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

Mon Oct 16 00:26:41 UTC 2006

On 10/15/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> geni wrote:
> > On 10/15/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > We don't have the manpower.
>
> But that's not even the point.  If the notion got entrenched that
> *any* fact-tagged statement left unattended for more than a week
> could be summarily deleted, I do dare to speculate that it would
> lead to abuses, completely apart from the question of whether
> every fact-tagged statement would receive proper attention.
>
I don't really see why it would lead to any more abuse than the notion
that *any* {{no-source}} tagged image left unattended for more than a
week could be summarily deleted.

Well, I guess deleting images requires an admin to agree, so maybe
that's a reason.  But on the other hand, a "deleted" fact can easily
be re-added by anyone.

Frankly, I think what's *more* likely to lead to abuses is the notion
that a fact which is completely unsourced can be left *in* the
encyclopedia for more than a week.  And it *has* led to abuses, lots
of them.

Anthony