[WikiEN-l] Porchesia

[Carl Peterson]

On 10/3/06, Jake Waskett <jake at waskett.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 14:19 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
> > > Model 1: Have the Wiki automatically insert this template into text of
> a
> > > new article in the main namespace.
> > > Model 2: Have the Wiki automatically subst this template into the
> > > beginning of all articles in the main namespace *unless* the article
> > > contains at least one ISBN/external link/<ref>/etc.
> > > There are pros and cons to each. Model 1 is easy for a determined
> hoaxer
> > > to circumvent. Model 2 is trickier to implement, requiring either two
> > > passes or a flag to maintain, but more robust. It would also have the
> > > benefit (some might say drawback) of drawing attention to a lot of
> > > *currently* unsourced articles.
> >
> >
> > It'd save me going around putting {{unreferenced}} on lots of
> > articles. Mind you, method 2 could be implemented by a semi-automatic
> > bot. I must say, I'm tempted.
>
> Hmm. Hadn't thought of that approach.
>
> I have to say that I prefer {{not verified}}, because - to my mind - the
> emphasis is that it hasn't *yet* been verified by another, whereas the
> alternative strikes me as more critical. If I was a new user and had
> just contributed an article, the former would likely encourage me to
> continue, while the latter might make me disillusioned.


The concept of verification is also truer to the core principles on which
the move would be based (verifiability, not truth). It is also more common
in web-based circles in this context (e.g., e-mail verification to see if
you really exist). That is to say, a verification statement is less alarming
because we are generally more used to them.

Carl