[WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

[Ray Saintonge]

K P wrote:

> "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."
>
>At some point, though, Wikipedia has to decide what it is, a reliable source
>of information on the Internet, or a place for its editors.  At one of the
>top 10 sites, it should be leaning towards the former, with, eventually, all
>information reliable and sourced.
>
>Right now there is a place for some unsourced information, namely in
>articles tagged that they're unsourced, or "let the reader beware."
>
>A lot of the obvious solutions (all information has to be sourced) detract
>from what I see as the primary Wikipedia force that will eventually make it
>THE most useful site on the Internet: anyone can edit.
>
Ths all appears sound.  Sourcing is good but we should not be having 
fits of anxiety over it.  Every article needs to evolve in its own time 
frame.  Sourcing and fact checking are all a part of that evolution from 
a rough stub to a feature article.  It can happen at different rates 
depending on, among other factors, the popularity of the subject.  The 
project as a whole will never be fully sourced because we will always be 
adding new articles which themselves will need to go through their own 
evolution.

"Unsourced" and "beware" tags are important too, but with flexible and 
often long time limits for cleaning up the problem.  I support the 
stable version concept, though I would go further than a simple 
"not-vandalized" marker.  I think there is room for a far more 
sophisticated system of ratings.  A simple system that invites people to 
add their ratings will also be good for drawing people.  Ones who might 
not now be inclined to edit may be willing to rate an article if its 
something as simple as putting in a number and sending.  When they do so 
they would get a message like, "Your rating has been recorded; if you 
think that something in the article needs to be fixed please clich here."

In the light of assuming good faith the anticipation of vandals can be 
obsessive.  We do need to be vigilant about vandals, but we also need to 
maintain a presumption of trust.

Ec