On 11/30/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
What I meant is that _in Wikipedia,_ uncited material is not high- quality material.
What do you mean by "high quality"?
_In Wikipedia,_ that's indeed by definition, and the "definition" in question is Wikipedia's verifiability policy.
You seem to mean "desirable". As opposed to "inherently worthwhile". Does a random visitor care whether we think the material is desirable or not?
Wikipedia is different, because Wikipedia does not select or judge the competence or credentials of its editors.
And it relies on its readers to form their own opinions about the accuracy of its articles. And providing sources helps that process. But it is not true that the absence of sources renders a given page "low quality".
Steve