[WikiEN-l] Requiring sources

Sat Dec 24 17:36:54 UTC 2005

On 12/24/05, Jon <thagudearbh at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:  The proposals I have
difficulty with are as follows:-

>
>     3.2.2 Sources demanded  2) After Xed restored, Jayjg demanded sources
> [6] [7] despite the fact that a simple Google search [8] gives 80,000 hits.
> He also removed any reference to occupation.
>
>
>   and
>     3.3.3 Viriditas and Jayjg reminded regarding NPOV  3) Viriditas (talk
> • contribs) and Jayjg (talk • contribs) are reminded that Wikipedia is a
> cooperative enterprise which operates by consensus. Masking of POV editing
> under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding sources is inappropriate
>
>
>   Regarding the first one, I think it is fundamentally important that the
> onus is on the editor inserting information into an article to provide a
> source. It's easy to add information - but time-consuming to check it's
> veracity (particularly if you don't know where it's come from).
>
>
>   Regarding the second one, I don't believe it can ever be wrong to ask
> for sources for unreference information. Indeed, one good way of NPOV'ing
> articles is to make sure everything in them is properly sourced.
>

I'm reluctant to post on this one, as I don't know that much about the case.
The first proposal you mention I strongly disagree with; currently it has
two in support and two opposing, so I don't know if it'll pass. The second,
though, I think is problematic, but more O.K. Note that it doesn't say: "citing
NPOV and sources is inappropriate." The key words are "Masking of POV edits
under the guise...is inappropriate." That I agree with. Pretending to be
NPOV and being POV is a problem.

The thing I have a problem with on that one is that it sounds a bit like the
ArbCom is deciding what's NPOV and what's not as a decree (note that I
haven't read the full case, so I will retract that statement readily and
immediately if that's not what's happening). I don't know, though, maybe it
was just crystal clear POV-pushing.