Much of the text of Wikipedia is unsourced currently. In addition, due perhaps to lack of understanding of our policies, or just the desire to add sources, we have tens of thousands(at least) of unreliable sources listed as references. By doing a Special pages/External links search, it's not hard to find large numbers of these. A search on *.tripod.com, for example, gives 10,000+ links, many of which are being used as references. africanelections.tripod.com alone is linked to 484 articles, and is being presented as a source in multiple templates.
My question is, is it a good idea to simply go through and remove large numbers of these? Are we better off with no sources at all for portions of text, rather than have references which consist of message board postings and personal websites and such?
I noticed people using urbandictionary entries as references, and went through and removed all I could find, from about 100 articles (I left any links in External links sections, as having a link there is entirely different from having it listed as a reference). But now, having discovered the ease with which I can find thousands more unreliable sources as references, I'm wondering what others think of the mass removal of unreliable sources.
Am I correct in believing that we're better off having an unsourced paragraph of text, rather than a paragraph which has as a reference somedudeswebpage.tripod.com?
(And, yes, I know, it would be optimal to replace unreliable sources with reliable ones. But this would take about 100 times as long)
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
On 22/03/2008, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
My question is, is it a good idea to simply go through and remove large numbers of these? Are we better off with no sources at all for portions of text, rather than have references which consist of message board postings and personal websites and such?
[...]
reference). But now, having discovered the ease with which I can find thousands more unreliable sources as references, I'm wondering what others think of the mass removal of unreliable sources. Am I correct in believing that we're better off having an unsourced paragraph of text, rather than a paragraph which has as a reference somedudeswebpage.tripod.com?
Take extreme caution and make damn sure you know the subject area first. "Reliable sources" is entirely relative to the subject area.
Mass removal of references is the sort of thing that has gotten people taken out and shot by the arbitration committee before.
- d.
Any mass action is disruptive unless there are urgent reasons to do so.
I would suggest finding a reliable source and updating the pages accordingly. No one would yell you for that and you would be more satisfied in what you are doing. It is always tempting to kill the patient to cure them but remember we want to avoid the patients death.
- White Cat
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 11:49 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/03/2008, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
My question is, is it a good idea to simply go through and remove large numbers of these? Are we better off with no sources at all for portions of text, rather than have references which consist of message board postings and personal websites and such?
[...]
reference). But now, having discovered the ease with which I can find thousands more unreliable sources as references, I'm wondering what others think of the mass removal of unreliable sources. Am I correct in believing that we're better off having an unsourced paragraph of text, rather than a paragraph which has as a reference somedudeswebpage.tripod.com?
Take extreme caution and make damn sure you know the subject area first. "Reliable sources" is entirely relative to the subject area.
Mass removal of references is the sort of thing that has gotten people taken out and shot by the arbitration committee before.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I carry out mass actions on a regular basis on Wikipedia, I consider it part of Being Bold and the urgent reason for doing so is always to improve the encylopedia.
The question is whether or not we're better off with unreliable sources or with no sources at all. If the answer is no sources at all, I have no problems pulling 1000 inappropriate references if I can find them, just as I would remove spam external links from every article I found them in, or revert every single instance where someone replaced an article with "I love boobs!".
As you mentioned killing the patient in an attempt to cure them, do you think we're better off with somedudeswebpage.tripod.com as a reference for text in an article, and if so, why?
--- White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Any mass action is disruptive unless there are urgent reasons to do so.
I would suggest finding a reliable source and updating the pages accordingly. No one would yell you for that and you would be more satisfied in what you are doing. It is always tempting to kill the patient to cure them but remember we want to avoid the patients death.
- White Cat
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 11:49 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/03/2008, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com
wrote:
My question is, is it a good idea to simply go
through
and remove large numbers of these? Are we
better off
with no sources at all for portions of text,
rather
than have references which consist of message
board
postings and personal websites and such?
[...]
reference). But now, having discovered the
ease with
which I can find thousands more unreliable
sources as
references, I'm wondering what others think of
the
mass removal of unreliable sources. Am I correct in believing that we're better off
having
an unsourced paragraph of text, rather than a paragraph which has as a reference somedudeswebpage.tripod.com?
Take extreme caution and make damn sure you know
the subject area
first. "Reliable sources" is entirely relative to
the subject area.
Mass removal of references is the sort of thing
that has gotten people
taken out and shot by the arbitration committee
before.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
bobolozo schreef:
The question is whether or not we're better off with unreliable sources or with no sources at all.
We're better off with having sources, even if there reliability is questionable.
1) Unsourced statements are indistinguishable from OR.
2) Sources are information themselves; our mission is to give as much information on a subject as possible.
3) An unsourced statement says that something is true. A sourced statement says that something is true, according to so-and-so. The latter is obviously and verifiably correct, unlike the first.
