On 12/24/05, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote: The proposals I have difficulty with are as follows:-
3.2.2 Sources demanded 2) After Xed restored, Jayjg demanded sources[6] [7] despite the fact that a simple Google search [8] gives 80,000 hits. He also removed any reference to occupation.
and 3.3.3 Viriditas and Jayjg reminded regarding NPOV 3) Viriditas (talk • contribs) and Jayjg (talk • contribs) are reminded that Wikipedia is a cooperative enterprise which operates by consensus. Masking of POV editing under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding sources is inappropriate
Regarding the first one, I think it is fundamentally important that the onus is on the editor inserting information into an article to provide a source. It's easy to add information - but time-consuming to check it's veracity (particularly if you don't know where it's come from).
Regarding the second one, I don't believe it can ever be wrong to ask for sources for unreference information. Indeed, one good way of NPOV'ing articles is to make sure everything in them is properly sourced.
I'm reluctant to post on this one, as I don't know that much about the case. The first proposal you mention I strongly disagree with; currently it has two in support and two opposing, so I don't know if it'll pass. The second, though, I think is problematic, but more O.K. Note that it doesn't say: "citing NPOV and sources is inappropriate." The key words are "Masking of POV edits under the guise...is inappropriate." That I agree with. Pretending to be NPOV and being POV is a problem.
The thing I have a problem with on that one is that it sounds a bit like the ArbCom is deciding what's NPOV and what's not as a decree (note that I haven't read the full case, so I will retract that statement readily and immediately if that's not what's happening). I don't know, though, maybe it was just crystal clear POV-pushing.