 | This is a userspace essay. It contains the opinion of one editor, and does not necessarily enjoy community support. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Unsourced statements are worthless and should be boldly removed. |
.jpg)
Unsourced content should be deleted. That is to say: don't bother slapping maintenance tags on it, just go ahead and remove it yourself, if you can't find references for it. Unsourced content that one can't find no references for may or may not be true should be expunged with gusto. In fact, WP:BURDEN states that:
Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports [...] the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. [...] In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.
Don't bother with citation needed tags. A short article with minimal content but completely supported by high-quality sources is far better than a long, high-detail article lacking sufficient sources, because any unsourced statement is worthless, as it may be untrue or misleading. Unsourced statements contribute nothing; the very fact that they are unsourced "greys them out", so to speak.
See, while finding a source for a claim is obviously better than deleting it outright, deleting it is preferable to letting it be. Uncited claims are a pox on Wikipedia that must be eradicated. The reason for keeping them is the very same as the reason for deleting them: they may or may not be true. This uncertainty makes them worthless, as even potentially untrue statements contribute nothing to an encyclopedia. If Wikipedia is forever buried in drifts of unreferenced content, then it is unreliable. An unreliable source is a source people don't use. The project becomes a joke. If Wikipedia wants to fulfill its WP:PURPOSE, then we need to start removing, not just adding.
It is my firm belief that users introducing uncited claims to the encyclopedia can and should be blocked (after due warning, obviously). Consider the following points:
Uncited claims directly lower the potential reliability of the project.- Uncited claims go directly against the core content policy of verifiability.
- Vandalism is defined as
deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia
. - If the uncited claims are inserted maliciously, then the behaviour constitutes vandalism.
- If the uncited claims are inserted in good faith, but the user will not stop, after due warning, then the user should be blocked to prevent further disruption to the encyclopaedia.
