On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, William Pietri wrote: >> The problem is that even if you're only supposed to remove contentious >> unsourced material, there's absolutely nothing anyone can do to you if you >> remove noncontentious material. > I think it's reasonable to ask the remover if they're actually > contending the quality of the material, or otherwise believe it to be > contentious.
1) They just have to say "I think that since there's no source it may not be true"--doubting it *because* it has no source. Of course the need for being unsourced *and* contentious is redundant if unsourced automatically implies contentious, but nobody cares about that. 2) This usually happens when someone wants to delete the opposing side for a controversial subject. For a controversial subject, doubting a statement is always plausible--everything is contentious. 3) We so strongly stress the need for sources that saying "it's okay, because it's not contentious" will simply fall on deaf ears. It's a problem Wikipedia has in other places--so strongly emphasizing some point, and so strongly deemphasizing the exceptions, that the exceptions become impractical because nobody will let you use one. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
