Practice civility, please.
With regards to the issue, I believe the point was that Wikipedia's mission does not include "protecting kids." That isn't to say that individual Wikipedia editors don't think it is noble to protect kids. The point is that this sort of consideration is not properly used in discussions about Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not censored, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia couldn't embed tags in articles with explicit content to allow third-party filters to recognize it as such.
We at Wikipedia are not to be censors, but it isn't against Wikipedia policy to facilitate or allow content control by third parties for their own user base. Hence, with regards to parents, we can expect that they would want to keep their children from viewing, say, the contents of [[Cunnilingushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunnilingus]], but this doesn't mean that the content ought not be included for fear that children will circumvent their parents' restrictions.
DickClarkMises
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 16:53:17 +0100
From: Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Youngest editor? To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: d170bafc0706080853s36f90e36i38f13dde2ed1663f@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Oh shut up. That's such complete rubbish. *You* may feel that you don't have a responsibility to others, but some of us do.
On 08/06/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to interrupt this. It isn't our mission to protect kids. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not crowd management or a day care
service.
Everyone is responsible only of themselves. - White Cat
That's one of the reasons I don't let my kids Wikipedia: this policy of irresponsibility.
The Mangoe stated for the record:
That's one of the reasons I don't let my kids Wikipedia: this policy of irresponsibility.
A good point. I can let my kid use -- and edit -- Wikipedia, because I am responsible.
We are wikipedia editors, we are not guardian angels of any sort. It is nice you are feeling responsible, please be responsible and do not force this responsibility on people who do not desire it and have other things to do, such as writing an encyclopedia or in my case merely reading it. - White Cat
On 6/8/07, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
The Mangoe stated for the record:
That's one of the reasons I don't let my kids Wikipedia: this policy of irresponsibility.
A good point. I can let my kid use -- and edit -- Wikipedia, because I am responsible.
-- Sean Barrett | Ceci n'est pas une citation. sean@epoptic.com |
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
White Cat's mail client expels the following stream of bytes on 6/8/2007 8:19 PM:
On 6/8/07, Sean Barrett XXXX@XXXXXXX.XXX wrote:
The Mangoe stated for the record:
That's one of the reasons I don't let my kids Wikipedia: this policy of irresponsibility.
A good point. I can let my kid use -- and edit -- Wikipedia, because I am responsible.
We are wikipedia editors, we are not guardian angels of any sort. It is
nice
you are feeling responsible, please be responsible and do not force this responsibility on people who do not desire it and have other things to do, such as writing an encyclopedia or in my case merely reading it.
I concur with White Cat. If the kid is responsible enough for everyone's good, so be it. Let 'em contribute to Wikipedia (or entire Wikimedia), and hope he doesn't wreak havoc.
- -- Charli (vishwin60/zelzany) Computer games don't affect kids, I mean if Pac Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music. ~Marcus Brigstocke
White Cat stated for the record:
We are wikipedia editors, we are not guardian angels of any sort. It is nice you are feeling responsible, please be responsible and do not force this responsibility on people who do not desire it and have other things to do, such as writing an encyclopedia or in my case merely reading it. - White Cat
I wouldn't dream of forcing you to be responsible for your children, especially when you have so many more important things to do.
I don't have children and even if had children it would be my duty as their parent to do whats best for them, not because of some 'silly' wikipedia policy. - White Cat
On 6/9/07, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
White Cat stated for the record:
We are wikipedia editors, we are not guardian angels of any sort. It is
nice
you are feeling responsible, please be responsible and do not force this responsibility on people who do not desire it and have other things to
do,
such as writing an encyclopedia or in my case merely reading it. - White Cat
I wouldn't dream of forcing you to be responsible for your children, especially when you have so many more important things to do.
-- Sean Barrett | Ceci n'est pas une citation. sean@epoptic.com |
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Without this going on (ad infinitum) my proposal was just a new section in the welcome message explaining about how to use your identity. It has already been pointed out that nobodies identity is very safe anyway, but as herod said "washed my hands". If wikipedians do wanna go beyond the mile to explain to kids just be aware that you could come into the same critism as a ped. Its difficult. much in favor of a complete ban of age and area. we are not myspace
On 09/06/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I don't have children and even if had children it would be my duty as their parent to do whats best for them, not because of some 'silly' wikipedia policy.
