On 1/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@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