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