Folks,
Real quick question. If I add data, and its source, to an Article that contains an "unreferenced" tag; should I then remove the tag, or wait until an admin. (or the person who placed it) does?
Still learning,
Marc Riddell
Be bold in removing cleanup tags! If the article is cleaned up, it no longer needs the tag. If the person who placed it disagrees with your removal, they can replace it. Administrators should not have extra editorial rights, so it makes no sense to wait for one to remove a cleanup tag. Makemi
On 7/12/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Folks,
Real quick question. If I add data, and its source, to an Article that contains an "unreferenced" tag; should I then remove the tag, or wait until an admin. (or the person who placed it) does?
Still learning,
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 7/12/07 9:56 AM, Mak at makwik@gmail.com wrote:
Be bold in removing cleanup tags! If the article is cleaned up, it no longer needs the tag. If the person who placed it disagrees with your removal, they can replace it. Administrators should not have extra editorial rights, so it makes no sense to wait for one to remove a cleanup tag. Makemi
Thanks, Makemi, sounds good to me.
Marc
On 7/12/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Folks,
Real quick question. If I add data, and its source, to an Article that contains an "unreferenced" tag; should I then remove the tag, or wait until an admin. (or the person who placed it) does?
Still learning,
Marc Riddell
On 12/07/07, Mak makwik@gmail.com wrote:
Be bold in removing cleanup tags! If the article is cleaned up, it no longer needs the tag. If the person who placed it disagrees with your removal, they can replace it. Administrators should not have extra editorial rights, so it makes no sense to wait for one to remove a cleanup tag.
Yep. Admins tend to be experienced editors, but the two are not synonymous - "administrator" is a janitorial post, not an editorial one.
- d.
On 12/07/07, Mak makwik@gmail.com wrote:
Be bold in removing cleanup tags! If the article is cleaned up, it no longer needs the tag. If the person who placed it disagrees with your removal, they can replace it. Administrators should not have extra editorial rights, so it makes no sense to wait for one to remove a cleanup tag.
on 7/12/07 4:46 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yep. Admins tend to be experienced editors, but the two are not synonymous - "administrator" is a janitorial post, not an editorial one.
- d.
Thanks, David. But what about a case where I add some information to a fairly large Article that contains the "unreferenced" tag, include the source of the information I added, but the remainder of the Article may contain other material that is unsourced?
Marc
On 7/12/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 12/07/07, Mak makwik@gmail.com wrote:
Be bold in removing cleanup tags! If the article is cleaned up, it no longer needs the tag. If the person who placed it disagrees with your removal, they can replace it. Administrators should not have extra editorial rights, so it makes no sense to wait for one to remove a cleanup tag.
on 7/12/07 4:46 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yep. Admins tend to be experienced editors, but the two are not synonymous - "administrator" is a janitorial post, not an editorial one.
- d.
Thanks, David. But what about a case where I add some information to a fairly large Article that contains the "unreferenced" tag, include the source of the information I added, but the remainder of the Article may contain other material that is unsourced?
Marc
Just make a judge ment call. Sometimes the tag is there because there is tons of unreferenced material in the article--science articles need a lot of references, and having multiple paragraphs unreferenced can be problemaitc. In which case I would leave the tag, unless I added a major or primary source that referenced additional material in the article, substantial and/or important material.
For botany, we generally don't put unreferenced tags if there's even one source, and plant articles (unless it's a European herb) generally require going to IPNI or a single literature search to get the authority for the name.
I usually remove the unreferenced tag on smaller articles or stubs if I add a single reference.
No one has complained about my removing tags. People do complain about my tagging things, though. Some of the aircraft folks thing tags on articles are attacks on their persons, even when the article is essentially a copy of the sales brochure for the plane. I think tags are alerts to the reader of the article that you need to be more careful than usual obtaining material from an article. I think they need to stay put until the article is safe from warnings. You'll find out when you remove it if you have one of me watching the article.
KP
K P wrote:
For botany, we generally don't put unreferenced tags if there's even one source, and plant articles (unless it's a European herb) generally require going to IPNI or a single literature search to get the authority for the name.
I think you guys doing botany have it fairly easy. Nobody accuses a carniverous plant of acting maliciously. Even with conflicting taxonomic systems it is relatively easy to document the conflict.
