[WikiEN-l] Proposal: Article Improvement Weeks! (was Turn off article creation AND deletion.)

Mon Dec 12 23:41:04 UTC 2005

On 12/12/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Sam Korn wrote:
> > On 12/11/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> >>In my opinion it is never acceptable to keep false information in the
> >>article namespace.  There are places where eventualism is acceptable,
> >>but presenting false information as true information is not one of
> >>them.
> >>Oh well, whatever.  Two separate people seem honestly and irreparably
> >>opposed to the idea.  I'll just drop it.
>
> > I agree with you, but with one caveat.  It shouldn't be removed, just
> > marked as being unverified.  If it is marked as such, Wikipedia
> > specifically abdicates all responsibility for the contents.  This way,
> > the information is still available so *anyone* can verify it, admin or
> > not.
>
>
> The {{unreferenced}} tag pretty much puts this message across, unless
> the reader is too stupid to breathe without instructions.
>
>
> - d.

Either the information is easy to be verified, and we should do that,
or it isn't, and we should remove it until someone verifies it. 
Either way I don't see the point of adding a tag.

I'm very afraid that this solution is going to lead to thousands of
articles with annoying little self-reference tags on them.  And then,
what does it mean if an article *doesn't* have this tag?  Are we
saying that article *has* been verified?

I can see it now: "This Buckinghamshire location article does not cite
its references or sources. You can help Wikipedia by including
appropriate citations."  What's next?  "This article related to
broadcasting in Singapore has spelling mistakes.  You can help
Wikipedia by fixing the spelling."

Fortunately, Magnus Manske is working on task management support. 
It's my understanding that it's made for exactly this sort of thing.

Anthony