Cheney Shill schreef:
Because it
says there is only a problem if the material
is doubtful. An
unsourced statement that is not challenged and not likely
to be
challenged -- and that is not libelous if untrue, I
should add -- is not
to be removed, according to WP:V.
That makes it highly subjective.
Subjective, yes. Don't know about highly subjective; as soon as there is
any significant difference of opinion if something should be sourced, it
is likely to be challenged.
What determines if it is
doubtful or or likely to be challenged?
Common sense. Most people have this, or it would not be common.
Submit whatever you like without sources. It gets to
stay if not
challenged. And if the challenge gets to stay if it's not
challeneged.
No, as soon as there is a challenge, the statement (and the
counter-statement) should be sourced. That's what WP:V says: challenged
information should be sourced.
So Wikipedia is a collection of unsourced
opinions and unsourced counter challenges. Long live the
edit wars.
Ehm, no. The point is, that 90% of the information on wikipedia is
unsourced but not the subject of edit wars. It is this information that
I'm talking about.
Eugene