[WikiEN-l] "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources will be deleted."

[Ray Saintonge]

Cheney Shill wrote:

>Eugene van der Pijll 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.
>  
>
I subscribe to the notion that _every_ first draft article follows 
NPOV.  It is the product of one editor, and none of its information has 
been challenged.  It's all downhill from there.   The half life of this 
NPOV could be measured as the time between the original and second 
edit.  The NPOV of a particularly contentious subject will have a very 
short half-life.  We all, at least in theory, strive to follow NPOV, but 
we may not have all the information to put the opposing view correctly, 
if we even know it exists.  It is perfecly reasonable to wait until 
proponents of an alternative view can put that forward; they can do it 
so much better.  With good faith on both sides, a consensus can be 
achieved.  It only becomes a series of challenges and counter-challenges 
when the opposing viewholders consider being right more important than 
finding common ground.

Ec