K P wrote:
For botany, we generally don't put unreferenced tags if there's even one source, and plant articles (unless it's a European herb) generally require going to IPNI or a single literature search to get the authority for the name.
I think you guys doing botany have it fairly easy. Nobody accuses a carniverous plant of acting maliciously. Even with conflicting taxonomic systems it is relatively easy to document the conflict.
No one has complained about my removing tags. People do complain about my tagging things, though. Some of the aircraft folks thing tags on articles are attacks on their persons, even when the article is essentially a copy of the sales brochure for the plane.
Unlike plants, matters concerning human activity are more controversial.
I think tags are alerts to the reader of the article that you need to be more careful than usual obtaining material from an article.
This should be in bold type! We are deluding ourselves if we believe that we can provide anywhere near 100% accuracy on our material. If we can ever convince the reader that checking out the information that he wants is his own responsibility we will have accomplished more by that than by having everything perfectly accurate. Entire educational systems have failed their students by making them believe that they can be complacent about the accuracy of what they read as long as it's from an authoritative source.
Ec