On Dec 5, 2006, at 3:49 PM, wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org wrote:
From: Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Puppy wrote:
Excellent solution, may I borrow your prod content for my own use?
Yes, but the case I'm worried about is one where the targeted article is not libelous or about living people, still would have content if the questionable material is removed, and actually does have sources, but which are not referenced in the recommended one-footnote-per-sentence way. The policy is letting people use the rules to disrupt by picking any of that 80% of articles and saying "you'd better source this, now, or I put your article up for deletion."
Nothing about the verifiability policy requires _inline_ sources.
And please stop asserting 80% of our articles are unsourced, when my informal check suggests that the number is more like 20%.
On 12/5/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2006, at 3:49 PM, wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org wrote:
From: Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Puppy wrote:
Excellent solution, may I borrow your prod content for my own use?
Yes, but the case I'm worried about is one where the targeted article is not libelous or about living people, still would have content if the questionable material is removed, and actually does have sources, but which are not referenced in the recommended one-footnote-per-sentence way. The policy is letting people use the rules to disrupt by picking any of that 80% of articles and saying "you'd better source this, now, or I put your article up for deletion."
Nothing about the verifiability policy requires _inline_ sources.
And please stop asserting 80% of our articles are unsourced, when my informal check suggests that the number is more like 20%.
Ah how great random page is for sampling articles... Here's my 10 article "study":
[[Susan Ruttan]] - external link to IMDB page [[Gudvangatunnel]] - no sources or external links [[First Serbian Uprising]] - one broken external link [[Amador County Arts Council]] - external link to council website [[Estrume'n'tal]] - external link to homepage and to band info at gollygeerecords.com [[Workplace wellness]] - no sources or external links [[Norman Brown (guitarist)]] - external link to official site [[Nun (letter)]] - no sources or external links [[Unfinished portrait of Franklin D. Roosevelt]] - no sources or external links [[Zenon: Girl of the 21st Century]] - ISBN link
40% no sources or external links, 30% one external link, 10% one broken external link, 10% one ISBN link, 10% two external links. Of the working external links, 3 were to primary sources, and 2 were to secondary sources.
Of course, 10 articles is hardly a scientific sample size.
Anthony
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
Yes, but the case I'm worried about is one where the targeted article is not libelous or about living people, still would have content if the questionable material is removed, and actually does have sources, but which are not referenced in the recommended one-footnote-per-sentence way. The policy is letting people use the rules to disrupt by picking any of that 80% of articles and saying "you'd better source this, now, or I put your article up for deletion."
Nothing about the verifiability policy requires _inline_ sources.
But that's how it normally is interpreted.
[[Video game crash of 1983]] has gotten even stranger. The user wishing to delete the article has *admitted that the material he's asking for sources for is correct*, and still wants to delete the article unless people provide him with sources for individual statements.
(And the same user, on another article about another subject, objected to someone else's request for individual citations on the grounds that the request for sources was just being used as a "blunt instrument" and that the information was already well-known to someone like him knowledgeable in the field!)
There's a difference between saying "we should source articles" and "we should give users the power to force others to source articles". It's so much easier to tell people to do something than to do it yourself that this often just amounts to legalized disruption.