Hoi Indiscrimate deletion even of unsourced material is a special kind of vandalism. It negates the fact that having a source does not imply the truth of what is said. There are people that only consider sources in the language of the Wikipedia to be valid; forgetting that this leads to a systemic bias. When content is deleted indiscriminately, without thinking, the readability and the consistency of a Wikipedia deteriorates.
The notion that only sourced facts can be trusted is taken as an article of faith, its truth is apparent when you believe it to be true.
Thanks, GerardM
On 8/10/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
In contrast, how should we handle indiscriminate deletions of unsourced (but possibly verifiable) material?
2007/8/10, michael west michawest@gmail.com:
On the English Wikipedia the simple answer would be to delete the unsourced section and then move the "crazy" text to the talk page. If text was really crazy delete it and forget. If text might be true tag with a mention
that
it needs sources (inline or <!--hidden-->
Be brave, be bold, make Wikipedia Good :-)
mike
On 10/08/07, Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich@gmail.com wrote:
This one of five pillars, how is it enforced, exactly?
Many a vocal "defender of faith" feels safe to put forward one's own perception, oft mythologised, as a basis for contention of "unconvenient" sources, no matter how fundamental.
I had this impression that sources are to be countered only by other sources, not by somebody's own claims?
And if not countered, sources fall under the NPOV policy — all major academic POV are to be represented, with balanced language?
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l