4) It enables a reader to make his own evaluation of the reliabilty of the information.
5) It makes it easier to correct invalid information. If someone spots an error in a tripod-sourced fact, he can communicate that to the original source, as long as there is a reference to it. In that way, the correction can be evaluated by the tripod-site owner, who is probably more of an expert on the subject than a random wikipedia editor, and the source material can be corrected as well.
6) If I come across a fact in Wikipedia that I think is incorrect, I'll google around to see what the truth is. Often, I'll arrive at another tripod-like site, and now I want to compare the reliability of that site woth the original source of the statement in Wikipedia. If no source is give, I will assume that Wikipedia is most likely correct (because our quality lies way above the internet average!) and I'll not correct it... However, if the source is given, I can compare both sites to see which answer is more likely to be correct, and to determine what the WP article should say (perhaps even include both statements, explaining that the truth is not known in this case).
7) It's a courtesy, in some cases perhaps even an obligation, to someone with a website whose information we use.
By all means insert a template expressing doubts about the reliability of a reference, and inviting people to replace it with another reference. And please make that template hideable in my personal CSS.
Eugene
On 22/03/2008, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
large numbers of these. A search on *.tripod.com, for example, gives 10,000+ links, many of which are being used as references. africanelections.tripod.com alone is linked to 484 articles, and is being presented as a source in multiple templates.
At a glance, that site appears to be an excellent example of why simply mass-delinking Geocities and Tripod is a bad move - yes, it's a self-published resource, but it's a fairly serious and well-intended one; it seems to be on Tripod because the author finds that convenient.
A vast amount of the stuff on these sites is fluff, and I agree entirely it's a good idea to use the hosting as a bit of advisory information when you're looking at a link. But simply insisting on a blanket ban on *hosting sites* - not even on individual websites! - as inherently unreliable is... not helpful.
If he'd gone off and got some more discreet web hosting and put the site up as "africanelectoralresults.org", well, we wouldn't be proposing this. But the inherent reliability of the site wouldn't have changed one bit.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 3:32 PM, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
Much of the text of Wikipedia is unsourced currently. In addition, due perhaps to lack of understanding of our policies, or just the desire to add sources, we have tens of thousands(at least) of unreliable sources listed as references. By doing a Special pages/External links search, it's not hard to find large numbers of these. A search on *.tripod.com, for example, gives 10,000+ links, many of which are being used as references. africanelections.tripod.com alone is linked to 484 articles, and is being presented as a source in multiple templates.
My question is, is it a good idea to simply go through and remove large numbers of these? Are we better off with no sources at all for portions of text, rather than have references which consist of message board postings and personal websites and such?
I noticed people using urbandictionary entries as references, and went through and removed all I could find, from about 100 articles (I left any links in External links sections, as having a link there is entirely different from having it listed as a reference). But now, having discovered the ease with which I can find thousands more unreliable sources as references, I'm wondering what others think of the mass removal of unreliable sources.
Am I correct in believing that we're better off having an unsourced paragraph of text, rather than a paragraph which has as a reference somedudeswebpage.tripod.com?
(And, yes, I know, it would be optimal to replace unreliable sources with reliable ones. But this would take about 100 times as long)
It is better to have a source than no source at all. If you must do this (I would not advise it), I strongly recommend you place the links on the talk page. But there is no real point anyway; references exist so our readers will know where we got our facts from. As Andrew says, if this was not a Tripod site, it would probably be ignored as an ok source. These refs should stay until we can find better ones.
Johnleemk
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:32 PM, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
My question is, is it a good idea to simply go through and remove large numbers of these? Are we better off with no sources at all for portions of text, rather than have references which consist of message board postings and personal websites and such?
Absolutely not, under any circumstances. Never remove a reference unless you either (a) remove the information referenced (placing it on the talk page unless it is libellous), or (b) add another reference to a better source that completely covers everything the previous reference did.
David is correct that removing references like this will lead to swift sanction.
-Matt
--- Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:32 PM, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
My question is, is it a good idea to simply go
through
and remove large numbers of these? Are we better
off
with no sources at all for portions of text,
rather
than have references which consist of message
board
postings and personal websites and such?
Absolutely not, under any circumstances. Never remove a reference unless you either (a) remove the information referenced (placing it on the talk page unless it is libellous), or (b) add another reference to a better source that completely covers everything the previous reference did.
David is correct that removing references like this will lead to swift sanction.
-Matt
As far as I can tell, this statement that one should never remove a source without replacing it or removing the text it supports, this is not contained in any of our policies or guidelines.
It would make sense if everything in Wikipedia were sourced and if no unsourced content were allowed. However, since probably 90+% of the text in Wikipedia has no sources, I don't see why your statement makes sense. Unsourced content is allowed, and can sit there for years in an article, but as soon as a reference is ever added, even if the reference is totally inappropriate, the unsourced content now must be removed?
