On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/13/05, Anthony DiPierro
<wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
Even if you're
writing an article from the top of your head, it's obviously something
you know a lot about, and you'd have a much easier time finding a
reference than some random edit patroller. If nothing else it's
common courtesy to save the rest of us time researching your article.
Absolutely. Starting an unreferenced article is discourteous
However, that is not an argument for deletion of unreferenced articles.
I think it is a good part of the argument. It's the part that says
you don't have a *right* to have your articles kept if they are
unreferenced.
The other half of the argument is which would be better for Wikipedia.
Would deletion of unreferenced articles cause enough people to start
referencing things that it'd make up for those articles which were
deleted? Would the time saved in not having to argue with trolls make
up for the time spent asking an admin to undelete something? We can
argue over these points forever, or we could try it and see. I think
there's a good chance that the positives would outweigh the negatives.
No solution is perfect, of course.
Anthony