a source for it. Libellous material or copyright violations
aside, it is polite to move the material to the talk page with an
explanation for your removal."
Good, much better than my version. But we also need to encourage people
to cite their sources (where possible) and remind them that anything
which doesn't seem quite right *is likely to be removed*.
--
Alphax -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP