[WikiEN-l] Who wins

Thu Apr 20 21:54:43 UTC 2006

On 20/04/06, Pete Bartlett <pcb21 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> So I wonder if it would be more pragmatic to drop these arbitary thresholds and just say "sources are required".

After having spent a fair bit of time analysing WP:V, I'm incapable of
saying what our "arbitrary thresholds" are. The most hardline
statement of WP:V seems to be "Every statement must be sourced", which
is a nonsense that no article actually meets. The softest seems to be
"Every statement should agree with what has been published somewhere,
even if you don't know where. Actually even stuff that's never been
published is probably ok unless someone actually takes exception to
it."

If we ever get around to actually defining what "must" means, or
indeed, what it means that an article "must" satisfy criteria, then we
will all be happier. All we seem to know for sure is that an edit war,
WP:V can be brought out. But no one is really brave enough to say
"don't add unsourced material to articles". Nor do we even say "don't
add material which may not have been published". All we have is an
ideal which is never met, but which is used to blow away articles that
stray too far from it.

Steve