- White Cat
On 6/9/07, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
White Cat stated for the record:
We are wikipedia editors, we are not guardian angels of any sort. It is
nice
you are feeling responsible, please be responsible and do not force this responsibility on people who do not desire it and have other things to
do,
such as writing an encyclopedia or in my case merely reading it. - White Cat
I wouldn't dream of forcing you to be responsible for your children, especially when you have so many more important things to do.
-- Sean Barrett | Ceci n'est pas une citation. sean@epoptic.com |
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'd be fine with that if a "general" statement was placed for everybody and not just children. Children are not under any greater risk than adults from internet predators. - White Cat
On 6/9/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Without this going on (ad infinitum) my proposal was just a new section in the welcome message explaining about how to use your identity. It has already been pointed out that nobodies identity is very safe anyway, but as herod said "washed my hands". If wikipedians do wanna go beyond the mile to explain to kids just be aware that you could come into the same critism as a ped. Its difficult. much in favor of a complete ban of age and area. we are not myspace
On 09/06/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I don't have children and even if had children it would be my duty as
their
parent to do whats best for them, not because of some 'silly' wikipedia policy.
- White Cat
On 6/9/07, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
White Cat stated for the record:
We are wikipedia editors, we are not guardian angels of any sort. It
is
nice
you are feeling responsible, please be responsible and do not force
this
responsibility on people who do not desire it and have other things
to
do,
such as writing an encyclopedia or in my case merely reading it. - White Cat
I wouldn't dream of forcing you to be responsible for your children, especially when you have so many more important things to do.
-- Sean Barrett | Ceci n'est pas une citation. sean@epoptic.com |
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes a general disclaimer about age and area and then nodody can say they didn't know - 65yr old or a middle school student.
On 09/06/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I'd be fine with that if a "general" statement was placed for everybody and not just children. Children are not under any greater risk than adults from internet predators.
- White Cat
On 6/9/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Without this going on (ad infinitum) my proposal was just a new section in the welcome message explaining about how to use your identity. It has already been pointed out that nobodies identity is very safe anyway, but as herod said "washed my hands". If wikipedians do wanna go beyond the mile to explain to kids just be aware that you could come into the same critism as a ped. Its difficult. much in favor of a complete ban of age and area. we are not myspace
Yes that'd be perfectly fine. It isn't something required but instead us being nice. - White Cat On 6/9/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Yes a general disclaimer about age and area and then nodody can say they didn't know - 65yr old or a middle school student.
On 09/06/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I'd be fine with that if a "general" statement was placed for everybody
and
not just children. Children are not under any greater risk than adults
from
internet predators.
- White Cat
On 6/9/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Without this going on (ad infinitum) my proposal was just a new section in the welcome message explaining about how to use your identity. It has already been pointed out that nobodies identity is very safe anyway, but as herod said "washed my hands". If wikipedians do wanna go beyond the mile to explain to kids just be aware that you could come into the same critism as a ped. Its difficult. much in favor of a complete ban of age and area. we are not myspace
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day White Cat,
I'd be fine with that if a "general" statement was placed for everybody and not just children. Children are not under any greater risk than adults from internet predators.
This strikes me as a very silly statement, unless I have misread it. Do you have a citation?
The original thread was about a 6th grader being a great editor to wikipedia. It move slightly OT to middle school admins and moved OT to the subject of identity and giving too much away.
my own suggestion is that all editors, when we welcome them are told to restict specific information, that may lead to abuse on and off-line.
mike
A Wikiproject to "eliminate unreferenced articles"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_articles
This seems a bit excessive.
Thoughts?
-- Jossi
On 6/16/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
A Wikiproject to "eliminate unreferenced articles"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_articles
This seems a bit excessive.
Well, it depends how that elimination is being done - by adding references is quite OK, for instance. By nominating for deletion things that no references can be found for after an exhausting search is also OK in my book.
-Matt
G'day Matt,
On 6/16/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
A Wikiproject to "eliminate unreferenced articles"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_articles
This seems a bit excessive.
Well, it depends how that elimination is being done - by adding references is quite OK, for instance. By nominating for deletion things that no references can be found for after an exhausting search is also OK in my book.
"Eliminate" suggests to me a process of saying, "If you cannot find a reference within five days, this article will be deleted", then sitting back, rubbing one's bejewelled hands together, eating candied starfish and cackling over the scenes of your private torture chamber deep in the bowels of your alpine mansion.
Matthew Brown wrote:
On 6/16/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
A Wikiproject to "eliminate unreferenced articles"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_articles
This seems a bit excessive.
Well, it depends how that elimination is being done - by adding references is quite OK, for instance. By nominating for deletion things that no references can be found for after an exhausting search is also OK in my book.
Experience shows that the "exhausting search" is not always there. Sometimes there is no search before nomination; perhaps a nomination should show evidence that some searchging has happened.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
On 6/16/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
A Wikiproject to "eliminate unreferenced articles"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_articles
This seems a bit excessive.
Well, it depends how that elimination is being done - by adding references is quite OK, for instance. By nominating for deletion things that no references can be found for after an exhausting search is also OK in my book.
Experience shows that the "exhausting search" is not always there. Sometimes there is no search before nomination; perhaps a nomination should show evidence that some searchging has happened.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Or we could go the other way, and say that an -article- should show some evidence that searching has happened.
WP:V:
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."
You write an article, it is -your job- to source it, not someone else's. If you're just hacking at it from memory...well what are you writing it for in the first place, find sources first!
On 6/17/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
You write an article, it is -your job- to source it, not someone else's. If you're just hacking at it from memory...well what are you writing it for in the first place, find sources first!
Because what was there before really sucked and I'm trying to work out what should be in the article. Of course I may throw in a couple of token refs to keep people happy. The alternative is articles like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cann_Quarry_canal
Todd Allen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
On 6/16/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
A Wikiproject to "eliminate unreferenced articles"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_articles
This seems a bit excessive.
Well, it depends how that elimination is being done - by adding references is quite OK, for instance. By nominating for deletion things that no references can be found for after an exhausting search is also OK in my book.
Experience shows that the "exhausting search" is not always there. Sometimes there is no search before nomination; perhaps a nomination should show evidence that some searching has happened.
Or we could go the other way, and say that an -article- should show some evidence that searching has happened.
WP:V:
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."
The fact that you had no option but to quote a rule gives me confidence about my own argument. Unfortunately people who are too quick to use rules are also too quick to misuse them.. The rule makes sense when there are no other options. If someone insists that the inhabitants of Mars are four feet tall, have green skin, and reproduce in a manner that resembles putting one's thumbs in a partner's ears I would be tempted to invoke that rule. In many instances, however, those invoking the rule are just being lazy dicks. The evidence is readily available, and far less time would be wasted adding it instead of hassling that editor about his failures.
You write an article, it is -your job- to source it, not someone else's. If you're just hacking at it from memory...well what are you writing it for in the first place, find sources first!
I joined at a time when Wikipedia was a collaborative effort of all editors, and no one person owned any articles. In those good old days someone who felt that a source was needed would help his brother editor by adding one. Sometimes that brother editor might even thank him for doing so.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
On 6/16/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
A Wikiproject to "eliminate unreferenced articles"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_articles
This seems a bit excessive.
Well, it depends how that elimination is being done - by adding references is quite OK, for instance. By nominating for deletion things that no references can be found for after an exhausting search is also OK in my book.
Experience shows that the "exhausting search" is not always there. Sometimes there is no search before nomination; perhaps a nomination should show evidence that some searching has happened.
Or we could go the other way, and say that an -article- should show some evidence that searching has happened.
WP:V:
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."
The fact that you had no option but to quote a rule gives me confidence about my own argument. Unfortunately people who are too quick to use rules are also too quick to misuse them.. The rule makes sense when there are no other options. If someone insists that the inhabitants of Mars are four feet tall, have green skin, and reproduce in a manner that resembles putting one's thumbs in a partner's ears I would be tempted to invoke that rule. In many instances, however, those invoking the rule are just being lazy dicks. The evidence is readily available, and far less time would be wasted adding it instead of hassling that editor about his failures.
You write an article, it is -your job- to source it, not someone else's. If you're just hacking at it from memory...well what are you writing it for in the first place, find sources first!
I joined at a time when Wikipedia was a collaborative effort of all editors, and no one person owned any articles. In those good old days someone who felt that a source was needed would help his brother editor by adding one. Sometimes that brother editor might even thank him for doing so.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And, to paraphrase yours, your sarcasm and "good old days" reference (combined even!) gives me plenty of confidence in my position, as generally such shows an inability to actually show how someone is wrong and why. Yes, sometimes I have been able to find a source for something. Yes, I do generally look before nominating for deletion (unless the claim made in the article is beyond preposterous, invention of a perpetual motion machine or something.)
