On 11/29/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I see no reason why we should be flexible about
sources. If it hasn't got
sources it can be deleted, regardless whether this is a policy or a
guideline. It may be kept if someone bothers to find the sources the author
should have included, but that might not happen.
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.
If we come up with a workable policy, people might follow it. Our
policies basically state the undesirable and infeasible goal of "every
statement must be backed up by a reliable, verifiable source". What we
actually *want* is far less than that though. Something like:
* Any statement that if false would be harmful, must be traceable to a source.
* Any statement that could never be backed up by a reliable source
should not be included.
* Where possible, provide sources to help readers determine the
accuracy of statements.
The corollaries of these three rules are that non-trivial, non-harmful
statements don't *have* to be cited, but *should* be. This is what
most people *do*, but is not what our policies *say*.
Anyone agree?
Steve