On 12/13/05, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
My latest proposal suggested that articles were merely moved to the user namespace, 24 hours after creation, and only after the user was notified and a good faith effort to locate a source had failed.
The problem with that is that it removes articles that need work from the eyes of the editors and readers who might be able to fix the problem. Better to mark it as unreliable than make it invisible.
-Matt
It doesn't make them invisible, it makes them less prominent. Yes, it might cause a few articles to stay missing for longer than they have to. I admit the proposal is not without some negatives. I just believe the positives far outweigh these negatives (and I'm not going to repeat those positives, look above in the thread for them).
I will repeat that marking certain articles as unreliable is a bad idea, because it implies that articles which aren't marked that way are reliable. If you want to tell readers about the reliability of Wikipedia, just put a note about it at the top of *every* article. Marking the fact that certain articles have no sources makes no sense, as this fact is evident to anyone who scans the article and sees that there are no sources.
Anthony