1) The "burninate it all" attitude is actively counter-productive. It is easier to see an unsourced statement and find a source than to work blind.

2) Your major argument is that Jimbo supports you. That's nice, but note that he is talking about a particular kind of information - the "I heard it somewhere" sort. That is not what most unsourced information is. Most unsourced information is based on more certainty than that.

3) Your essay is based on an immediatist bias. You assume that an unsourced article is a placeholder for the later article - it's not. It's a starting point. Good articles are the product of time and edits - to whack an article early on because it's not good enough is just stupid.

4) There is no evidence that an article lacking reliable sources is a mess of original research.

5) Your acronym is terrible.

Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu

You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.

On Feb 1, 2007, at 5:50 PM, Evan Jones wrote:

Hello,

I've just written a brief essay on the relationship between reliable sources and verifiability (and, ultimately, the worth of the article.) This is my first essay, and comments and constructive criticisms are more than welcome on the essay's talk page.

The essay is entitled "No reliable sources, no verifiability, no article" and it can be found at [[WP:NRSNVNA]].

Cheers, Evan Jones User:Chardish

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l