G'day Chris,
On 5/6/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
Just went through and whacked a bunch of unsourced statements
from that last
category. 100 fewer BLP articles with the {{fact}} tag on now.
Are there
81.82 other editors out there who will step up and do the same?
Your idea of a 'solution' is to delete anything some random idiot put a {{fact}} tag on. Your actions are indistinguishable from those of a rogue bot, but unlike a bot no administrator can press your stop button without getting desysoped Let me pick one of your 'contributions'(Read: Attempts at deletionist brown nosing) at random: Paul Laxalt
<snip example/>
I can only hope there are no other editors are willing to follow in your foot steps.
That's a tad harsh. Well, not just a "tad". I mean, it's *really* harsh. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it is such a harsh post that you've crossed the line from being a concerned fellow editor to being a big meanie poopy pants, and that's a terrible sight to behold. However, the intent of what you have to say --- seen in the parts where the big meanie hasn't quite taken over --- is quite reasonable, and by "reasonable" I mean, of course, only that I agree with you.
One removes a {{fact}} tag either by finding a source, or by deciding that the {{fact}}ed portion is spurious --- of course, as you haven't said you know, but Nick presumably understands, the bar for removing {{fact}}ed statements is far lower in biographies of living persons than it is in other articles. There does seem to be plenty of support for the notion that the press nicknamed Paul Laxalt the "First Friend", and it's not what I'd call an example of a sentence that should be deleted if unsourced (compare with: "thought to be involved in the assassination of Robert Kennedy", which should be removed, not {{fact}}ed).
The simple fact of the matter ({{fact}} of the matter) is that just removing, unread, sentences tagged with {{fact}} is not an acceptable solution to the problem of too many articles tagged with {{fact}}. I mean, it's better than removing the tags and keeping the sentences there, but There Is A Better Way. If all we wanted to do was delete sentences tagged with {{fact}}, we could get one CVUer looking for some variety, equipped with a semi-automated wossname, to do the whole thing and save the time of 81.82 more valuable editors.
The reason we get backlogs in the first place is because this sort of stuff is difficult (sometimes), painstaking (always) work. If anyone could spend five minutes and get rid of a hundred {{fact}} tags, we wouldn't have eight thousand of the buggers running around wild. It's great to see someone extending a bit of effort to reduce one of our more concerning backlogs, but a bit of common sense never goes astray.
Now, Chris, why the wikihate towards Nick?
-- [[User:MarkGallagher]]
On 5/7/07, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Chris,
On 5/6/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
Just went through and whacked a bunch of unsourced statements
from that last
category. 100 fewer BLP articles with the {{fact}} tag on now.
Are there
81.82 other editors out there who will step up and do the same?
Your idea of a 'solution' is to delete anything some random idiot put a {{fact}} tag on. Your actions are indistinguishable from those of a rogue bot, but unlike a bot no administrator can press your stop button without getting desysoped Let me pick one of your 'contributions'(Read: Attempts at deletionist brown nosing) at random: Paul Laxalt
<snip example/> > I can only hope there are no other editors are willing to follow in > your foot steps.
That's a tad harsh. Well, not just a "tad". I mean, it's *really* harsh. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it is such a harsh post that you've crossed the line from being a concerned fellow editor to being a big meanie poopy pants, and that's a terrible sight to behold. However, the intent of what you have to say --- seen in the parts where the big meanie hasn't quite taken over --- is quite reasonable, and by "reasonable" I mean, of course, only that I agree with you.
One removes a {{fact}} tag either by finding a source, or by deciding that the {{fact}}ed portion is spurious --- of course, as you haven't said you know, but Nick presumably understands, the bar for removing {{fact}}ed statements is far lower in biographies of living persons than it is in other articles. There does seem to be plenty of support for the notion that the press nicknamed Paul Laxalt the "First Friend", and it's not what I'd call an example of a sentence that should be deleted if unsourced (compare with: "thought to be involved in the assassination of Robert Kennedy", which should be removed, not {{fact}}ed).
The simple fact of the matter ({{fact}} of the matter) is that just removing, unread, sentences tagged with {{fact}} is not an acceptable solution to the problem of too many articles tagged with {{fact}}. I mean, it's better than removing the tags and keeping the sentences there, but There Is A Better Way. If all we wanted to do was delete sentences tagged with {{fact}}, we could get one CVUer looking for some variety, equipped with a semi-automated wossname, to do the whole thing and save the time of 81.82 more valuable editors.
