[WikiEN-l] let's be honest then

[Anthony]

On 3/31/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> The biggest problem is not unsourced information - it's false
> information. It's appallingly libelous shit that anyone who looked at
> the article would see if only people looked at the article.

Acutally, the biggest problem is the appallingly libelous shit that
someone who looked at the article would think was true.

Obviously false statements look bad, but really aren't harmful except
from a PR standpoint.  As I understand it false statements aren't even
considered libelous if no one in their right mind would believe them.

In that sense, sourcing requirements *will* help, and they *will*
increase the number of eyeballs on articles, because a sourced
statement is faster and easier to check than an unsourced one.  A rule
alone might not suddenly increase the number of eyeballs, but a rule
that's enforced would certainly make the eyeballs more effective.

Stable versions could probably help too, if implemented properly.

Anthony