On 8/11/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
However, if someone is working on some article, such person should find sources instead of putting {{fact}} there.
That's preferable, but not always practical. If I'm working on something else and find something debatable on some marginally related other article I prefer to avoid getting off on a tangent that could take up as much time as what I'm really working on. Better to put the fact-tag and retain focus on what I'm really doing. In other cases I don't personally have access to the proper sources. Where the material is in most "standard" texts on the subject it should be enough to refer people to those works in a more general way.
My point here was related to people who are working on that "marginally related article", not on "active visitors" (like you are in such cases and like I am the most of time).
Also, adding source (instead of {{fact}}) should be encouraged while dealing with articles which are rarely edited because one such {{fact}} may stay for a years.
This is completely unacceptable and not only for encyclopedia. Referring to own work is possible only as "see *" constructions. I removed all of those "references".
That's a bit hasty.
I was thinking about my action (was it wrong or not? do I need to fix something, to readd?), but... If I think that something is wrong on Wikipedia, I will try to fix it. It is much better to change an article on Wikipedia then not to change and talk how much it is wrong. If I am wrong and I edited an article, it is easy to recover article to previous edit. If I am right and I didn't edit an article, article would stay wrong.
One of the usual answers to outsider's scream "This fact is not correct on Wikipedia!" is "Go and fix it." And one of the usual Wikipedian reaction (including my usual reaction) when something is not correct on Wikipedia is not to go and not to fix it. So, I am trying to fix at least my reaction :)