On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 14:16 +0100, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
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
Agree. If there is a problem with things being deleted, it isn't a problem with policy, but with the people writing them without specifying a source.
Fran
On 1/25/07, Francis Tyers spectre@ivixor.net wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 08:09 -0500, Omegatron wrote:
On 1/25/07, Matt R matt_crypto@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l