On 13/11/06, Sean Barrett <sean(a)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.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk