[WikiEN-l] good example of overuse of {{fact}}

[Jimmy Wales]

Steve Summit wrote:
> With equal emphasis on the "edited in some fashion to remove the
> need" part, bearing in mind that in many cases the appropriate
> edit is simply to remove the tag.  Although many instances of
> the {fact} tag are properly applied to surprising or dubious
> facts which do need to be cited or removed, many others refer
> to obvious facts or facts which are in fact supported by an
> article's existing references.  So (as ever) some care is needed
> here; anyone who got the idea that "any fact left uncited for
> 7 days may/must be removed" would be setting themselves or the
> encyclopedia up for a fall.

Yes, of course.  My feeling here is that the fact tag is in essence a 
request: "Could some other human look at this and confirm for me that 
this sounds sketchy and either needs to be referenced or removed?"  And 
so there are (roughly) three possible responses: (1) reference it (2) 
remove it (3) note (on the talk page, I think) that the fact tag was 
removed because the claim is not, after all, sketchy.

--Jimbo