Jimmy Wales wrote:
J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
In contrast, how should we handle indiscriminate deletions of unsourced (but possibly verifiable) material?
Of course, any deletion of unsourced material is likely to bring forth cries that it is "indiscriminate" by partisans who are too lazy or dishonest to go find a source.
For this reason, in practice, it is generally to be applauded. :)
I find this to be a disappointingly provocative attitude.
While repeatedly hearing from journalists and others who interview you that Wikipedia is not reliable is bound to eventually have you believing them, I cannot believe that the situation is anywhere near so bad. There is no need to leave the impression that each such criticism touches a raw nerve. perhaps the questioner has just not been thorough in doing his homework.
Sure "lazy or dishonest" partisans will make the kinds of complaints that you mention, but the reverse is not true. One cannot conclude that the people who make such complaints are necessarily partisan, lazy or dishonest. There are many who demand sources, and are just as lazy as those they accuse of laziness.
Ultimately, the person who offers information as fact is responsible for sourcing his information, but this does not imply any immediate need in the absence of a meaningful challenge to that fact.
None among us who has lasted a significant amount of time around the Wikimedia projects supports totally unsourced facts, but I also think that we all realize that sourcing involves considerably more than putting up an indiscriminate series of tags. It is a multifaceted process where we cannot and must not rest comfortably just because new information is accompanied by a tag that perfectly follows the guidelines for good tag formatting. Certainly, there remain many articles that are completely unsourced, and I commend those Wikipedians who quietly make the effort to find sources for those articles without raising a storm of criticism about the failures of the original editors, who may themselves have contributed a couple of years ago. Where an article is deficient collaboration is best accomplished by making the article better, not by whining about the failures of others.
Applauding aggressive and confrontational ultimata for dealing with sourcing problems does not make for a better community or a better encyclopedia. Promoting a balanced and neutral approach would accomplish a lot more, and would be more in keeping with the principles that got this project where it is now.
Ec