[WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

[Steve Block]

K P wrote:
> On 1/14/07, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene at vanderpijll.nl> wrote:
>> MacGyverMagic/Mgm schreef:
>>> How is someone else to know your information is reliable when you don't
>> cite
>>> your sources?
>> Yes, that is a good example of the emphasis on reliability at the cost
>> of usefulness.
>>
>>> Really, citing sources is better for the reliability of the
>>> article.
>> Yes. Citing sources is better. That in no way contradicts my main point:
>>
>>>> Adding unsourced information to Wikipedia is a good thing.
>> Eugene
> 
> 
> "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."

It's a shame we don't have as many people manning the firehose of 
salvage as we do manning the firehose of crap.  I'm with Jeff and Eugene 
on this one in spirit.  Let's not colour this as a process dispute 
please, because it isn't.  It's about the best ways to fix articles, 
either through deletion or sourcing.  These articles should go through 
afd, and it's not a notability csd, it's an importance one.  Nobody 
should be speedy deleting because an article fails any notability 
guideline, that's not and never has been policy.  The policy is to 
speedy delete articles on a certain topic which fail to assert and claim 
of importance or significance.  I usually interpret that as being a 
credible one, since otherwise we can't technically speedy articles on 
Gary Barnes who is the biggest gay in the world, and in actuality, I 
don't believe much harm comes to Wikipedia through stretching csd 
criteria, because I believe most of our admins act in good faith and 
will restore an article if a strong case is made.  I have openly stated, 
and will openly restate, anyone who can write a sourced article on a 
deleted subject, I will quite happily restore the deleted article and 
merge histories.  I admit there will be quibbling over the sources, I'm 
not keen to see article built only on primary sources, but I'm happy to 
use afd in such instances.

Steve block


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.12/628 - Release Date: 15/01/07 11:04