Bogdan Giusca wrote:
Wikipedia, unlike myspace, still requires reliable
sources and from
what I've seen, that policy is here to stay.
Wikipedia requires _verifiability_. That doesn't necessarily require a
footnote at the end of every sentence. Not that I'd have any objection
if there _was_ a source cited for everything, mind you. I just believe
that the growing fetishization of this process is perhaps causing more
harm in the short term than good. Perfectly good content that nobody
who's familiar with the field would contest is being removed simply
because there isn't a superscripted number next to it.
If you look in the Russian wikipedia article, it even
includes an
IRC log, which wouldn't last one minute on en.wiki! :-)
I can't read Russian so I don't know exactly what's in that log, but if
it's a quotation provided as an example of the term's usage I don't see
it as being all that big a problem. Plenty of articles have illustrative
examples, even completely made up ones. See
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi#Examples> for instance.