But that doesn't mean I can always -find- it. If you got your information off of the first page of Google results, chances are I'll find it too. If you got your information out of a 1924 book available at only five libraries in the world, chances are, I probably won't. No one knows where you got it better than, well, you!
And I wonder if anyone knows what the term "editor" means? Part of editing is appraising, criticizing, and often, cutting. Those who cut are your "brother editors", too! Not lazy dicks, not ignorant slobs. Of course, if you feel that a particular section -shouldn't- be cut, you can and should disagree with them. But do so politely, just as you would with any editor who's making good-faith edits you nonetheless don't agree with.
Todd Allen wrote:
And, to paraphrase yours, your sarcasm and "good old days" reference (combined even!) gives me plenty of confidence in my position, as generally such shows an inability to actually show how someone is wrong and why.
How important is it to show that someone is wrong?
Yes, sometimes I have been able to find a source for something. Yes, I do generally look before nominating for deletion (unless the claim made in the article is beyond preposterous, invention of a perpetual motion machine or something.)
Part of the problem seemsto be in the compulsion to find sources. Sourcing then becomes an end in itself. A search for sources because the article is threatened by bureaucratic demands is not going to yield the same results as one based on a reflective understanding of the subject. If the process happens under pressure people are going to add whatever comes to hand quickly, and are more likely to add questionable sources. We sometimes need to give our readers credit for seeing when an article is unsourced, and what that implies. Dealing with that on his own context should be a part of the reader's homework. This doesn't mean that we blindly accept all unsourced material; we still need, among other things, to be concerned with libel against living person.
But that doesn't mean I can always -find- it. If you got your information off of the first page of Google results, chances are I'll find it too. If you got your information out of a 1924 book available at only five libraries in the world, chances are, I probably won't. No one knows where you got it better than, well, you!
This has more to do with verifying sources and their validity than having them in the first place. It would be intellectually dishones to reject a source for the sole reason that it known to exist in only five libraries in the entire world. Presumably we know which five libraries, and we can list them. None of those libraries may be convenient for you, but they may be for someone else, at that person's convenience. I have a fair amount of century old material in my personal library that I would not hesitate to use in relevant circumstances. I would cite the source, of course, but I would have no idea of whether other copies of the source are extant.
And I wonder if anyone knows what the term "editor" means? Part of editing is appraising, criticizing, and often, cutting. Those who cut are your "brother editors", too! Not lazy dicks, not ignorant slobs. Of course, if you feel that a particular section -shouldn't- be cut, you can and should disagree with them. But do so politely, just as you would with any editor who's making good-faith edits you nonetheless don't agree with.
It's not the same as dealing with edits with which I disagree. It may be months or years before I even discover them. The threat of deletion in a very short time creates a scramble that keeps otherwise good editors from working where they feel they can make the best contribution. Most of us do not spend our time looking for deletion proposals to rescue. When we discover the AfD the article is already long gone.
Ec
verifiable
The wording of the edit box is the wording throughout wikipedia policy, and you are not following it here. Content must be verifiable--it must be able to be verified if challenged. It does not have to be initially verified. It is not now and it has never been acceptable to delete articles that have no references just because they have no references, nor to nominate articles for deletion on that ground alone. You need to know that it is not verifiable. There are only two ways you can say that: first, you made a good faith effort appropriate to the article and failed. The other if it is obvious from similar cases that the material is totally unverifiable. It is my experience at AfD that people who assume the second are as likely to be wrong as to be right, and that references can often be found when challenged, and could have been found had they been honestly looked for. from my comment at Talk:Unreferenced articles
The goal of this project should simply be to find good references. Period. There should be another project to examine the articles for which references can not be found. In that project it should be considered whether the lack of references affect the possible notability of the subject. If so, it should be nominated for deletion. if not, it should be left alone for future work.
All WPedians will cooperate with a project having such goals
On 6/20/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
And, to paraphrase yours, your sarcasm and "good old days" reference (combined even!) gives me plenty of confidence in my position, as generally such shows an inability to actually show how someone is wrong and why.
How important is it to show that someone is wrong?
Yes, sometimes I have been able to find a source for something. Yes, I do generally look before nominating for deletion (unless the claim made in the article is beyond preposterous, invention of a perpetual motion machine or something.)
Part of the problem seemsto be in the compulsion to find sources. Sourcing then becomes an end in itself. A search for sources because the article is threatened by bureaucratic demands is not going to yield the same results as one based on a reflective understanding of the subject. If the process happens under pressure people are going to add whatever comes to hand quickly, and are more likely to add questionable sources. We sometimes need to give our readers credit for seeing when an article is unsourced, and what that implies. Dealing with that on his own context should be a part of the reader's homework. This doesn't mean that we blindly accept all unsourced material; we still need, among other things, to be concerned with libel against living person.
But that doesn't mean I can always -find- it. If you got your information off of the first page of Google results, chances are I'll find it too. If you got your information out of a 1924 book available at only five libraries in the world, chances are, I probably won't. No one knows where you got it better than, well, you!
This has more to do with verifying sources and their validity than having them in the first place. It would be intellectually dishones to reject a source for the sole reason that it known to exist in only five libraries in the entire world. Presumably we know which five libraries, and we can list them. None of those libraries may be convenient for you, but they may be for someone else, at that person's convenience. I have a fair amount of century old material in my personal library that I would not hesitate to use in relevant circumstances. I would cite the source, of course, but I would have no idea of whether other copies of the source are extant.
And I wonder if anyone knows what the term "editor" means? Part of editing is appraising, criticizing, and often, cutting. Those who cut are your "brother editors", too! Not lazy dicks, not ignorant slobs. Of course, if you feel that a particular section -shouldn't- be cut, you can and should disagree with them. But do so politely, just as you would with any editor who's making good-faith edits you nonetheless don't agree with.
It's not the same as dealing with edits with which I disagree. It may be months or years before I even discover them. The threat of deletion in a very short time creates a scramble that keeps otherwise good editors from working where they feel they can make the best contribution. Most of us do not spend our time looking for deletion proposals to rescue. When we discover the AfD the article is already long gone.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
REPOST--the previous one got mangled:
My comment, fom WP Talk:Unreferenced articles.
The wording of the edit box "Verifiable" is the wording throughout wikipedia policy, and you are not following it here. Content must be verifiable--it must be able to be verified if challenged. It does not have to be initially verified. It is not now and it has never been acceptable to delete articles that have no references just because they have no references, nor to nominate articles for deletion on that ground alone. You need to know that it is not verifiable. There are only two ways you can say that: first, you made a good faith effort appropriate to the article and failed. The other if it is obvious from similar cases that the material is totally unverifiable. It is my experience at AfD that people who assume the second are as likely to be wrong as to be right, and that references can often be found when challenged, and could have been found had they been honestly looked for.
The goal of this project should simply be to find good references. Period. There should be another project to examine the articles for which references can not be found. In that project it should be considered whether the lack of references affect the possible notability of the subject. If so, it should be nominated for deletion. if not, it should be left alone for future work.
All WPedians will cooperate with a project having such goals. DGG 06:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
On 6/20/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
And, to paraphrase yours, your sarcasm and "good old days" reference (combined even!) gives me plenty of confidence in my position, as generally such shows an inability to actually show how someone is wrong and why.
How important is it to show that someone is wrong?
Yes, sometimes I have been able to find a source for something. Yes, I do generally look before nominating for deletion (unless the claim made in the article is beyond preposterous, invention of a perpetual motion machine or something.)
Part of the problem seemsto be in the compulsion to find sources. Sourcing then becomes an end in itself. A search for sources because the article is threatened by bureaucratic demands is not going to yield the same results as one based on a reflective understanding of the subject. If the process happens under pressure people are going to add whatever comes to hand quickly, and are more likely to add questionable sources. We sometimes need to give our readers credit for seeing when an article is unsourced, and what that implies. Dealing with that on his own context should be a part of the reader's homework. This doesn't mean that we blindly accept all unsourced material; we still need, among other things, to be concerned with libel against living person.
But that doesn't mean I can always -find- it. If you got your information off of the first page of Google results, chances are I'll find it too. If you got your information out of a 1924 book available at only five libraries in the world, chances are, I probably won't. No one knows where you got it better than, well, you!
This has more to do with verifying sources and their validity than having them in the first place. It would be intellectually dishones to reject a source for the sole reason that it known to exist in only five libraries in the entire world. Presumably we know which five libraries, and we can list them. None of those libraries may be convenient for you, but they may be for someone else, at that person's convenience. I have a fair amount of century old material in my personal library that I would not hesitate to use in relevant circumstances. I would cite the source, of course, but I would have no idea of whether other copies of the source are extant.
And I wonder if anyone knows what the term "editor" means? Part of editing is appraising, criticizing, and often, cutting. Those who cut are your "brother editors", too! Not lazy dicks, not ignorant slobs. Of course, if you feel that a particular section -shouldn't- be cut, you can and should disagree with them. But do so politely, just as you would with any editor who's making good-faith edits you nonetheless don't agree with.
It's not the same as dealing with edits with which I disagree. It may be months or years before I even discover them. The threat of deletion in a very short time creates a scramble that keeps otherwise good editors from working where they feel they can make the best contribution. Most of us do not spend our time looking for deletion proposals to rescue. When we discover the AfD the article is already long gone.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, David Goodman wrote:
It is not now and it has never been acceptable to delete articles that have no references just because they have no references, nor to nominate articles for deletion on that ground alone. You need to know that it is not verifiable. There are only two ways you can say that: first, you made a good faith effort appropriate to the article and failed. The other if it is obvious from similar cases that the material is totally unverifiable.
There's a loophole here: Just delete paragraphs from the article on the grounds of having no references. Once the article's almost empty, then nominate it for deletion.
On this subject, when I went over to the page for this deletion drive I found a note that all of the articles beginning with Y that were tagged as unreferenced for a given month were either fixed or put on {{prod}}.
I looked at them, and removed the {{prod}} tag from articles that seemed to be claiming to have some notability. Of those, three subsequently got referenced, one got taken to AfD (deservedly), and one is still unreferenced.
Which goes to the heart of my problems with drives like this - they are careless and irresponsible, and make bad decisions that break as much as they fix.
-Phil
Yes, one remedy is for even-handed people to join these drives, and not leave them solely in the hands of those wishing to delete as much as possible as quickly as possible. But it will take a lot of us, and the sensible people are usually fully occupied otherwise.
On 6/21/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On this subject, when I went over to the page for this deletion drive I found a note that all of the articles beginning with Y that were tagged as unreferenced for a given month were either fixed or put on {{prod}}.
I looked at them, and removed the {{prod}} tag from articles that seemed to be claiming to have some notability. Of those, three subsequently got referenced, one got taken to AfD (deservedly), and one is still unreferenced.
Which goes to the heart of my problems with drives like this - they are careless and irresponsible, and make bad decisions that break as much as they fix.
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Goodman wrote:
Yes, one remedy is for even-handed people to join these drives, and not leave them solely in the hands of those wishing to delete as much as possible as quickly as possible. But it will take a lot of us, and the sensible people are usually fully occupied otherwise.
That, and sensible people are loath to enter into a room full of irate wasps.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
On 6/16/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
A Wikiproject to "eliminate unreferenced articles"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_articles
This seems a bit excessive.
Well, it depends how that elimination is being done - by adding references is quite OK, for instance. By nominating for deletion things that no references can be found for after an exhausting search is also OK in my book.
Experience shows that the "exhausting search" is not always there. Sometimes there is no search before nomination; perhaps a nomination should show evidence that some searchging has happened.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Actually, an article saying "the sky is blue" is inaccurate, or at least incomplete. The sky can be blue, or grey, black with tiny spots of light, completely black, orange, purple, white...Of course, if you've put in a good source, I can go look at your source and find all that. If you haven't, I don't even have a way to verify what you said. (Nor would any remotely useful article consist solely of "the sky is blue".)
In practice, unsourced articles are likely to be challenged (by being nominated for deletion), and that practice is becoming more common. It's a bit unusual to see someone say on the one hand "People challenge (nominate for deletion) unsourced articles way too often!" and on the other "Well, see, those don't require sources, they're not likely to be challenged."
On 6/17/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
In practice, unsourced articles are likely to be challenged (by being nominated for deletion), and that practice is becoming more common. It's a bit unusual to see someone say on the one hand "People challenge (nominate for deletion) unsourced articles way too often!" and on the other "Well, see, those don't require sources, they're not likely to be challenged."
