I respect the wikipedia. I regard both the model of restricting
contributions to experts and inviting broad contributions as equally
valid and potentially equally flawed. I've actually disagreed with
very few deletions I've seen, but they happen. Since I can't just
revert pages and am not sure I'd want to, I remember learning
technique from figuring out how one "unsourced" statement had been
footnoted and restoring successfully (after only two tries) its link
to the footnote (which I could access through history in another tab).
Please don't make such a blanket statement about unsourced or any
other materials. I've certainly been guilty of things as stupid as
that. I do respect both sides of this debate, and I think that if you
really start demanding a high threshold for contributions, you will
cut into the possibility of reaching a constructive consensus in many
articles.
On 8/15/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
In contrast, how should we handle indiscriminate
deletions of unsourced (but
possibly verifiable) material?
Of course, any deletion of unsourced material is likely to bring forth
cries that it is "indiscriminate" by partisans who are too lazy or
dishonest to go find a source.
For this reason, in practice, it is generally to be applauded. :)
--Jimbo
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l