[WikiEN-l] BLP messiness

[geni]

On 7/11/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What if the material is accurate and can be checked with a quick
> > google search?
>
> The burden of proof is always on the person adding the information.

Not to the extent of removeing the material.

> "Source" does not mean "somewhere which can be used to verify the
> information", it means "the place where the information came from".
> Only the person that added the information actually knows the source,
> so they should be the one citing sources.

However we use the word references rather than sources.



>The whole idea of adding
> sources to existing articles is completely backward. We need to work
> on getting people to actually *use* reliable sources, not just cite
> them. If people were actually using the sources then they could cite
> them as they went along with almost no additional work.

Depends. Refing [[Stroudwater Navigation]] was a pain in the neck even
though I had the main source in front of me the whole time.

[[Canal#Features]] would be much more of a pain. The problem is that
it jumps between levels of complexity so some you would be looking at
citeing from a school textbook and others from wighter tomes.

The effort required is such that if I was required to do it that
article would still look like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canal&oldid=132489555

Which isn't really B class despite the claims on the talk page (I
would argue the current version is just about).

-- 
geni