The reason we get backlogs in the first place is because this sort of stuff is difficult (sometimes), painstaking (always) work. If anyone could spend five minutes and get rid of a hundred {{fact}} tags, we wouldn't have eight thousand of the buggers running around wild. It's great to see someone extending a bit of effort to reduce one of our more concerning backlogs, but a bit of common sense never goes astray.
Now, Chris, why the wikihate towards Nick?
Why the 'wikihate'? I'd guess for deleting material without attempting to check for sources. You pretty much said it. Deleting tagged material like a bot is not the way to go about it.
Mgm
Jonel's edits are 1 or 2 minutes apart. It's impossible to properly evaluate an article in that time.
Mgm
On 5/7/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/7/07, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Chris,
On 5/6/07, Nick Wilkins <nlwilkins@gmail.com > wrote:
Just went through and whacked a bunch of unsourced statements
from that last
category. 100 fewer BLP articles with the {{fact}} tag on now.
Are there
81.82 other editors out there who will step up and do the same?
Your idea of a 'solution' is to delete anything some random idiot put a {{fact}} tag on. Your actions are indistinguishable from those of a rogue bot, but unlike a bot no administrator can press your stop button without getting desysoped Let me pick one of your 'contributions'(Read: Attempts at deletionist brown nosing) at random:
Paul Laxalt
<snip example/> > I can only hope there are no other editors are willing to follow in > your foot steps.
That's a tad harsh. Well, not just a "tad". I mean, it's *really* harsh. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it is such a harsh post that you've crossed the line from being a concerned fellow editor to being a big meanie poopy pants, and that's a terrible sight to behold. However, the intent of what you have to say --- seen in the parts where the big meanie hasn't quite taken over --- is quite reasonable, and by "reasonable" I mean, of course, only that I agree with you.
One removes a {{fact}} tag either by finding a source, or by deciding that the {{fact}}ed portion is spurious --- of course, as you haven't said you know, but Nick presumably understands, the bar for removing {{fact}}ed statements is far lower in biographies of living persons than it is in other articles. There does seem to be plenty of support for the notion that the press nicknamed Paul Laxalt the "First Friend", and it's not what I'd call an example of a sentence that should be deleted if unsourced (compare with: "thought to be involved in the assassination of Robert Kennedy", which should be removed, not {{fact}}ed).
The simple fact of the matter ({{fact}} of the matter) is that just removing, unread, sentences tagged with {{fact}} is not an acceptable solution to the problem of too many articles tagged with {{fact}}. I mean, it's better than removing the tags and keeping the sentences there, but There Is A Better Way. If all we wanted to do was delete sentences tagged with {{fact}}, we could get one CVUer looking for some variety, equipped with a semi-automated wossname, to do the whole thing and save the time of 81.82 more valuable editors.
The reason we get backlogs in the first place is because this sort of stuff is difficult (sometimes), painstaking (always) work. If anyone could spend five minutes and get rid of a hundred {{fact}} tags, we wouldn't have eight thousand of the buggers running around wild. It's great to see someone extending a bit of effort to reduce one of our more concerning backlogs, but a bit of common sense never goes astray.
Now, Chris, why the wikihate towards Nick?
Why the 'wikihate'? I'd guess for deleting material without attempting to check for sources. You pretty much said it. Deleting tagged material like a bot is not the way to go about it.
Mgm
Jonel's edits are 1 or 2 minutes apart. It's impossible to properly evaluate an article in that time.
Considering that the only way you can really remove a fact tag is by going and looking for sources, I have to agree. Adding a source might take only a couple of minutes, but removing the statement as unsourced takes longer, since you need to try and fail to find a source. When I'm removing fact tags I usually look at at least the first couple of pages of a couple of google searches, reading any relevant pages, before deciding that there are no obvious sources and removing it. (If a piece of information cannot be easily found on google, then it is obscure enough to require a proper source by anyone adding it.)
That would probably take me 5 to 10 minutes per statement. Of course, if it's a particularly unlikely or derogatory statement, I might be a little less tolerant and only look at the first page of one google search and then remove it - if you're going to add something unlikely or negative to an article, then burden is very much on your to provide a source. (The burden is always on the person adding the information, of course, but I'm a little more tolerant in other cases.)
On 07/05/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Jonel's edits are 1 or 2 minutes apart. It's impossible to properly evaluate an article in that time.
