On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > Gwern Branwen wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Charles Matthews >> <charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: >> >>> quiddity wrote: >>> >>>> What to do about someone who has "lost the plot"? >>>> For example, this editor seems to be going from article to article, >>>> deleting every prose paragraph that doesn't have a ref tag (usually >>>> everything except the intro sentence). >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20100125214401&target=JBsupreme >>>> Some of the content being removed is obviously not good (selfpromoting >>>> peacockery etc), but much is perfectly fine, and this seems to be one >>>> of the worst (most indiscriminate) ways to handle the hypothetical >>>> problem. >>>> >>>> >>> Suggest that one can drive-by even faster in adding {{fact}}? I think >>> this is the first step, the suggestion that identifying unsourced facts >>> is a way of achieving a similar end, and that we can all applaud it when >>> properly done. >>> >>> Charles >>> >> >> And where does the {{fact}}-bombing end? >> >> [[Medici bank]] is as finely referenced an article as I have ever (or >> likely will ever) written with 96 footnotes, multiple books & papers >> consulted, and extensive quoting - yet the overwhelming majority of >> sentences lack <ref> tags and are presumably candidates for bombing. >> >> > Well, I think that in a well-written, well-sourced article people should > be still allowed to ask for further references. I foolishly copied the > basics of [[List of dissenting academies]] out of a book, thinking it > was a cheap article; and so far have added about 120 footnotes and > created around 50 articles at Wikisource to support it. Just shows where > these things can lead. > > I actually had big problems with inline referencing style when it was a > hot potato, and I did start putting articles together sentence by > sentence. There were reassurances that it was not going to lead to > "lame" writing, and I think those were overdone (more precisely, in an > area where there is plenty of academic research at book length, you will > probably by OK, but that's quite a limitation). OTOH inline referenced > writing is now the house style, and actually there are worse things: > concision is good, and fact-checked encyclopedia articles are good, and > the fact that articles are never finished is a given. > > Charles
The problem is not that the article is not finished, the problem is our guidelines allow wikilawyers to demand that the map be the territory. [[WP:ZEN]]: 'Once, a novice was meditating over a guideline, when Gwern came by. The novice was tossed an unreferenced line from a plot summary. Gwern said, "If you do not reference this, it is unsourced and must be removed. But if you do reference it with a quote from the story, it is a copyvio and so must be removed. Now quickly! What do you do?"' Our guidelines make a weak nod toward 'hey guys don't be a WP:DICK mmkay?' but do not ever countermand the strong injunctions towards sourcing. This is not helped by the extremist statements by people like Jimbo that material without a <ref> is to be considered guilty until proven innocent. An editor can go to an article and challenge unremarked material of ancient provenance sentence by sentence*, and there is no point at which a good editor can say to her, 'You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!' Our guidelines assume a binary - something is referenced or unreferenced. An article is referenced or unreferenced. Magical thinking ('if we just delete all unreferenced BLPs, we will have improved article quality *obviously*!'). There is, of course, nothing that is completely 'referenced' - if I state the Medici bank used bills of draft payable in florins on the Bruges branch, and I cite de Rouver 1987, it can be object that I haven't really referenced it; if I provide page number, they can fall back on 'does the ref say Bruges? florins? Medici bank? bills of drat?'; if I provide quotes, they can employ copyright paranoia; and so on. Nor is there anything completely unreferenced; if I assert Star Wars canon has multiple levels, the references - though inaccessible to me now and never to be included in the article - are the many books and articles I've read about Star Wars. Referencing is a long continuum with nothing at either end. * It is worth noting that the administrator Lars, involved in deleting BLPs, has claimed that WP:SILENCE has its exact opposite meaning in BLP articles - material that has gone unremarked & unchallenged for years is actually highly controversial, and not anodyne & acceptable. -- gwern _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l