Hoi, We should before we want to even consider policies whereby sources are required consider what it would do to other projects. Many of the other projects do not have the maturity to follow the lead of the English Wikipedia they do not have sufficient content and burdening the content creation with this zeal would put a damper on the creation of new content. The idea that the English language sources are universally good is problematic as well.
We should also consider how much work it is to source all the unsourced articles. I assume that the amount of time involved is such that it is not even feasible to source all English articles that do not have sources in half a year. When an article has one source, it does not follow that the article is sufficiently sourced. Uncompletely sourced articles are as bad or worse than articles that have not been sourced at all.
I am afraid I could not disagree with you more.
Thanks, GerardM
James Hare wrote:
Well, if we make it a new criterion, we shouldn't apply it retroactively. I understand there was a time when sources didn't mean as much.
As for the unsourced articles that currently exist, we could do some very long PROD deal with it -- articles tagged as having zero sources have three months to get at least ONE SOURCE for any part of the article before it qualifies for speedy. That's a generous amount of time.
On 9/30/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Let's mkae a new speedy criterion: if there's no sources, nuke it. With fire.
On 9/30/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I have just deleted an article, [[Porchesia]]. Any admins are welcome
to
read the history. It was created in November.
Problem is, there is no such place.
Hmmm.
Danny