[Foundation-l] Porchesia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
We should before we want to even consider policies whereby sources are 
required consider what it would do to other projects. Many of the other 
projects do not have the maturity to follow the lead of the English 
Wikipedia they do not have sufficient content and burdening the content 
creation with this zeal would put a damper on the creation of new 
content. The idea that the English language sources are universally good 
is problematic as well.

We should also consider how much work it is to source all the unsourced 
articles. I assume that the amount of time involved is such that it is 
not even feasible to source all English articles that do not have 
sources in half a year. When an article has one source, it does not 
follow that the article is sufficiently sourced. Uncompletely sourced 
articles are as bad or worse than articles that have not been sourced at 
all.

I am afraid I could not disagree with you more.

Thanks,
    GerardM


James Hare wrote:
> Well, if we make it a new criterion, we shouldn't apply it retroactively. I
> understand there was a time when sources didn't mean as much.
>
> As for the unsourced articles that currently exist, we could do some very
> long PROD deal with it -- articles tagged as having zero sources have three
> months to get at least ONE SOURCE for any part of the article before it
> qualifies for speedy. That's a generous amount of time.
>
> On 9/30/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> On 9/30/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> Let's mkae a new speedy criterion: if there's no sources, nuke it. With
>>> fire.
>>>
>>> On 9/30/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> I have just deleted an article, [[Porchesia]]. Any admins are welcome
>>>>         
>> to
>>     
>>>> read the history. It was created in November.
>>>>
>>>> Problem is, there is no such place.
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm.
>>>>
>>>> Danny