Ray Saintonge wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
On 6/16/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
A Wikiproject to "eliminate unreferenced articles"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_articles
This seems a bit excessive.
Well, it depends how that elimination is being done - by adding references is quite OK, for instance. By nominating for deletion things that no references can be found for after an exhausting search is also OK in my book.
Experience shows that the "exhausting search" is not always there. Sometimes there is no search before nomination; perhaps a nomination should show evidence that some searching has happened.
Or we could go the other way, and say that an -article- should show some evidence that searching has happened.
WP:V:
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."
The fact that you had no option but to quote a rule gives me confidence about my own argument. Unfortunately people who are too quick to use rules are also too quick to misuse them.. The rule makes sense when there are no other options. If someone insists that the inhabitants of Mars are four feet tall, have green skin, and reproduce in a manner that resembles putting one's thumbs in a partner's ears I would be tempted to invoke that rule. In many instances, however, those invoking the rule are just being lazy dicks. The evidence is readily available, and far less time would be wasted adding it instead of hassling that editor about his failures.
You write an article, it is -your job- to source it, not someone else's. If you're just hacking at it from memory...well what are you writing it for in the first place, find sources first!
I joined at a time when Wikipedia was a collaborative effort of all editors, and no one person owned any articles. In those good old days someone who felt that a source was needed would help his brother editor by adding one. Sometimes that brother editor might even thank him for doing so.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And, to paraphrase yours, your sarcasm and "good old days" reference (combined even!) gives me plenty of confidence in my position, as generally such shows an inability to actually show how someone is wrong and why. Yes, sometimes I have been able to find a source for something. Yes, I do generally look before nominating for deletion (unless the claim made in the article is beyond preposterous, invention of a perpetual motion machine or something.)
But that doesn't mean I can always -find- it. If you got your information off of the first page of Google results, chances are I'll find it too. If you got your information out of a 1924 book available at only five libraries in the world, chances are, I probably won't. No one knows where you got it better than, well, you!
And I wonder if anyone knows what the term "editor" means? Part of editing is appraising, criticizing, and often, cutting. Those who cut are your "brother editors", too! Not lazy dicks, not ignorant slobs. Of course, if you feel that a particular section -shouldn't- be cut, you can and should disagree with them. But do so politely, just as you would with any editor who's making good-faith edits you nonetheless don't agree with.