[WikiEN-l] "Reliable sources" guideline being treated as absolute policy

Tue Nov 28 13:57:14 UTC 2006

"MacGyverMagic/Mgm" wrote

> I see no reason why we should be flexible about sources. 

I do. Inviting inflexibility on sources is to ignore 'good taste'.

>If it hasn't got
> sources it can be deleted, regardless whether this is a policy or a
> guideline.

But it need not be deleted. Especially if it is a good article, otherwise. If people hold back a needed article because they are afraid of deletion, we lose, not gain.

>It may be kept if someone bothers to find the sources the author
> should have included, but that might not happen.

Certainly won't, if it's already gone.

> The only way to make people use sources is hammering it in, because no
> matter how many times it is said, people will ignore it. Perhaps deletion
> will get some backsides into gear.

Stick, carrot, what's the difference? Mainly stick is an easier, more clear-cut policy. Which will drive away people who feel they have to master 'reliable sources policy' (bad joke) before posting anything.

Look at it this way: good Wikipedians are those that post material that survives into later versions of pages. Aggressive deletion of unsourced material cuts down the pool of 'good Wikipedians'. It has always been a bad idea to imply, for example, that you need an academic library handy, to work on scholarly topics. 

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information