On 3/31/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/31/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
As a followup, doc's suggestion presupposes that unsourced == crap most of the time, which is not true.
Doc said unsourced does not equal crap. I didn't see anything about "most of the time". Even if it's true some of the time, this idea would lead to deleting non-crap. And doing that even once is one time too many. That's what I believe to be the point, although doc glasgow's mileage may vary.
Doc said:
I like Jimbo's notion of a prod system that says "this is crap, if it is still crap in 7 days I will delete it"
I wonder if we could start this by simply saying "Any article that remains unsourced after being marked as such for 7 days is deleted". It sounds draconian, but we now do it for images, why not articles? No, it will not solve all out problems, but it would be a workable step towards saying that it may be better to have no article for the moment than a crap one.
This is a non sequitur unless you make the assumption that unsourced==crap.