[WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 40, Issue 133

[Daniel P. B. Smith]

> From: Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca>
>
> Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
>>> From: "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp at gmail.com>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Unsourced material is not high-quality material.
>
> It can be, depending on the circumstances. This isn't something on  
> which
> categorical statements can be made (or at least one can't expect
> anything close to consensus on such statements). For example, consider
> the articles where we imported masses of unreferenced material from  
> the
> 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. That's not even high quality stuff by
> today's standards but it's served as a good foundation for further  
> work.

Such articles _are_ sourced. They're sourced to the 1911  
Encyclopaedia Britannica.

When we source something to _The New York Times_, we don't worry  
about whether _The New York Times_ cited _its_ sources. The reader  
knows where the material came from: not from an individual editor's  
head, but from a specific issue and page of The New York Times. They  
can make their judgement about its reliability.

When we source something to the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, the  
reader knows it cames, not from an individual editor's head, but from  
the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, and they can make their judgement  
on its reliability.