[WikiEN-l] Story about Wikipedia response to subtle vandalism

[Gregory Maxwell]

On 10/28/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes. All the same, deletion of accurate material is unfortunate. We
> need to aspire to a level of sensibleness in demanding sources and
> especially in removing material. An article that is accurate but
> lacks sources is an article in need of sources, not an article in
> need of gutting.

It's often easier to write an article from information, then it is to
take a written article and match sources to pre-written information...
The is especially true when working with dead-tree resources because
searching dead-trees for facts in random orders is so slow.

We're not feeling the pain yet, but false source vandalism is bound to
become a notable form of intentional vandalism which we will have a
difficult time preventing unless we make some difficult changes to our
sourcing policy.