[WikiEN-l] good example of overuse of {{fact}}

• Previous message: [WikiEN-l] good example of overuse of {{fact}}
• Next message: [WikiEN-l] good example of overuse of {{fact}}
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Jimbo wrote:
> I would recommend that anything like this for which no citation appears 
> within 7 days be removed or edited in some fashion to remove the need.

With equal emphasis on the "edited in some fashion to remove the
need" part, bearing in mind that in many cases the appropriate
edit is simply to remove the tag.  Although many instances of
the {fact} tag are properly applied to surprising or dubious
facts which do need to be cited or removed, many others refer
to obvious facts or facts which are in fact supported by an
article's existing references.  So (as ever) some care is needed
here; anyone who got the idea that "any fact left uncited for
7 days may/must be removed" would be setting themselves or the
encyclopedia up for a fall.

(My point here is not to argue against use of the {fact} tag
or the removal of unsourced facts.  But of course the reality
is that we've currently got extra-zealous editors strewing this
tag around *everywhere*, and not always appropriately.)

• Previous message: [WikiEN-l] good example of overuse of {{fact}}
• Next message: [WikiEN-l] good example of overuse of {{fact}}
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]