I agree. I did a couple of these -- very short on free time this weekend, despite the bank holiday:( -- deleting one statement I couldn't find a source for, and adding a reference for one I could. Each must have taken the best part of ten minutes, although partially this is because I'm still not very good at wikitext and end up having to go through page preview several times before it looks right ;)
I tried a sample of some not-very-public individuals, & most of the tags I saw were placed on innocuous elements of the biography, such as ...went to X College {{fact}}, while many similar factual statements were not tagged. On slightly more-public people, they were often on one particular--often noncontroversial-- opinion, while many more equally unsupported ones were present.
It is possible that these may reflect a real question, but this means also checking details back through the earlier versions of the page & the talk page to see when the tag was applied and whether there was a reason, or just someone being difficult. It can't usually be spotted just from the page history, as most of the edits don't have edit summaries.
There is not going to be an easy way to upgrade the bios.
On 5/7/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/05/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Jonel's edits are 1 or 2 minutes apart. It's impossible to properly evaluate an article in that time.
I agree. I did a couple of these -- very short on free time this weekend, despite the bank holiday:( -- deleting one statement I couldn't find a source for, and adding a reference for one I could. Each must have taken the best part of ten minutes, although partially this is because I'm still not very good at wikitext and end up having to go through page preview several times before it looks right ;)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Worse, I often find {{fact}} applied to statements that are plainly in the listed sources.
-Matt
I think we should encourage people to move non-controversial unsourced material to the talk page rather than deleting it. It encourages people to source the information, but it doesn't lose it in a muddy article history when the remover makes a mistake.
Mgm
Matthew Brown wrote:
Worse, I often find {{fact}} applied to statements that are plainly in the listed sources.
Yeah, I've been finding a lot of this in my attempts to wade through some of that category. Sometimes a {{fact}} tag will be applied to a statement that not only appears in the sources, but even has an inline footnote right near the location of the tag! It looks like a lot of {{fact}}-tagging is being done in a drive-by fashion by people who haven't read the article in question, so I've just been removing these.
A good proportion of the rest (probably 50% of my sample) are in articles that are completely unreferenced, but strangely have random sentences (usually not even particularly contentious ones) *also* tagged with {{fact}} in addition to an {{unreferenced}} at the top. This is clutter really; such articles should use a single {{unreferenced}} at the top and no {{fact}} tags, since using the latter makes it harder to use these categories. Specific sentences that for some reason are even more problematic than {{unreferenced}} generally implies for all sentences should probably be either tagged {{dubious}} or removed entirely, rather than tagged {{fact}}.
-Mark
On 5/8/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
Worse, I often find {{fact}} applied to statements that are plainly in the listed sources.
Yeah, I've been finding a lot of this in my attempts to wade through some of that category. Sometimes a {{fact}} tag will be applied to a statement that not only appears in the sources, but even has an inline footnote right near the location of the tag! It looks like a lot of {{fact}}-tagging is being done in a drive-by fashion by people who haven't read the article in question, so I've just been removing these.
I know! This is really one of the most irritating things for me - I hate a surfeit of unnecessary footnotes, so I try to collate them as much as possible in one footnote, but the result is people keep tagging cited material with {{fact}}! We really need a way to mark which statements are covered by which footnote.
A good proportion of the rest (probably 50% of my sample) are in
articles that are completely unreferenced, but strangely have random sentences (usually not even particularly contentious ones) *also* tagged with {{fact}} in addition to an {{unreferenced}} at the top. This is clutter really; such articles should use a single {{unreferenced}} at the top and no {{fact}} tags, since using the latter makes it harder to use these categories. Specific sentences that for some reason are even more problematic than {{unreferenced}} generally implies for all sentences should probably be either tagged {{dubious}} or removed entirely, rather than tagged {{fact}}.
Alternatively, I think there's something like {{more sources}}, which can be used instead of {{unreferenced}} for such articles.
-Mark
Johnleemk
On 5/8/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
A good proportion of the rest (probably 50% of my sample) are in articles that are completely unreferenced, but strangely have random sentences (usually not even particularly contentious ones) *also* tagged with {{fact}} in addition to an {{unreferenced}} at the top. This is clutter really; such articles should use a single {{unreferenced}} at
{{fact}} means "I question this statement". Perhaps not what it *should* mean, but that's how most people use it.
