On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:05:44 +0100, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> "There seems to be a terrible bias among some
editors that some sort
> of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to
> be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed,
> aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all
> information, but it is particularly true of negative information about
> living persons." - Jimmy Wales.
Not consitant with what Mr Wales has been up to
[[Talk:Che Guevara]].
It's a fun read.
RfC is the second door on your left down the hall.
> Sure, adequately sourcing it is preferable, but if
it's a choice
> between waiting for a source or removing it, removing is a better
> option. Even if you put it back in with a source ten minutes later.
Depends. Removeing the vast majority of our articles is
not a good idea.
Depends. Sometimes it's a great idea. But hard cases make bad law.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG