On 4/1/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/1/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
It should be fixed back.
Don't remove information you believe to be true from Wikipedia even if it is unsourced. This is a central tenet of sourcing that needs to be preserved in order to keep sourcing from becoming a bludgeon to gut articles for POV or other churlish reasons.
Following AGF, I would agree with you somewhat on just about everything, except articles about people who are still converting oxygen into CO2. Incorrect but plausible sounding information can hurt people in real life. It needs a source even if it's something you "just know" is correct.
I'd even agree on articles about people, in that you shouldn't be removing something which you know is correct.
But you should remove something that you don't know is correct, and someone else who does know it's correct should respect that and not add it back without a source.
Looking at the paragraph I removed:
"Hofstadter has not published much in conventional academic journals (except during his early [[physics]] career, see below)" - Probably true, and I wouldn't have touched this if this were the only unsourced statement.
"preferring the freedom of expression of large books of collected ideas." - Probably pure speculation as to his motives. But if you've got a source, it's OK.
"As such, his great influence on [[computer science]]" - POV, unsourced, and not at all something I know for a fact.
"is somewhat subversive and underground —" - huh?
"his work has inspired countless research projects but is not always formally referenced." - no, I don't know this for a fact.
"Hofstadter himself denies any such impact on computer science." - not only unsourced, but blatantly false! Hofstadter has said in a wired interview that he "has inspired many students to begin careers in computing and artificial intelligence".
Anthony