4 ms·
I know it's frustrating to write true things and have them deleted, but I hope you understand how bad it would be to generalize the rule "accept uncited/unverif
by tedsanders 5y ago
I know it's frustrating to write true things and have them deleted, but I hope you understand how bad it would be to generalize the rule "accept uncited/unverified claims as true if the account who wrote them says it's true."
I say this as someone who spent weeks writing up a new Wikipedia article with 50 citations and then had it graded a C because I used too many primary sources instead of secondary sources. I empathize with you, but I also empathize with the editors.
- rob_c 5y agoYes and no. I'd argue having an unpolished article in need of work is better than a stub as it encourages interaction. Not to mention being told to stop using a paywall for citing a journal (which is now out of print) as a source.
- renewiltord 5y agoThe danger of the unpolished article thing is that if there is a falsehood on it people will publish the equivalent of this article but with the title: How a Wikipedia Lie Ruined This Man’s Life. Or some such thing.
- rob_c 5y agoSo nothing should go on the internet unless it's fact checked?
- renewiltord 5y agoIt can go on the Internet. It’s just that this subsector of the Internet has rules. I don’t think anyone will complain if you blog about your thing.