[Foundation-l] Sources and sourceability

[Kat Walsh]

On 12/3/05, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> I want to outline my position here, so that there is no misunderstanding,  as
> there seems to be.
>
> 1. I am NOT saying that every fact in Wikipedia must be sourced or  removed.
> 2. I am saying that every fact in Wikipedia should be SOURCEABLE.
> 3. I am not saying that everyone must give their sources whenever they  edit.
> 4. I am saying that we can encourage people to work on a project to find
> sources for each fact, just like we have encouraged people to fix commas or
> categorize stubs.
> 5. I am not saying that people who cannot source should be discouraged from
> editing.
> 6. I am saying that we should encourage people to find sources, for their
> own work and for other's work as well.
> 7. I am saying that there are many different types of sources, and we  should
> find ways of including them. (BTW, in a previous job I worked extensively
> with oral histories, which are a wonderful source of information, even if they
> must always be verified).
> 7. Finally, I am saying that high quality is NOT something we can  compromise.
>
> Danny

This seems like a reasonable approach... Actually, strike that, it
seems like what we already should be doing, in theory -- isn't it
already true that every fact must be sourceable? We (myself included)
just aren't so good at enforcing it by catching questionable
statements and trying to source them.

-Kat
[[en:User:Mindspillage]]

--
"There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily
escaped the chronicler's mind."  --Douglas Adams