jayjg wrote:
On 12/26/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/26/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
No, a source is only required for anything that is disputed. That's pretty fundamental, WP:V. Quite workable and highly desirable.
And it goes above and beyond just WP. Citations of claims, inferences/conclusions/derived statements, and non-obvious factual statements (that is, not common knowledge [taking the arbitrary nature of "common knowledge" into consideration, of course]) are simply an academic "must" if you aim to be taken seriously. That's how I interpret relevant Wikipedia policies, and how I apply them.
That's the point; if Wikipedia is going to become a source of knowledge that is taken seriously, instead of being continually derided, its standards are going to be have to be high, rather than "it's ridiculous that I should have to cite all of my claims".
I have no argument with high standards, or relaxing those standards when something is undisputed. Maybe what we should strive for is the standard that would be required in a good academic paper. We can easily agree that going too much below that standard will have a serious effect on credibility, but we also have to recognize that there can be consequences to going too far over.
Then too standards can vary according to the subject matter. They absolutely need to be more severe in political areas where disputes are commonplace, or biograohies where there is a risk of libel. We also need to acknowledge that the broad ideas that are true for the wider article that includes our subject is also true for our target article, unless it is concerned with a specified variation from that generality.
Your example quote suggests a certain defensiveness on the part of that editor. Its general nature would leave me suspicious. Success in dealing with him may not be is having '''all''' his claims referenced, but in getting him to understand that some important ones need to be substantiated. Being willing to show some spirit of compromise with them will do a great deal more for turning them into good future editors than punitive processes when they don't follow our "rules" to the letter.
Ec