User talk:Cremastra/Unsourced content should be deleted

On "go ahead and remove it"

@Edward-Woodrow: interesting essay, but have you considered that maintenance tags draw attention to unsourced statements? If someone cannot be bothered to find a source themselves, at the very least they should alert the reader. This even draws people to begin editing. Just a thought. Very cool essay though, we have some shared views. I just prefer adding sources to removing sentences. (Roundish ⋆t) 20:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Roundish: First of all, thanks for reading my essay!

This is a good point, but maintenance tags are, in my view, just a delay. "Alerting the reader" isn't as good as outright removing the content. Obviously finding sources is best, but removing it is better, in my opinion, than adding to the various backlog categories. Based on WikiProject Reliability's count, there are roughly 10.5 thousand articles tagged with {{cq}}, {{cn}}, {{verification}}, or {{unsourced}}. The chances that the article one tagged yesterday will be fixed anytime soon are unlikely, to say the least. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Very true! If only readers genuinely understood the meaning behind a {{citation needed}}, then it would serve its ultimate purpose and actually grey out sentences. (Roundish ⋆t) 21:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I find that {{citation needed span}} can help with that perception; I try to use it sometimes for the reasons you pointed out above. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Conflicting messages

@Edward-Woodrow:

This passionate essay shows that you care a great deal about Wikipedia quality. Keep in mind that your essay is part of Wikipedia, and it may influence how other editors behave. Are you sure the essay inspires the actions you intended?

One quality I value most highly is the absence of contradictions — in guidelines as well as in the encyclopedia itself.

I found your essay to be highly contradictory...

The title is misleading, conveying a different meaning than the essay's lead paragraph. The complete message purported meekly in the lead is "Unsourced content should be deleted if you can't find references for it". But, if a new user reads just your title, "Unsourced content should be deleted", he or she might start nuking unsourced material without searching for references first.

Further into the essay you stated "any unsourced statement is worthless", leaving off the "if" condition you mentioned previously. They're not worthless if there are reliable sources to be found. Though the main message emphasized passionately in the essay is to remove unsourced content, expounded upon so vehemently that it drowns out the "if you can't find references for it" clause, conveying the sentiment of deletion so strongly that it implies it should be done regardless of the existence of sources that could be added.

In the end, one wonders if you believe in looking for references before you resort to hitting the Del key. The essay certainly does not train new users to do that.

Well, that's my 2 cents worth. I hope you find it helpful.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   15:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious

The captions in the pictures on the page. They use "unsourced" and "unverified" rather than "unsourcable" and "unverifiable".

Are you an advocate of removing unsourced content without first searching for references, even if the material might be sourcable?

You seem to be advising deleting unverified material without contacting newcomers, to give them the opportunity to comply with WP:BURDEN, whether or not the content is verifiable.

After a second read, I'd have to say that the sentiment of the essay is undeniably to "immediately delete any unsourced content you come across."

You set a high bar. But, if the material is verifiable, then it seems a lot like this...

The first guy comes along and adds siding to a house. The second guy arrives and tears it off because it isn't painted. That's all or nothing reasoning.

Here's some suggested reading, you might like to take a look at, and some thoughts to consider:

• Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers - deleting their work instead of gently nudging them in the right direction might scare them away. We need all the editors we can get.

• Wikipedia:Wiki magic - if content isn't provided with an opportunity to be improved, such as with sources, it won't be. Once a seed is planted, it can be watered. If it is dug up and eaten, it can't.

• Mass collaboration - explains the difference between cooperation and collaboration on a large scale.

After having oscillated between the 2 extremes over the years, my standpoint now is somewhere between deletionism and inclusionism. I see them cancelling each other out, like in a zero-sum game, and imagine what their adherants could accomplish if they found a way to collaborate.

I hope you've found my musings thought provoking, or at least interesting.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   05:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, The Transhumanist. I have also oscillated between inclusionism/deletionism, although quite rapidly. As a new editor I was a strong inclusionist, then I slowly wandered towards centre ground before leaning towards deletionism. For some time I considered myself an exclusionist, although now I feel myself edging towards mergeism, nearer to the centre. An important thing to remember is that this essay represents my thoughts at the time of writing, not my thoughts now or my thoughts tomorrow. Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the update on your Wikiphilosophy. Your essay is part of your user space, which represents you. It may also impact whoever reads it, especially newcomers. So, it might be a good idea to update it or even take it down.    — The Transhumanist   23:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)