If people cited their sources in the first place, there wouldn't be any
abuse by people using that fact to get it deleted. Any abuse with these
policies can be prevented if people just made the effort. I think I'm going
to reread those pages and think about rewriting them.
Mgm
On 1/25/07, Francis Tyers <spectre(a)ivixor.net> wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 08:09 -0500, Omegatron wrote:
On 1/25/07, Matt R
<matt_crypto(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> The same holds for RS and CITE: they don't magically guarantee quality
by
themselves, but they are great tools for doing so if not abused.
But they are only used for abuse. A simple sentence or two in WP:V and
a
dose of consensus is sufficient.
Only used for abuse?? How do you find that? I know that demanding decent
reliable sources for an /encyclopaedia/ is _controversial_ (sadly), but
its one of the things that (supposedly) makes us different from other
non-encyclopaedic volunteer run collections of information.
Fran
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l