http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_faux_pas
Highlighting specific examples is left as an exercise to the reader.
Alphax wrote:
Tags aside, I got a laugh out of
India
* It is advisable for men and women to avoid wearing revealing and/or clothes in public.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_faux_pas
Highlighting specific examples is left as an exercise to the reader.
I don't see the problem, myself. There are lots and lots of statements in this list that do need citations, if anything we're _missing_ {{fact}} on a lot of them (though the current crop is good enough for starters so I didn't bother adding any more as I did a little reference cleanup there just now).
Wouldn't it make more sense to move every unsourced statement to the talk page or elsewhere and add them back when they're sourced? I don't see how having {{fact}} on almost every line is helpful to readers of the article.
Angela.
Angela wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to move every unsourced statement to the talk page or elsewhere and add them back when they're sourced? I don't see how having {{fact}} on almost every line is helpful to readers of the article.
That'd be a tremendous amount of extra work and a nearly-empty article with most of the content hidden away on talk isn't especially useful either. Since most of the statements requiring citations don't appear to be controversial, just unsupported, what's the harm of leaving them in place in the meantime?
To mix two threads together, we can move it over to a Faux Pas Wikia. ;)
On 11/13/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to move every unsourced statement to the talk page or elsewhere and add them back when they're sourced? I don't see how having {{fact}} on almost every line is helpful to readers of the article.
Angela. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Angela stated for the record:
Wouldn't it make more sense to move every unsourced statement to the talk page or elsewhere and add them back when they're sourced? I don't see how having {{fact}} on almost every line is helpful to readers of the article.
It serves the purpose of warning our readers that a large fraction of that article is composed of [[Wikipedia:Complete bollocks]].
- -- Sean Barrett | Today's robots are very primitive, capable sean@epoptic.com | of understanding only a few simple | instructions such as "go left," "go | right," and "build car." --John Sladek
On 13/11/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Angela stated for the record:
Wouldn't it make more sense to move every unsourced statement to the talk page or elsewhere and add them back when they're sourced? I don't see how having {{fact}} on almost every line is helpful to readers of the article.
It serves the purpose of warning our readers that a large fraction of that article is composed of [[Wikipedia:Complete bollocks]].
It's charmingly inept in concept, too. Huges swathes would be better characterised as "here is how local culture differs from an American norm", and the attempt to granularise on a country-by-country level leads us to get a lot of tedious cutting-and-pasting with bizzare gaps. Our reader can happily conclude that "fanny" is an entirely innocuous word in the UK, whilst asking unfamiliar women their age in .au or .nz is somehow much less offensive than elsewhere in l'anglophonie...
I really haven't much idea what can be done with that article to make it anything but a ragged group of half-reliable platitudes.
On 13/11/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Our reader can happily conclude that "fanny" is an entirely innocuous word in the UK, whilst asking unfamiliar women their age in .au or .nz is somehow much less offensive than elsewhere in l'anglophonie...
Which is part of the reason why I removed the entire section regarding British and American English.
Yeah, I hate that. Why not just use {{unsourced}}, it is just a good a warning (better, even), and not at all as annoying.
On 11/13/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_faux_pas
Highlighting specific examples is left as an exercise to the reader.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Yeah, I hate that. Why not just use {{unsourced}}, it is just a good a warning (better, even), and not at all as annoying.
How about we give a class to template:fact so that people could add
#cite-request { display: none; }
to their skin's CSS and make them vanish, if they're sufficiently annoyed by them? That way everyone's preferences can coexist.
On 11/15/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Yeah, I hate that. Why not just use {{unsourced}}, it is just a good a warning (better, even), and not at all as annoying.
How about we give a class to template:fact so that people could add
#cite-request { display: none; }
to their skin's CSS and make them vanish, if they're sufficiently annoyed by them? That way everyone's preferences can coexist.
I'm more concerned about how it looks to readers, not to people who know how to edit their skin settings.
Angela
Yeah, seeing a bunch of "this is unsourced crap" will make people think twice about using Wikipedia. Or maybe they'll think that something on Wiki is 100% true -unless- there's that cite-needed tag.
On 11/14/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/15/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Yeah, I hate that. Why not just use {{unsourced}}, it is just a good a warning (better, even), and not at all as annoying.
How about we give a class to template:fact so that people could add
#cite-request { display: none; }
to their skin's CSS and make them vanish, if they're sufficiently annoyed by them? That way everyone's preferences can coexist.
I'm more concerned about how it looks to readers, not to people who know how to edit their skin settings.
Angela _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
James Hare stated for the record:
Yeah, seeing a bunch of "this is unsourced crap" will make people think twice about using Wikipedia. Or maybe they'll think that something on Wiki is 100% true -unless- there's that cite-needed tag.
And that's exactly how it should be -- anything without a source is by definition crap and should be thought about at least twice before it is used.
- -- Sean Barrett | Today's robots are very primitive, capable sean@epoptic.com | of understanding only a few simple | instructions such as "go left," "go | right," and "build car." --John Sladek
Angela wrote:
On 11/15/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Yeah, I hate that. Why not just use {{unsourced}}, it is just a good a warning (better, even), and not at all as annoying.
How about we give a class to template:fact so that people could add
#cite-request { display: none; }
to their skin's CSS and make them vanish, if they're sufficiently annoyed by them? That way everyone's preferences can coexist.
I'm more concerned about how it looks to readers, not to people who know how to edit their skin settings.
I don't think that it would be a good idea to hide them by default, though, since then almost nobody would ever see them.
{{unsourced}} is well and good when an article has _no_ references, but when an article is a blend of sourced and unsourced statements I think it's better to have something that we can use to label individual statements as needing citations. If they make the article look ugly, one could consider that as a visual representation of the state of the article's verification. We can de-uglify by adding appropriate references.