No one has complained about my removing tags. People do complain about my tagging things, though. Some of the aircraft folks thing tags on articles are attacks on their persons, even when the article is essentially a copy of the sales brochure for the plane.
Unlike plants, matters concerning human activity are more controversial.
I think tags are alerts to the reader of the article that you need to be more careful than usual obtaining material from an article.
This should be in bold type! We are deluding ourselves if we believe that we can provide anywhere near 100% accuracy on our material. If we can ever convince the reader that checking out the information that he wants is his own responsibility we will have accomplished more by that than by having everything perfectly accurate. Entire educational systems have failed their students by making them believe that they can be complacent about the accuracy of what they read as long as it's from an authoritative source.
Ec
K P wrote:
I think tags are alerts to the reader of the article that you need to be more careful than usual obtaining material from an article.
on 7/12/07 7:34 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This should be in bold type! We are deluding ourselves if we believe that we can provide anywhere near 100% accuracy on our material. If we can ever convince the reader that checking out the information that he wants is his own responsibility we will have accomplished more by that than by having everything perfectly accurate. Entire educational systems have failed their students by making them believe that they can be complacent about the accuracy of what they read as long as it's from an authoritative source.
Yes! Well said, both.
Marc
On 7/13/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 12/07/07, Mak makwik@gmail.com wrote:
Be bold in removing cleanup tags! If the article is cleaned up, it no
longer
needs the tag. If the person who placed it disagrees with your removal,
they
can replace it. Administrators should not have extra editorial rights,
so it
makes no sense to wait for one to remove a cleanup tag.
on 7/12/07 4:46 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yep. Admins tend to be experienced editors, but the two are not synonymous - "administrator" is a janitorial post, not an editorial one.
- d.
Thanks, David. But what about a case where I add some information to a fairly large Article that contains the "unreferenced" tag, include the source of the information I added, but the remainder of the Article may contain other material that is unsourced?
Replace it with the {{more sources}} tag, I think. I find articles which use {{unreferenced}} despite having references very irritating, because {{unreferenced}} is only for totally unsourced articles. It's especially annoying on articles with a lot of references, but one or two totally unreferenced (And sometimes just sparsely referenced) sections.
Johnleemk
There's also {{Unreferencedsection}} to be used at the head of a section. But checking on it at Template:Unreferenced, I found the following instruction:
This template also has one optional field, which permits the user to be specific in what needs to be cited. For instance, if the entire article needs to be cited, a user would enter {{unreferenced}}; should they wish to be more specific on which section of the article needs to be cited, then the user could enter {{unreferenced|article's section called "Childhood"}}.
First time I saw that, and it certainly will help. For one thing, one can simply add the optional field to existing tags.
On 7/12/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/13/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 12/07/07, Mak makwik@gmail.com wrote:
Be bold in removing cleanup tags! If the article is cleaned up, it no
longer
needs the tag. If the person who placed it disagrees with your removal,
they
can replace it. Administrators should not have extra editorial rights,
so it
makes no sense to wait for one to remove a cleanup tag.
on 7/12/07 4:46 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yep. Admins tend to be experienced editors, but the two are not synonymous - "administrator" is a janitorial post, not an editorial one.
- d.
Thanks, David. But what about a case where I add some information to a fairly large Article that contains the "unreferenced" tag, include the source of the information I added, but the remainder of the Article may contain other material that is unsourced?
Replace it with the {{more sources}} tag, I think. I find articles which use {{unreferenced}} despite having references very irritating, because {{unreferenced}} is only for totally unsourced articles. It's especially annoying on articles with a lot of references, but one or two totally unreferenced (And sometimes just sparsely referenced) sections.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Replace it with the {{more sources}} tag, I think. I find articles which use {{unreferenced}} despite having references very irritating, because {{unreferenced}} is only for totally unsourced articles. It's especially annoying on articles with a lot of references, but one or two totally unreferenced (And sometimes just sparsely referenced) sections.
Johnleemk
I got into a bit of a battle on this, where someone referenced a single comment about another slightly related topic within an article and removed the unreferenced tag--the sentence was added, copying the reference from another article, solely to remove the unreferenced tag from a crappy and unreferenced article. I don't think this is what you're talking about, but there are times when there are references and the tag should remain. Still, I don't think unreferenced tags are as important as adding references.
KP