On 12/27/06, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
No, a source is only required for anything that is
disputed. That's
pretty fundamental, WP:V. Quite workable and highly desirable.
That's not quite what WP:V says (unfortunately):
1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by
reliable sources.
2. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it
may be challenged or removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the
editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to
remove it.
Point 2 is pretty bad - it turns WP:V into a process, rather than a
state. Were a particularly pedantic editor to show up, an article
would basically have to cite a source for all "material".
Removal by any editor is paticularly harsh. There is no obligation that
the deleting editor have any clue about what he's doing. We've been
known to have a few like that.
Ec