Pink Panther But It's Uk Drill

Can we all agree that it's important to note the source of data for records of books that we don't have in-hand? [Here I pause so that I can see everyone is nodding their heads.] Then why is it so often that editors (including moderators) are entering and updating records without noting their sources? Anyone who has worked on the database more than a few months knows (or should know) the frustration of working on records for which the source of data hasn't been noted and then trying to research the validity of that data. Or am I the only one who feels that the integrity of the whole database is undermined when we allow records into the database without question? I'm having to be the "bad cop" with new editors in order to drill this basic premise into them, and then I see moderators accepting (and making) submissions that have no source noted and are not primary verified. What do we have to do to make this practice second nature for every editor? Or am I wrong in believing this database should be more than just a jumble of unreliable data? Mhhutchins 16:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

pink panther but it's uk drill

041b061a72