Steve
On 11/05/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/8/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
A good proportion of the rest (probably 50% of my sample) are in articles that are completely unreferenced, but strangely have random sentences (usually not even particularly contentious ones) *also* tagged with {{fact}} in addition to an {{unreferenced}} at the top. This is clutter really; such articles should use a single {{unreferenced}} at
{{fact}} means "I question this statement". Perhaps not what it *should* mean, but that's how most people use it.
I {{fact}}-tagged a statement which I believed to be true but for which I couldn't find a citation - in a BLP, as it happens - and found it reverted with the edit summary "(x) not being related to (y) does not need a citation!"!!! I despair...
I {{fact}}-tagged a statement which I believed to be true but for which I couldn't find a citation - in a BLP, as it happens - and found it reverted with the edit summary "(x) not being related to (y) does not need a citation!"!!! I despair...
Put it back. I think the standard guideline is that only statements which nobody would question can be uncited ("the sky is blue" being the standard, although not very good, example) - and quite a few people would like citations for those anyway. The fact that you've added a {{fact}} tag shows that it is questioned, so does need a citation. {{fact}} tags should only be removed if you are removing the statement, adding a citation or if there is already a citation given.
On 11/05/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I {{fact}}-tagged a statement which I believed to be true but for which I couldn't find a citation - in a BLP, as it happens - and found it reverted with the edit summary "(x) not being related to (y) does not need a citation!"!!! I despair...
Put it back. I think the standard guideline is that only statements which nobody would question can be uncited ("the sky is blue" being the standard, although not very good, example) - and quite a few people would like citations for those anyway. The fact that you've added a {{fact}} tag shows that it is questioned, so does need a citation. {{fact}} tags should only be removed if you are removing the statement, adding a citation or if there is already a citation given.
I did, and someone eventually, managed to find a citation, but still...
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I {{fact}}-tagged a statement which I believed to be true but for which I couldn't find a citation - in a BLP, as it happens - and found it reverted with the edit summary "(x) not being related to (y) does not need a citation!"!!! I despair...
Put it back. I think the standard guideline is that only statements which nobody would question can be uncited ("the sky is blue" being the standard, although not very good, example) - and quite a few people would like citations for those anyway. The fact that you've added a {{fact}} tag shows that it is questioned, so does need a citation. {{fact}} tags should only be removed if you are removing the statement, adding a citation or if there is already a citation given.
Sometimes the citation IS already given, but not in that exact spot. Where an entire paragraph or group of paragraphs is taken from a standard source in the subject it should not be necessary to reference every detail of that passage, and it should be sufficient to state that a citation applies to the entire range.
Negative statements are trickier because hard evidence that something did _not_ happen usually cannot exist. The implicit message when we say that something did not happen is that we have no evidence that it did. Perhaps that requires a convention about negative statements. Attributing a claim that something did not happen, or showing why it was impossible for it to happen would remain a stronger statement.
Ec
Sometimes the citation IS already given, but not in that exact spot. Where an entire paragraph or group of paragraphs is taken from a standard source in the subject it should not be necessary to reference every detail of that passage, and it should be sufficient to state that a citation applies to the entire range.
That is exactly the situation where it would be appropriate to just remove the {{fact}} tag. (With an appropriate explanation in the edit summary)
Negative statements are trickier because hard evidence that something did _not_ happen usually cannot exist. The implicit message when we say that something did not happen is that we have no evidence that it did. Perhaps that requires a convention about negative statements. Attributing a claim that something did not happen, or showing why it was impossible for it to happen would remain a stronger statement.
Pretty much the only acceptable method is finding a reliable source that said it didn't happen. Proving that it is impossible for it to have happened sounds like OR to me.
On 11/05/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I {{fact}}-tagged a statement which I believed to be true but for which I couldn't find a citation - in a BLP, as it happens - and found it reverted with the edit summary "(x) not being related to (y) does not need a citation!"!!! I despair...
Put it back. I think the standard guideline is that only statements which nobody would question can be uncited ("the sky is blue" being the standard, although not very good, example) - and quite a few people would like citations for those anyway. The fact that you've added a {{fact}} tag shows that it is questioned, so does need a citation. {{fact}} tags should only be removed if you are removing the statement, adding a citation or if there is already a citation given.
BTW - we've had more than a few living bio issues where things that look like innocuous factual statements (suburb they live in, name of children) aren't, and the subjects have been very concerned. So a little living bio paranoia is not excessive.
