Andrew Lih wrote:
On 11/30/05, Brian [email protected] wrote:
In light of the recent USA Today article:
In the same way that we are currently enforcing proper image tags using a bot, could we do the same with unsourced articles? Start out by placing {{unsourced}} in all the articles lacking sources, and then, if it is not sourced in a week, create something like the {{copvio}} page-replacer to hide the unsourced content (the entire article), explaining with a detailed message that the article must be thoroughly sourced.
In my mind, at least, it doesn't seem like there should be any difference between enforcing sources for images and sources for articles. If anything we should be enforcing the latter more, since articles form the basis of the encyclopedia. I know this won't solve everything, but I think it should be a vital part of Wikipedia; since we do not know who edits an article, we need to know that it is based on information that we can verify ourselves.
It's an interesting idea, but it would apply to so many articles on such a coarse grained way it may wind up being ignored. Perhaps such a function could be tied to the TOC, so that each section would have a flag of whether it had been sourced to satisfaction.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
And who is going to have time to check all the sources. Also most of the material that I write comes from books as I hate the external link festivity some articles become. So who is going to check the books I use. Hint you can find my library I have at my disposal in Thailand here: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Waerth/Mijn_bronnen (it is in Dutch but you get my drift).
Also I think it is wrong to play panick over one criticism. Yes things need to be done. We knew that for years already. To now start panicking and coming with emergency reactions we might not help the situation.
Walter / Waerth