An extreme example of this, but... suppose some spammer goes through and adds references to 1000 articles in random unsourced paragraphs, with the source given being mortgage-refinance-online-low-prices.biz, totally off topic from any of the articles. We're now not allowed to remove this spam without gutting all of these articles or spending hundreds of hours digging up sources?
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 5:23 PM, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
An extreme example of this, but... suppose some spammer goes through and adds references to 1000 articles in random unsourced paragraphs, with the source given being mortgage-refinance-online-low-prices.biz, totally off topic from any of the articles. We're now not allowed to remove this spam without gutting all of these articles or spending hundreds of hours digging up sources?
You are confusing irrelevant, spammy sources with relevant, unreliable ones.
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:23 PM, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
As far as I can tell, this statement that one should never remove a source without replacing it or removing the text it supports, this is not contained in any of our policies or guidelines.
Perhaps it isn't, perhaps it is. It is, however, the /spirit/ of what we should be doing on Wikipedia. Policy and guideline pages are constantly modified by people with vested interests in having them say things that support their positions; I would not trust them.
Removing sources is contrary to the spirit of the encyclopedia and the point of our sourcing policies. Obviously you can contrive a situation when one would do it; however, no Wikipedia policy is set in stone, deliberately.
Having information in Wikipedia that is wholly lacking in sources is poorer information to information that is properly sourced to a second-rate source. That information has provenance. You can go and look up the source. You can try to find out where that source in turn got its information.
-Matt
On 25/03/2008, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:23 PM, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
As far as I can tell, this statement that one should never remove a source without replacing it or removing the text it supports, this is not contained in any of our policies or guidelines.
Perhaps it isn't, perhaps it is. It is, however, the /spirit/ of what we should be doing on Wikipedia. Policy and guideline pages are constantly modified by people with vested interests in having them say things that support their positions; I would not trust them. Removing sources is contrary to the spirit of the encyclopedia and the point of our sourcing policies. Obviously you can contrive a situation when one would do it; however, no Wikipedia policy is set in stone, deliberately.
One point that bobolozo is missing, in his enthusiasm to get mass-deleting, is that [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] is itself ... not a reliable source. It's a guideline, and one with truck-sized holes in it. Applying it robotically is a recipe for bureaucratic stupidity. Thinking it can be applied bureaucratically suggests a lack of the level of judgement one should have before performing such a drastic mass action. Precis: if you think WP:RS justifies such a course of action ... you shouldn't even be considering the action in question, and need to go back and think more first.
- d.
Matthew Brown wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:23 PM, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
As far as I can tell, this statement that one should never remove a source without replacing it or removing the text it supports, this is not contained in any of our policies or guidelines.
Perhaps it isn't, perhaps it is. It is, however, the /spirit/ of what we should be doing on Wikipedia. Policy and guideline pages are constantly modified by people with vested interests in having them say things that support their positions; I would not trust them.
Removing sources is contrary to the spirit of the encyclopedia and the point of our sourcing policies. Obviously you can contrive a situation when one would do it; however, no Wikipedia policy is set in stone, deliberately.
Having information in Wikipedia that is wholly lacking in sources is poorer information to information that is properly sourced to a second-rate source. That information has provenance. You can go and look up the source. You can try to find out where that source in turn got its information.
This all assumes that the "source" says what it is claimed to have said. No source at all is preferable to sources that support specious original research. Strung together these sources, which may each individually be valid, can support a "Da Vinci Code" style of reasoning. Properly sourced from second-rate sources is still better than poorly sourced from first-rate sources.
I agree that policy churning has resulted in policies that cannot themselves be viewed as reliable sources for anybody's actions. Some have said before that other Wikipedia articles should not be acceptable as reliable sources; that approach could as easily be applied to policy pages.
Ec
On 23/03/2008, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
An extreme example of this, but... suppose some spammer goes through and adds references to 1000 articles in random unsourced paragraphs, with the source given being mortgage-refinance-online-low-prices.biz, totally off topic from any of the articles. We're now not allowed to remove this spam without gutting all of these articles or spending hundreds of hours digging up sources?
No, of course you're allowed to remove that. This is a strawman - there is a very major distinction between maliciously-added spam links and good-faith but-not-very-good actual sources.
On 25/03/2008, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/03/2008, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
An extreme example of this, but... suppose some spammer goes through and adds references to 1000 articles in random unsourced paragraphs, with the source given being mortgage-refinance-online-low-prices.biz, totally off topic from any of the articles. We're now not allowed to remove this spam without gutting all of these articles or spending hundreds of hours digging up sources?
No, of course you're allowed to remove that. This is a strawman - there is a very major distinction between maliciously-added spam links and good-faith but-not-very-good actual sources.
