Matthew Brown wrote:
On 1/13/07, Eugene van der Pijll
<eugene(a)vanderpijll.nl> wrote:
Matthew Brown schreef:
That proposal seems to lack consensus.
How
can you tell? The discussion is over 600 kB long...
Because it's that long yet there seems to be no more agreement at the
bottom than at the top - plus my gut feeling that there's no way the
consensus of active en.wp contributors will agree on it.
This proposal seems to me an example of letting the perfect be the enemy
of the good. An article that doesn't meet any other criteria for speedy
deletion (it's not patent nonsense, it's about a "notable" subject, it
isn't a copyvio, etc.) but which lacks references is still better to
have than a blank void in its place. It's raw material that can be
further refined by adding references or by removing unreferenced facts
that turn out to be unsupported after the attempt is made.
Has there been any word recently on how soon version-flagging might be
implemented? Perhaps if there's some way to flag versions as
"publication quality" or whatever to allow for automated filtering there
won't be such an urgent desire to eliminate the less-than-perfect works
in progress scattered throughout Wikipedia in the meantime.