[WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

[Eugene van der Pijll]

Steve Bennett schreef:
> It's more than just that. I recently wrote a stub on [[Wingan Inlet]].
> I know the place exists: I went there. Do I have a source? No. Am I
> confident that a source exists? Yes. Would I rather create an
> unsourced stub, or leave a hole in our encyclopaedia? Unsourced stub,
> with fries.

I recently wrote a stub on [[Heliophorus]], a genus of butterflies. It
links the existing article on its subfamily with the existing articles
of the species. As the subfamily article only lists genera, my new
article is the only way to go from the subfamily article to the
individual species. It is therefore useful, even though it contains
nothing more than a partial list of species.

I created this list from wikipedia: it just contains all species that
have an article. If I had to list my source, it would have been
"Wikipedia", which is Not Acceptable, and would have been removed (I
guess). So I left it unsourced.

Does this make it a worse article than, say, [[Heliophorus brahma]],
which has 6 sources (5 books, 1 journal article)? Note that that article
is 1 sentence long. What do you think is more likely; that this one
sentence is the only information found about the species by someone who
has checked those 5 books; or that the references section has been
copied from some other article, and is therefore more or less worthless?

I hope that someone will some day add useful information to my stub, and
with a bit of luck, he'll add his sources too. But the extra info is
woth much more than the sources, IMHO.

Adding unsourced information is a good thing.


Eugene