[WikiEN-l] Removing unsourced information

[Ken Arromdee]

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Apoc 2400 wrote:
> It is commonly said that anyone can remove unsourced information, and that
> the burden lies on the editor who wants to include information to provide a
> source. I have always taken this to mean that if I think something is wrong
> or otherwise does not belong in the article, then I can remove it at will if
> there is no source. I did not take it to mean that I could go from article
> to article and remove any sentence without a source, for no other reason
> than being unsourced. The exception of course if contentious material about
> living people, which should be removed right away if unsourced. Am I correct
> here? Has the interpretation changed recently?

The problem is that even if you're only supposed to remove contentious
unsourced material, there's absolutely nothing anyone can do to you if you
remove noncontentious material.  This means that the rule is, in practice,
"you can remove anything unsourced" even if there's no doubt whatsoever about
it.  In fact, it's a favorite way to bias an article--just selectively
question all the unsourced material on the opposing side.  Most articles
have enough unsourced material on both sides that it's easy to do.