Even if that print source exists, it doesn't mean that that print
source really supports my "sourced" statement... If I really need to
source my fake article to prevent it from being speedy deleted, I
could just source any random real book... So this doesn't solve the
whole problem.
--Lorenzarius
On 10/4/06, James Hare <messedrocker(a)gmail.com> wrote:
As Erik pointed out, it is very easy to make a hoax
seem legitimate if you
cite a phony print source. What's not needed is new rules involving the use
of print sources, but to utilise something we had all along: Google.
Something we could do is Google the title of the book being referenced, and
then see if it exists (beyond being mentioned in wiki mirrors). If it
doesn't exist, then we take further action. One thing we could do is for
every print source approved in an article, we can note that said print
sources have been verified to be true on the talk page (via some sort of
yellow talk page box). Comments?
--James
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lorenzarius
Tel: +852 95825791