Cheney Shill schreef:
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.
Subjective, yes. Don't know about highly subjective; as soon as there is any significant difference of opinion if something should be sourced, it is likely to be challenged.
What determines if it is doubtful or or likely to be challenged?
Common sense. Most people have this, or it would not be common.
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.
No, as soon as there is a challenge, the statement (and the counter-statement) should be sourced. That's what WP:V says: challenged information should be sourced.
So Wikipedia is a collection of unsourced opinions and unsourced counter challenges. Long live the edit wars.
Ehm, no. The point is, that 90% of the information on wikipedia is unsourced but not the subject of edit wars. It is this information that I'm talking about.
Eugene