Which could be used to catch a very large amount of fish.
On 11/29/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
Like how Wikipedia was supposed to be a development grounds for Nupedia? My point is that a "Crappopedia" could open a very large can of worms.
--Ryan
On 11/29/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
I was thinking of an idea that articles could be trimmed down to what's
been
sourced and the longer (albeit unsourced) article could go to some sort
of
Crappopedia where it awaits confirmation. Stuff that is confirmed with a source could be added back. That way, Wikipedia could maintain integrity
and
the other wiki could be a development grounds.
On 11/29/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
e) Once tagged, there should be no big rush about deleting the material, but it should not remain indefinitely, either. How long? Assuming that there's no specific reason to doubt the material, months and months.
The _only_ objections to this I can think of is that that the tags are ugly--which is true but susceptible to a technical fix--or that we are not serious about verifiability and don't truly want to restrict Wikipedia content to things that are supported by published material.
I don't think deleting accurate, high-quality, unreferenced material is in Wikipedia's best interests. Asking for a source, yes. Adding sources, yes. But *deleting* good material? No.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l