Bryan Derksen wrote:
One of the things I do is
add {{citation needed}} when I hit statements that look particularly
significant and unsupported, in the hopes that someone who _does_ know
about the subject will be prompted to check them and fill in the blanks
at some point later on. How is this "wrong"? Seems like perfectly
straightforward collaborative editing to me, dividing labor between
proofreading and doing the actual problem-fixing work.
There is nothing wrong with this, except what I am saying is this:
If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it
makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as {{citation
needed}}, please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and
ask a question on the talk page.
Here is an example from an article I deleted:
"The most recent disaster that <name omitted> claims his organization
has responded to is the 2004 South Asia Tsunami, although there is no
convincing evidence that he or any of his team has been there.[citation
needed]"
That is really really really awful.
--Jimbo