I've been looking at and thinking about the quality project page on de:. (I would link to it but I've lost the URL! Anyone got it to hand?) A lot of what they do is simply tagging deficient articles. As well as tags corresponding to en:'s {{cleanup}}, {{stub}}, etc. (article-space tags intended to provoke work to allow their removal), they have ones that speak only of a particular national POV (German, Swiss or Austrian, with a flag on and a request to add detail for other places).
One that occurred to me was an {{unreferenced}} tag, for an article that does not have any sources, references or external links listed. I've just created [[Template:Unreferenced]], with the following content:
:''This article does not include its [[Wikipedia:Cite sources|references or sources]]. Please add references or [[Wikipedia:External links|external links]].''
I'm picturing this going at the bottom of an article, where you would expect to see sources or references.
Before I go wild adding this, what do others think of the idea?
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
I've been looking at and thinking about the quality project page on de:. (I would link to it but I've lost the URL! Anyone got it to hand?) A lot of what they do is simply tagging deficient articles. As well as tags corresponding to en:'s {{cleanup}}, {{stub}}, etc. (article-space tags intended to provoke work to allow their removal), they have ones that speak only of a particular national POV (German, Swiss or Austrian, with a flag on and a request to add detail for other places).
One that occurred to me was an {{unreferenced}} tag, for an article that does not have any sources, references or external links listed. I've just created [[Template:Unreferenced]], with the following content:
:''This article does not include its [[Wikipedia:Cite sources|references or sources]]. Please add references or [[Wikipedia:External links|external links]].''
I'm picturing this going at the bottom of an article, where you would expect to see sources or references.
Before I go wild adding this, what do others think of the idea?
- d.
I would suggest clarifying that external links and sources are different.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
John Lee (johnleemk@gawab.com) [050128 21:17]:
David Gerard wrote:
:''This article does not include its [[Wikipedia:Cite sources|references or sources]]. Please add references or [[Wikipedia:External links|external links]].''
Before I go wild adding this, what do others think of the idea?
I would suggest clarifying that external links and sources are different.
Feel free to hack it further :-)
- d.
I think it's a HORRIBLE idea!!!!!
There are far too many articles with no references. This would be everywhere.
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Rick (giantsrick13@yahoo.com) [050129 04:02]:
I think it's a HORRIBLE idea!!!!! There are far too many articles with no references.
And *that*'s a horrible idea.
This would be everywhere.
See, a lack of references is a real problem with Wikipedia's reliability and perceived reliability. That means you have nothing to start with on seeing if an article has a source or is just off the top of someone's head. It might be crap with a reference that doesn't support it, but at least then you have a chance to find out.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
See, a lack of references is a real problem with Wikipedia's reliability and perceived reliability. That means you have nothing to start with on seeing if an article has a source or is just off the top of someone's head. It might be crap with a reference that doesn't support it, but at least then you have a chance to find out.
This particular tag seems a little redundant, because the presence or absence of references is pretty obvious when one is looking at an article. If the purpose of the tag to build up a category of articles for bored WPians to fix up, why not just add a simple "[[Category:Add references]]" to the bottom of the article? Not in readers' faces, still allows building up of the list to work on.
Or we could borrow the strategy of the recently-successful untagged images project, and use tools to build up a mega-list of articles missing "References"/"External links"/"Further readings" sections. All those US cities should just be able to have a boilerplate cite of the US census, etc. Seeing a lot of unsourced articles listed together should help inspire new techniques for efficient referencing too, just as the tagging project engendered a number of useful new image tags that have replaced the mishmash of license statements that people used to use.
Stan
David, there is a {{Cite sources}} tag, which reads: "This article does not adequately cite its sources and may contain unverified information or original research. Please help Wikipedia by adding references or removing unreferenced material. See the talk page for details."