I frequently run into references where the linked reference does not support the information added to the article. If I have time to try to find a better reference, I will; however, if not then I remove the non-supportive reference. Depending on the nature of the information being sourced incorrectly, my next steps will vary. If it is essentially non-contentious, it probably didn't need a reference in the first place, and I'll leave it alone. If it is BLP-related and is potentially contentious, the information has to go according to our own policies; removing it is not vandalism. If it still needs a reference but is not a BLP issue, I'll stick a {{fact}} tag on.
To me, having a reference that doesn't support the information written in the article is more harmful to the project than having an unreferenced statement, and I'll remove such references without hesitation.
Risker
On 25/03/2008, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
To me, having a reference that doesn't support the information written in the article is more harmful to the project than having an unreferenced statement, and I'll remove such references without hesitation.
This case is also not what the original question was about.
- d.
On 25/03/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/03/2008, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
To me, having a reference that doesn't support the information written
in
the article is more harmful to the project than having an unreferenced statement, and I'll remove such references without hesitation.
This case is also not what the original question was about.
Amazing how conversations evolve, isn't it? Matthew Brown had earlier said:
"Absolutely not, under any circumstances. Never remove a reference unless you either (a) remove the information referenced (placing it on the talk page unless it is libellous), or (b) add another reference to a better source that completely covers everything the previous reference did."
I am simply pointing out that there are good reasons for removing some references, but there are other options than moving the information onto the talk page.
(Sorry that I don't have the functionality to quote two separate posts in my reply; Matthew's response was March 23rd).
Risker
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 7:11 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
To me, having a reference that doesn't support the information written in the article is more harmful to the project than having an unreferenced statement, and I'll remove such references without hesitation.
Of course; however, you should always check the history and see what that reference was initially introduced as supporting. Quite often careless editors will by insertion, deletion or moving of content dissassociate the reference from the content it originally supported. It's quite possible that the reference IS needed - just not for the info it's now next to.
I wasn't intending to place my *full* personal rules for referencing above, but one of them is that if the reference no longer is required it can be removed. It could have been wholly replaced with a better reference; the content it supported could have been removed; or it could indeed have always been useless.
-Matt
On 25/03/2008, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I wasn't intending to place my *full* personal rules for referencing above, but one of them is that if the reference no longer is required it can be removed. It could have been wholly replaced with a better reference; the content it supported could have been removed; or it could indeed have always been useless.
Mmm. It's also occasionally worth seeing if references can be replaced with another existing one - especially with articles heavily cited from news stories, there's usually a lot of duplication, and it's good to trim the proliferation.
bobolozo wrote:
An extreme example of this, but... suppose some spammer goes through and adds references to 1000 articles in random unsourced paragraphs, with the source given being mortgage-refinance-online-low-prices.biz, totally off topic from any of the articles. We're now not allowed to remove this spam without gutting all of these articles or spending hundreds of hours digging up sources?
These I do generally remove. A more realistic example: some spammer operating a travel site goes through and adds their unreliable ad-filled travel-to-some-island.biz site as a "source" for the article on some-island. I usually remove these as spam, as the "source" is worse than not having any, and is in any case spam. Occasionally if it seems like it actually was the source of the information, I'll leave it commented out as a note to future editors.
-Mark
Removing references because "WP:RS says this reference isn't good enough" is counterproductive. There is no deadline, and the reference will be improved or replaced by a more reliable source one day.
Until then, it looks nice to have something there :)
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:32 PM, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
My question is, is it a good idea to simply go through and remove large numbers of these? Are we better off with no sources at all for portions of text, rather than have references which consist of message board postings and personal websites and such?
Absolutely not, under any circumstances. Never remove a reference unless you either (a) remove the information referenced (placing it on the talk page unless it is libellous), or (b) add another reference to a better source that completely covers everything the previous reference did.
David is correct that removing references like this will lead to swift sanction.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Though, I would say it would be best to tag it {{fact}} or {{real citation needed}} or whatever it is, and remove it if none can be found, if it is in the least bit questionable or dubious. Self-published sources are not reliable. I do agree, though, that the questionable information should be removed along with the reference. Better to have it clearly marked "We got this from a crappy source" then to just have it there with no provenance at all. If the information is poorly sourced, it should be taken out until and unless a real one can be found, not just the source removed.
My own bias is to use the best sourcing available. If there is a more reliable source, may as well use it instead. If multiple sources disagree and could be considered reliable, may as well mention their disagreement.
Given the wide areas of the wiki with poor or no sourcing, it seems best to focus attention (when needed) on areas and details which are presently contested.
Yes, we should encourage sourcing. Yes, more reliable sources are better. If a topic is such that it is potentially contested and has no reliable sources at all, maintainability becomes an issue (this is one reason, I think, why we delete pages for reasons of notability: if nobody's written about a subject, we have no solid way to resolve disputes or even tell if some articles are accurate at all).
-Luna