[WikiEN-l] Re: Anti-scientific bias has me hopping mad!

Wed Oct 8 22:37:28 UTC 2003

Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> That would carry a lot of weight? That's the most
> baseless argument I've heard so far, that it's
> unsourced. Almost all of Wikipedia is unsourced!

And almost all of Wikipedia is uncontested, too.  One benefit of our
NPOV process is that at any given point in time, 99%+ of what is
written is something that everyone who isn't bonkers could agree with.

But when something _is_ contested, then saying that it's unsourced is
a perfectly valid response.  In the specific example we're discussing,
the fact in question, about "Leonard III" was made up whole cloth.

> If we say that all of wikipedia must be sourced, it would be very
> detrimental to the project. A Google search will almost always find
> some reference supporting any fact in Wikipedia, so long as it isn't
> made up (if they're "wrong" or it's a minority view or something,
> then it should still be preserved).

Right, well, in this case, the fact was made up.  That was the context
of the example.

I'm not saying that everything in wikipedia has to be sourced.  That
would be burdensome.  But I am saying that one way to prevent an
excessive anti-deletionism is for someone who objects to something to
request a source before the item in question goes back into the
article.

Perhaps my phrasing could be improved.  "I did a quick search in
google and found no evidence that anyone named Leonard III ever
existed, much less that he was a brilliant tactician in the 100 Years
War.  I've removed it for now, and unless someone has a source, I
think it should stay out."

I think that's a totally valid way to remove things from articles that
shouldn't be there.

--Jimbo