Nathan wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:45 PM, phoebe ayers <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> And to disagree with Gwern: sourcing matters. <snip> >> >> -- phoebe >> >> >I don't think Gwern was saying that sourcing is irrelevant, only that"unreferenced BLP" is a blunt measurement that doesn't return much real information about the status of any given article.
It's a blunt metric, to be sure, but Gwern's argument that some referencing looks like make-work (true) means that adding references to biographies is pointless (false) is pretty much flawed. Consider how one tests an article to see whether it is a hoax: one tries to verify this and that, and in the end nothing checks out, which is the "now I'm suspicious" moment. A proper reference in a BLP shows it isn't a hoax, and that is one criterion our articles should satisfy. >I'm sure there are all sorts of other long backlogs of article problems, even >on BLPs. This is also true. The people who worry about copyright are, well, worried. This is the most interesting comparison. Do we or do we not regard lack of sourcing in a BLP to be as serious as copyright violation? No consensus on that yet, clearly. One step is being taken in that direction, would be one way to explain what is currently going on. Even that much is not perhaps going to be accepted. But the two issues stand out from other things such as POV and writing problems because they have a legal dimension, or in other words could be threats to the whole project. Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
