It's also a waste of time to state obvious facts in an encyclopedia article.
Why is it a waste of time? It's not like Wikipedia needs to be competed rght now. We can spend all the time in the world editing, regardless of efficiency level.
--Chris "I hate —es!" --Me
On 10/17/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/16/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 16, 2006, at 6:12 PM, jayjg wrote:
People keep claiming that it's hard to source "obvious facts"; however, in practice that's almost never the case. Obvious facts are generally extremely easy to source.
A better and more important issue is that it's a waste of time to source obvious facts.
It's also a waste of time to state obvious facts in an encyclopedia article.
For less than "obvious" facts I do think that a source should be *somewhere* in the references.
I also don't think people should be removing facts that they know to be true, just because they are unsourced.
Further, and not everyone agrees with me on this, someone should do a quick check for a source before removing (or {{fact}} tagging) something which isn't at least probably false (or unprovable and therefore POV).
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l