[WikiEN-l] 17,268 badly referenced living biographies

[Ken Arromdee]

On Fri, 11 May 2007, Andrew Gray wrote:
> > IIRC this was because there were sources saying David Gaiman the
> > notable scientologist had a son called Neil, and lived in town X; and
> > sources saying Neil Gaiman the author's father was named David and
> > they also lived in town X - but no source saying 'David Gaiman the
> > scientologist' and 'Neil Gaiman the author' were related.
> 
> There was a truly inspired debate on one talkpage (I just went to read
> it) which ran something like this:
> 
> A: I've heard some newspaper explicitly quoted the connection in an
> interview with David in 2005 (...)
> A: I've gone to the British Library and read the newspaper in
> question. Here is a bit. [quotes]
> B: I've seen that passage quoted on many Internet sites. I want to see
> it reprinted by a reliable source. We need to show that we're using
> the source itself, not some transcription on the internet.
> A: Er, this is quoting from the original. Which I have read. In the
> British Library.
> B: Oh, er.

I think the problem is that people want to remove it for some reason that
has nothing to do with lack of sources.  The sources are just an excuse.
So when a source finally turns up, they have to grasp at straws for a
reason to discount it.

It's the same reason we have dozens of sourced Pokemon articles: people who
don't like Pokemon articles tried to remove them by demanding sources.  You
try that and all you get is sourced Pokemon articles.

And though this doesn't work for Neil Gaiman or Pokemon, in most other places
it's very effective, which is why it keeps happening to begin with.  Demanding
sources is too convenient.