(Of course, we later had an editor darkly hinting Wikipedia would be sued off the face of the planet if we asserted that [[Neil Gaiman]] was [[David Gaiman]]'s son, and never mind forty years of press sources on the subject, 'cos none had a photo, or something ...)
- d.
On 5/11/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(Of course, we later had an editor darkly hinting Wikipedia would be sued off the face of the planet if we asserted that [[Neil Gaiman]] was [[David Gaiman]]'s son, and never mind forty years of press sources on the subject, 'cos none had a photo, or something ...)
IIRC this was because there were sources saying David Gaiman the notable scientologist had a son called Neil, and lived in town X; and sources saying Neil Gaiman the author's father was named David and they also lived in town X - but no source saying 'David Gaiman the scientologist' and 'Neil Gaiman the author' were related.
The question was whether we were allowed to make the leap of logic that the two sources could be added together to create the obvious fact.
(at least, this was the state of play when I looked at it, decided the argument was dumb, and left it well alone).
-Matt
On 5/11/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC this was because there were sources saying David Gaiman the notable scientologist had a son called Neil, and lived in town X; and sources saying Neil Gaiman the author's father was named David and they also lived in town X - but no source saying 'David Gaiman the scientologist' and 'Neil Gaiman the author' were related.
The question was whether we were allowed to make the leap of logic that the two sources could be added together to create the obvious fact.
If I recall correctly, Neil Gaiman for whatever personal reasons has gone out of his way to not speak of/about his father generally in public forums. There's a citation now in Neil's article with comments from David Gaiman, indicating or at least alluding to Neil being his son. Is that sufficient for BLP purposes? Or would extra third party verification be needed beyond that for something that on the surface seems non-controversial, but apparently is controversial on some level for Neil Gaiman?
On 11/05/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
If I recall correctly, Neil Gaiman for whatever personal reasons has gone out of his way to not speak of/about his father generally in public forums. There's a citation now in Neil's article with comments from David Gaiman, indicating or at least alluding to Neil being his son. Is that sufficient for BLP purposes? Or would extra third party verification be needed beyond that for something that on the surface seems non-controversial, but apparently is controversial on some level for Neil Gaiman?
Not apparently in Neil Gaiman's mind, and not apparently in David Gaiman's mind. David Gaiman did tell a newspaper interviewer that he should speak to his son Neil, who's a famous writer, not to him ... are there two famous writers called Neil Gaiman?
- d.
On 5/11/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Not apparently in Neil Gaiman's mind, and not apparently in David Gaiman's mind. David Gaiman did tell a newspaper interviewer that he should speak to his son Neil, who's a famous writer, not to him ... are there two famous writers called Neil Gaiman?
I don't think so. This absurd search that excludes the following (all his probably best known works and things tied to him most frequently):
"neil gaiman" -sandman -coraline -"american gods" -neilgaiman.com -anansi -neverwhere -"good omens" -"tori amos" -endless -"DC comics" -vertigo -dream -cbldf -stardust
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22neil+gaiman%22+-sandman+-coralin...
Still points to the Neil that everyone seems to know.
Barring Neil himself saying or posting to his blog that the David Gaiman in question isn't his father, I don't know if there is any doubt that David was talking about the same Neil. Does that count as OR? :)
In situations where there are reliable sources claiming something but they don't have proof it's probably best just to phrase it as "According to <newspaper X>, Neil Gaiman's father is the scientologist, David Gaiman." That way what we are saying is true, verifiable, neutral and any other reasonable thing you can require of it.
On 11/05/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC this was because there were sources saying David Gaiman the notable scientologist had a son called Neil, and lived in town X; and sources saying Neil Gaiman the author's father was named David and they also lived in town X - but no source saying 'David Gaiman the scientologist' and 'Neil Gaiman the author' were related.
There was a truly inspired debate on one talkpage (I just went to read it) which ran something like this:
A: I've heard some newspaper explicitly quoted the connection in an interview with David in 2005 (...) A: I've gone to the British Library and read the newspaper in question. Here is a bit. [quotes] B: I've seen that passage quoted on many Internet sites. I want to see it reprinted by a reliable source. We need to show that we're using the source itself, not some transcription on the internet. A: Er, this is quoting from the original. Which I have read. In the British Library. B: Oh, er.
