I respect the wikipedia. I regard both the model of restricting contributions to experts and inviting broad contributions as equally valid and potentially equally flawed. I've actually disagreed with very few deletions I've seen, but they happen. Since I can't just revert pages and am not sure I'd want to, I remember learning technique from figuring out how one "unsourced" statement had been footnoted and restoring successfully (after only two tries) its link to the footnote (which I could access through history in another tab). Please don't make such a blanket statement about unsourced or any other materials. I've certainly been guilty of things as stupid as that. I do respect both sides of this debate, and I think that if you really start demanding a high threshold for contributions, you will cut into the possibility of reaching a constructive consensus in many articles.
On 8/15/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com 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. :)
--Jimbo
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l