John Lee wrote:
On 10/29/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Philip Sandifer wrote:
On Oct 28, 2007, at 3:14 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> Those "Hey, I'll start a one-para
article on something I know" are
>
>
generally just as bad or worse, and harder to remove.
I'm missing, I think, why this is bad.
-Phil
No sources, half the time ("half" being probably an
underestimation) on
very, very borderline subjects that -just- duck speedy to start with,
usually most of what's there is wrong (because it's pulled from memory,
not sources), etc.
Is it your position that having no sources should constitute a criterion for
speedy deletion?
Johnleemk
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Maybe not speedy. But they certainly shouldn't be allowed to stick
around indefinitely either. My idea was a PROD-like system specifically
for sourceless articles, under which one can remove the prod by adding a
minimum of one relevant source. We pay lip service to sourcing, but we
don't -enforce- it. It's a bit like saying "Really, vandalizing is bad,
we mean it, don't do that", but then never actually blocking anyone for
vandalism. In the same vein, we should either do away with the source
requirement, or enforce it by -actually- removing unsourced content. Bet
you can guess which I would like to see.
(As an aside, if we implemented a system like that, I'd be all for anon
page creation, especially since we seem to have plenty of newpage
patrollers right now.)