Sources. Also known as references, proof or "sauce/sause" by some . When a new product is announced or hinted at by developers, people will often scour the internet for any info they can find. While finding new info on said product prior to its release and adding it to its respective article is appreciated, the time spent is in vain if the source is not placed within the article. Why? Because the info will more than likely be removed/deleted on the basis that:
1. It could be flat out lies."Captain Price kills Makarov in Modern Warfare 2."
2. Speculation. Which is generally a "no no" in articles."MacMillan may kill Makarov in Modern Warfare 2."
3. Possibly Leaked, which due to an incident involving a certain developer/publisher is not allowed. "No one kills Vladimir Makarov in Modern warfare 2." At one point in time, that would've been leaked
Now while we are
obligated forced obliged to Assume Good Faith in edits made by users that are not obvious vandalism, unsourced material is not covered by that due to the chance that the info could possibly be leaked and thus put Wikia and by extension the wiki itself at risk for legal backlash; especially if that info was obtained by illegal means.
Another point that needs to be made, do not go on a raeg/CAPS LOCK fit towards a user when your unsourced material gets removed from the wiki. Or start edit warring for that matter. Source it and then re-add it that way everyone can see where the info is coming from.
"OMG Y DID U REMOVE MY EDIT YOU JACKOFF1111!111!!111!one!111211" - Not This
"I got the info from (insert source here)." - This
Please source your edits and don't RAEG if they are removed.
- Everyone who has ever removed an unsourced edit and Carb 20:15, August 16, 2011 (UTC)