Slim
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:11:46 +1100, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
One that occurred to me was an {{unreferenced}} tag, for an article that does not have any sources, references or external links listed. I've just created [[Template:Unreferenced]], with the following content:
:''This article does not include its [[Wikipedia:Cite sources|references or sources]]. Please add references or [[Wikipedia:External links|external links]].''
slimvirgin@gmail.com (slimvirgin@gmail.com) [050128 21:18]:
David, there is a {{Cite sources}} tag, which reads: "This article does not adequately cite its sources and may contain unverified information or original research. Please help Wikipedia by adding references or removing unreferenced material. See the talk page for details."
Ooh, I didn't know about that. Nice one.
- d.
David Gerard (fun@thingy.apana.org.au) [050128 21:24]:
slimvirgin@gmail.com (slimvirgin@gmail.com) [050128 21:18]:
David, there is a {{Cite sources}} tag, which reads: "This article does not adequately cite its sources and may contain unverified information or original research. Please help Wikipedia by adding references or removing unreferenced material. See the talk page for details."
Ooh, I didn't know about that. Nice one.
If you look at [[Tamplate talk:Cite sources]], you will see considerable debate about {{Cite sources}} - and people asserting it should *only* go on the talk page.
I was thinking of {{unreferenced}} as an article-space tag, to encourage creators to add their sources and suggest to those wanting to raise Wikipedia's quality another good thing to work on.
(Did I mention I'm a big fan of the de: quality drive?)
- d.
David, I see no reason not to put {{Cite Sources}} on the article itself. There's no point in putting it on the Talk page because it's not the Talk page that needs the references. ;-) Like the neutrality tag, it's a warning to the reader, in this case that the article has not been properly sourced. I think either that one or your {{unreferenced}} tag would be a good thing to use on some articles. Yes, I can think of quite a few. ;-)
Sarah
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 22:06:13 +1100, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
David Gerard (fun@thingy.apana.org.au) [050128 21:24]: If you look at [[Tamplate talk:Cite sources]], you will see considerable debate about {{Cite sources}} - and people asserting it should *only* go on the talk page.
I was thinking of {{unreferenced}} as an article-space tag, to encourage creators to add their sources and suggest to those wanting to raise Wikipedia's quality another good thing to work on.
(Did I mention I'm a big fan of the de: quality drive?)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I would suggest that such a tag should only be added to articles that are obviously in dire need of references/sources. (i.e., although all articles ideally should have references/sources, only focus on those with information that some question). In fairness, the vast majority of Wikipedia would otherwise be subject to tagging!
Zoney
Yes, I agree. In fact, given how many articles don't have sources, it might make more sense to create a {{Sources have been cited}} tag. ;-)
Sarah
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:18:45 +0000, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
I would suggest that such a tag should only be added to articles that are obviously in dire need of references/sources. (i.e., although all articles ideally should have references/sources, only focus on those with information that some question). In fairness, the vast majority of Wikipedia would otherwise be subject to tagging.
Yes, I agree. In fact, given how many articles don't have sources, it might make more sense to create a {{Sources have been cited}} tag. ;-)
Given how articles on Wikipedia tend to degenerate quickly unless closely watched and vigorously maintained, that should probably be time-stamped, e.g. {{Sources have been cited as of Jan 28, 2005}}.
Jay.
Zoney (zoney.ie@gmail.com) [050128 22:18]:
I would suggest that such a tag should only be added to articles that are obviously in dire need of references/sources. (i.e., although all articles ideally should have references/sources, only focus on those with information that some question). In fairness, the vast majority of Wikipedia would otherwise be subject to tagging!
I'm struck by how many articles have *no* sources. That's what this is for.
I see there is also [[Template:Unsourced]], which is probably the same thing. Except that contains the following text:
This article lacks references. Members of WikiProject Fact and Reference Check and the Forum for Encyclopedic Standards are working to correct this problem. Please help Wikipedia become more credible and useful by adding sources.
To me, that seems to say "go away, we have a special group to fix it, not you." Or, at best, "don't bother, someone else will do it." Is there any good reason to keep that second sentence at all? More words on a tag muffle the point.
