On 11/29/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I see no reason why we should be flexible about sources. If it hasn't got sources it can be deleted, regardless whether this is a policy or a guideline. It may be kept if someone bothers to find the sources the author should have included, but that might not happen.
The only way to make people use sources is hammering it in, because no matter how many times it is said, people will ignore it. Perhaps deletion will get some backsides into gear.
If we come up with a workable policy, people might follow it. Our policies basically state the undesirable and infeasible goal of "every statement must be backed up by a reliable, verifiable source". What we actually *want* is far less than that though. Something like:
* Any statement that if false would be harmful, must be traceable to a source. * Any statement that could never be backed up by a reliable source should not be included. * Where possible, provide sources to help readers determine the accuracy of statements.
The corollaries of these three rules are that non-trivial, non-harmful statements don't *have* to be cited, but *should* be. This is what most people *do*, but is not what our policies *say*.
Anyone agree?
Steve