Indiscriminate deletion of unsourced material to "enforce [[WP:V]]" is a popular way to game the system.
I agree about systemic bias caused by requiring that sources be in English (or whatever language the Wikipedia is in).
2007/8/10, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com:
2007/8/10, Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich@gmail.com:
On 10/08/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
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-->
I was rather asking about whether the oft-encountered attitude of "this author represents a side-taking-group which is "wrong" to quote in context of this article and so should not be included" is justifiable by the Five Pillars of Gods?
Or is it a disguised WP:OR involved to block the "unpleasant" kind of info, like I deem it to be?
I think it is justifiable, yes. The alternative would be to give every fringe theory 'equal representation' on Wikipedia. The only questionable thing in my opinion is to use 'no original research' as the argument. To me it's more an issue of 'balancing within the article' - various sub-subjects should not get unproportional attention in an article, and for these theories ANY attention might be unproportionally much.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l