[Foundation-l] Sources and sourceability

[Anthony DiPierro]

On 12/9/05, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> 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.
> >
> >
> That's a very nice bulleted summary of exactly what our policy on
> sources should be, IMO. =]
>
> -Mark

Wouldn't it be fair to say that it's a nice bulleted summary of
exactly what our policy on sources actually is?