On 11/05/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
A: I've heard some newspaper explicitly quoted the connection in an interview with David in 2005 (...) A: I've gone to the British Library and read the newspaper in question. Here is a bit. [quotes] B: I've seen that passage quoted on many Internet sites. I want to see it reprinted by a reliable source. We need to show that we're using the source itself, not some transcription on the internet. A: Er, this is quoting from the original. Which I have read. In the British Library. B: Oh, er.
No, the second quote from B was more like "well, on your own head be it, if you want to put Wikipedia at risk ..."
- d.
On Fri, 11 May 2007, Andrew Gray wrote:
IIRC this was because there were sources saying David Gaiman the notable scientologist had a son called Neil, and lived in town X; and sources saying Neil Gaiman the author's father was named David and they also lived in town X - but no source saying 'David Gaiman the scientologist' and 'Neil Gaiman the author' were related.
There was a truly inspired debate on one talkpage (I just went to read it) which ran something like this:
A: I've heard some newspaper explicitly quoted the connection in an interview with David in 2005 (...) A: I've gone to the British Library and read the newspaper in question. Here is a bit. [quotes] B: I've seen that passage quoted on many Internet sites. I want to see it reprinted by a reliable source. We need to show that we're using the source itself, not some transcription on the internet. A: Er, this is quoting from the original. Which I have read. In the British Library. B: Oh, er.
I think the problem is that people want to remove it for some reason that has nothing to do with lack of sources. The sources are just an excuse. So when a source finally turns up, they have to grasp at straws for a reason to discount it.
It's the same reason we have dozens of sourced Pokemon articles: people who don't like Pokemon articles tried to remove them by demanding sources. You try that and all you get is sourced Pokemon articles.
And though this doesn't work for Neil Gaiman or Pokemon, in most other places it's very effective, which is why it keeps happening to begin with. Demanding sources is too convenient.
I think the problem is that people want to remove it for some reason that has nothing to do with lack of sources. The sources are just an excuse. So when a source finally turns up, they have to grasp at straws for a reason to discount it.
It's the same reason we have dozens of sourced Pokemon articles: people who don't like Pokemon articles tried to remove them by demanding sources. You try that and all you get is sourced Pokemon articles.
And though this doesn't work for Neil Gaiman or Pokemon, in most other places it's very effective, which is why it keeps happening to begin with. Demanding sources is too convenient.
It boils down to the burden of proof that the article should exist is on the people that want to keep it, not those that want to delete it. I don't know is that's desirable or not, but it seems to be the way it works.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
I think the problem is that people want to remove it for some reason that has nothing to do with lack of sources. The sources are just an excuse. So when a source finally turns up, they have to grasp at straws for a reason to discount it.
I've seen this plenty of times myself. An article that someone disapproves of survives AfD so they launch a "death by a thousand cuts" campaign instead. Once it gets down small enough a merge suggestion often ensues, which subsequently allows for even more information to be pared away. The [[Friedman (unit)]] article is currently in that stage, though the thousand cuts haven't been primarily reference-related in this case.
It's incredibly frustrating to see these good-intentioned guidelines and policies being perverted into a weapon with which to remove otherwise reasonable content.
With some articles on clearly NN people with a local reputation, it is usual to try to claim the sources are either local-only, or in some way are primary rather than secondary, or are not truly independent, or or in some way not recognized as being reliable. Often these arguments have some basis, but they would not have been raised against something people thought intrinsically more significant.
It's similarly frequent to see the argument : "it is obvious that this study is extremely important" -- and if it seems so to the predominance of the people there, it is accepted.
Frankly, I've learned how to use such arguments in either way myself. But I'd rather we had a more direct way of judging that said what we really mean. There is a difference between
I) You need sources to write an article. And it also has to be on something notable. and II) If you have sources to write an article, it's noteworthy.
DGG
On 5/11/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
I think the problem is that people want to remove it for some reason that has nothing to do with lack of sources. The sources are just an excuse. So when a source finally turns up, they have to grasp at straws for a reason to discount it.
I've seen this plenty of times myself. An article that someone disapproves of survives AfD so they launch a "death by a thousand cuts" campaign instead. Once it gets down small enough a merge suggestion often ensues, which subsequently allows for even more information to be pared away. The [[Friedman (unit)]] article is currently in that stage, though the thousand cuts haven't been primarily reference-related in this case.
It's incredibly frustrating to see these good-intentioned guidelines and policies being perverted into a weapon with which to remove otherwise reasonable content.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l