- d.
I think its a good idea, but you should always remember
[[m:instruction creep]]
I'm struck by how many articles have *no* sources. That's what this is for.
I see there is also [[Template:Unsourced]], which is probably the same thing. Except that contains the following text:
This article lacks references. Members of WikiProject Fact and Reference Check and the Forum for Encyclopedic Standards are working to correct this problem. Please help Wikipedia become more credible and useful by adding sources.
To me, that seems to say "go away, we have a special group to fix it, not you." Or, at best, "don't bother, someone else will do it." Is there any good reason to keep that second sentence at all? More words on a tag muffle the point.
- d.
nas ral (jewishneoconipod@gmail.com) [050128 23:12]:
I think its a good idea, but you should always remember [[m:instruction creep]]
Oh, definitely. It's also in a subcat of [[:Category:Wikipedia maintenance]].
I see that {{unsourced}} isn't actually used *anywhere*. Johnleemk put {{unreferenced}} on [[cyanide]] - which is a pretty nice, well-written article that would be on its way to feature material if it had references and pictures! I put it on [[Enronomics]], which is more the sort of article I was first thinking of. I also put it on [[electromagnetically magnetically induced transparancy]], though that's a stub already so it's probably redundent.
(Though that raises the question: what does a stub need *first*: references or more text? Both, obviously, but pick one.)
- d.
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:01:43 +1100, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote: <snip>
(Though that raises the question: what does a stub need *first*: references or more text? Both, obviously, but pick one.)
References. A stub with references is simply easier to expand than one without: a difficult part of the research necessary to a good article (i.e. finding good sources) is already taken care of.
Charles Podles (charles.podles@gmail.com) [050129 01:39]:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:01:43 +1100, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
(Though that raises the question: what does a stub need *first*: references or more text? Both, obviously, but pick one.)
References. A stub with references is simply easier to expand than one without: a difficult part of the research necessary to a good article (i.e. finding good sources) is already taken care of.
Excellent point. Though a stub with {{unrefenced}} *and* {{stub}} looks a little overwhemled and may not have the desired effect, i.e. suggesting someone fix it.
- d.
slimvirgin@gmail.com (slimvirgin@gmail.com) [050128 22:14]:
David, I see no reason not to put {{Cite Sources}} on the article itself. There's no point in putting it on the Talk page because it's not the Talk page that needs the references. ;-) Like the neutrality tag, it's a warning to the reader, in this case that the article has not been properly sourced. I think either that one or your {{unreferenced}} tag would be a good thing to use on some articles. Yes, I can think of quite a few. ;-)
I'm thinking particularly of the sort of thing you see a lot of on hitting "Random page" - four paragraphs which are probably true but don't contain any clues as to where they came from, apart from off the top of the writer's head.
- d.
--- slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
David, I see no reason not to put {{Cite Sources}} on the article itself. There's no point in putting it on the Talk page because it's not the Talk page that needs the references. ;-) Like the neutrality tag, it's a warning to the reader, in this case that the article has not been properly sourced. I think either that one or your {{unreferenced}} tag would be a good thing to use on some articles. Yes, I can think of quite a few. ;-)
The talk page is where editors interested in the article hang out. While the *great majority* of people visiting the article are readers only. Thus putting such a message on talk pages is directing the message to the group of people most likely able to fix the issue.
This is not the same as an {{NPOV}} tag - which is both a call to arms for editors and a warning to readers. An {{unreferenced}} tag is just a call to arms for editors - the article itself is much more likely than not to contain as accurate of info as any other encyclopedia even without references (and every encyclopedia I've ever used does not have references anyway).
Don't get me wrong - I think that references are very important. But instead of adding a tag for something that is obvious to anybody looking at the article, why don't people find references that can be used to confirm at least some of the information in articles? Developing those skills are much more important than encouraging the mindless adding of tags.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com