"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