[WikiEN-l] "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources will be deleted."

[Cheney Shill]

Eugene van der Pijll <eugene at vanderpijll.nl> wrote:

> Cheney Shill schreef:
> > Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> > > And the very next sentence after that is "Editors
> should
> > > provide a
> > > reliable source for material that is challenged or
> likely
> > > to be
> > > challenged, or it may be removed." This reduces the
> scope
> > > of the
> > > policy's impact rather significantly.
> > 
> > How does that reduce the scope of the policy?
> 
> Because it says there is only a problem if the material
> is doubtful. An
> unsourced statement that is not challenged and not likely
> to be
> challenged -- and that is not libelous if untrue, I
> should add -- is not
> to be removed, according to WP:V.

That makes it highly subjective.  What determines if it is
doubtful or or likely to be challenged?  To interpret WP:V
this way is basically to say its not policy.  There's no
point for it, not to mention it violates NPOV, so now we
have a pointless policy that violates NPOV.  Submit
whatever you like without sources.  It gets to stay if not
challenged.  And if the challenge gets to stay if it's not
challeneged.  So Wikipedia is a collection of unsourced
opinions and unsourced counter challenges.  Long live the
edit wars.


~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick 
http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)


--spam may follow--


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go 
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail