[WikiEN-l] Here's one for the Wiki Book of World Records...

[K P]

On 6/28/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/28/07, C.J. Croy <cjcroy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/28/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Freecycle_Network
> > >
> > > Have you ever seen a greater quantity of "citation needed",
> > > "neutrality disputed", and other such tags and templates in one
> > > article?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Yes.  Your article wins if we judge solely on the controversies section,
> > but
> > this article<
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Crazy_8%2527s&direction=prev&oldid=90393406
> > >wins
> > if we judge based on tag density in the overall
> > article.<
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Crazy_8%2527s&direction=prev&oldid=90393406
> > >
> > I don't know why people do this.  I suppose it's an improvement over
> > deleting the info with a vague edit summary such as "Per BLP".
>
>
> OH MY GAWD. {{dubious}}?  {{cn}}?? {{an}}??
>
> Agggggh. Just edit the freaking articles, already. If people want to get
> into flamewars, do it on the talk page.

Tags also warn readers--and, frankly, I'm not editing articles owned
by people and getting into flamewars, but I will alert readers that
the article is a piece of crap, and hopefully someone else will come
along and edit the article.

KP