Thomas Dalton wrote:
What if the
material is accurate and can be checked with a quick
The burden of proof is always on the person adding the information.
"Source" does not mean "somewhere which can be used to verify the
information", it means "the place where the information came from".
Only the person that added the information actually knows the source,
so they should be the one citing sources. The whole idea of adding
sources to existing articles is completely backward. We need to work
on getting people to actually *use* reliable sources, not just cite
them. If people were actually using the sources then they could cite
them as they went along with almost no additional work.
This seems pretty at odds with the way Wikipedia writes articles. Yes,
the original author *ought* to reference his or her article when
written. He or she also *ought* to write it in good English, with a
nice introduction, include relevant facts without undue weighting, and
so on. However often many of these things aren't done, or are done
imperfectly, so later editors fix them. As long as the article is
referenced to material that can corroborate its content, I don't see why
it makes a different whether they're the same references the original
author used. The point of references is to corroborate the content, not
as some sort of metaphysical trail of editing. If someone was born in
1855, and we have a reference stating they were born in 1855, what does
it matter whether it's the *same* reference the original author of the
article got the date out of?