How is someone else to know your information is reliable when you don't cite your sources? Readers can't see the difference between an expert and someone pretending to be one when they're reading. And while you may well know something, it's easy to make mistakes with information you think you remember. It has happened to me personally that what I thought was true was in fact an urban legend or a misunderstanding on my part. Really, citing sources is better for the reliability of the article. If you don't feel like using citation templates on the sentences, at least put a few links and titles in a references section.
Mgm
On 1/14/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Anthony schreef:
On 1/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
RoboGeo: the sources include two articles that are not written by its creators. One of those is even a book.
However, this seems to suggest that any article which doesn't contain two sources (or at least claim that two sources exist) is a CSD. In that respect it seems too easy to remove any article (speedily, at that) by wikilawyering about lack of sources.
In another thread, Jeff Raymond wrote (about [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles]]):
"The chance of that gaining consensus are next to nil."
Nevertheless, this example shows that there are a number of people who already seem to follow WP:CSDUA.
<rant> This is part of a wider trend towards "reliability" at the cost of "usefulness". By deleting uncontroversial but unsourced statements and articles, of course we increase Wikipedia's reliability, because a part of this unsourced information is not true. But most of that deleted material is true, and useful for the reader of that article.
For me, it is fun to write an article (probably a stub) about a topic I know nothing about. A large part of the fun is to find reliable sources with Google, and I have no problem citing them.
It is fun to write an article about a topic I know a lot about as well. But I don't need sources for that, so if I have to go look for them, I'd only do that pro forma, to make the article look good to the "reliability cabal". That is not fun. So I leave those articles unsourced.
There are people who think this is a bad thing. IT IS NOT! Adding unsourced information to Wikipedia is a good thing. It improves the usefulness of the encyclopedia for its readers. (As long as it isn't nonsense, of course. So we'll have to trust our editors to a degree. And we'll have to be very clear to our readers that nothing on Wikipedia is guaranteed accurate. Just like all competing encyclopedias, in fact.)
I'd rather have an encyclopedia that has few sources but has 95% relevant and useful information on 100% of the subjects, that I can use as a starting point for real research if the veridity of the material is really important for me, than an encyclopedia that claims to be 100% verified, but with only 10% of the content.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that there is a lot of pressure to move towards the wrong side of the scale. It is understandable. Citizendification of Wikipedia look attractive. But it's the wrong way to go. IMHO.
</rant>
Sorry about the length of my post. It's just something I'm noticing more and more. But maybe it's just me.
Anyway. Adding unsourced information to Wikipedia is a good thing. That is really all I wanted to say.
Eugene
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l