On 1/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The multiple non-trivial sources thing is to shut out
self-promotion and ad
campaigns.
Unfortunately a neccesary evil.
Well, it's not *necessary* to shut out self-promotion and ad
campaigns, if by that you mean useful neutral information related to
the subject of the article which might cause some people to buy some
things.
The point I'm trying to make is that your
unsourced info may be accurate and useful, but it would be indistiguishable
from spam or a hoax if you don't cite it.
If it takes 5 seconds to type the subject of the article into Google
and see that it's not a hoax, then it's *not* indistinguishable from a
hoax.
You'd effectively be making others spend more time
tracking down sources you
presumably have readily available. Do you really want to give others 15
minutes of work when you can fix it yourself in less than 5?
A valid point, but 1) not everyone knows this or thinks of this, in
part because *it isn't a rule and in fact was rejected as a rule*; and
2) people sometimes forget. If we really want a source for every new
article, why not force people to write down a source when they create
an article. Yes, some people will write "sadkjfhuks isdiof" as their
source - requiring them to write *something* doesn't cure
maliciousness, but it does solve those cases where the person just
didn't think to write a source.
Anthony