"Challenged" does not mean "Someone somewhere who may or may not know anything about the subject put a citation needed tag on an article". It means someone rationally questioned a fact's validity. As an example, I know nothing about particle physics. I COULD go through and vomit CITATION NEEDED tags all over those articles. I wouldn't because that would be a total dick move. I am incapable of telling if the articles are right or wrong. If I actually understood the subject matter and could discuss the matter with the authors then I'd dispute the portions I understood and thought were wrong.
-Chris Croy
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, C.J. Croy wrote:
"Challenged" does not mean "Someone somewhere who may or may not know anything about the subject put a citation needed tag on an article".
Unfortunately, the policy doesn't say that. If it did, things would be much easier and more sensible.
About 25% of the WP articles cannot be properly sourced without access to one of the about 250 existing research libraries (in the english-speaking world), and perhaps a third of those can be done in only one of the top half of those, the ones with high quality pint collections. Most WPedians clearly do not have such access, and most of those who do are clearly unaccustomed to using it for such purposes. Those who can do this, are not likely to assume the burden of sourcing a few hundred thosand articles in 5 days. And it is not just finding sources. It is necessary to find multiple sources in a thorough way, and see what part of the article can be supported, and then do the secondary research necessary to rewrite the article. How many WP editors know how to do this properly? How many of the enthusiasts working on popular culture actually know how to do an adequate job filling the gaps there?
A drive to rapidly source articles will get low-quality sourcing--will get sourcing from what printed textbook happens to be handy which sort of covers the general subject. How were these articles written--many from the old Enc Brittanica, which in turn was written by people who did have access to the proper libraries. We cannot update them without similar facilities.
On the other hand, examine the German WP-- most article are not sourced or are sketchily sourced, and yet of of an average quality way beyond us. Their popular culture is concise summaries of what's important, not long rambling sometimes careless plot summaries. My German has been getting much better since I followed some good advice to check there when needed.
Obviously we want higher standards, but we should not aim beyond our capabilities, and we should not ask for things beyond the actual interests of the WP editors in the project.
DGG David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
What exactly do you want with this? I personally agree that the reference-tags on top of articles are overused, but of course, they are necessary.
2007/6/19, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
About 25% of the WP articles cannot be properly sourced without access to one of the about 250 existing research libraries (in the english-speaking world), and perhaps a third of those can be done in only one of the top half of those, the ones with high quality pint collections. Most WPedians clearly do not have such access, and most of those who do are clearly unaccustomed to using it for such purposes. Those who can do this, are not likely to assume the burden of sourcing a few hundred thosand articles in 5 days. And it is not just finding sources. It is necessary to find multiple sources in a thorough way, and see what part of the article can be supported, and then do the secondary research necessary to rewrite the article. How many WP editors know how to do this properly? How many of the enthusiasts working on popular culture actually know how to do an adequate job filling the gaps there?
A drive to rapidly source articles will get low-quality sourcing--will get sourcing from what printed textbook happens to be handy which sort of covers the general subject. How were these articles written--many from the old Enc Brittanica, which in turn was written by people who did have access to the proper libraries. We cannot update them without similar facilities.
On the other hand, examine the German WP-- most article are not sourced or are sketchily sourced, and yet of of an average quality way beyond us. Their popular culture is concise summaries of what's important, not long rambling sometimes careless plot summaries. My German has been getting much better since I followed some good advice to check there when needed.
Obviously we want higher standards, but we should not aim beyond our capabilities, and we should not ask for things beyond the actual interests of the WP editors in the project.
DGG David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Goodman wrote:
About 25% of the WP articles cannot be properly sourced without access to one of the about 250 existing research libraries (in the english-speaking world), and perhaps a third of those can be done in only one of the top half of those, the ones with high quality pint collections.
High quality pint collections may be found in the local pub. :-) (Sorry, I can't help myself, even when I strongly agree with what is said.)
Most WPedians clearly do not have such access, and most of those who do are clearly unaccustomed to using it for such purposes. Those who can do this, are not likely to assume the burden of sourcing a few hundred thosand articles in 5 days. And it is not just finding sources. It is necessary to find multiple sources in a thorough way, and see what part of the article can be supported, and then do the secondary research necessary to rewrite the article. How many WP editors know how to do this properly? How many of the enthusiasts working on popular culture actually know how to do an adequate job filling the gaps there?
A drive to rapidly source articles will get low-quality sourcing--will get sourcing from what printed textbook happens to be handy which sort of covers the general subject. How were these articles written--many from the old Enc Brittanica, which in turn was written by people who did have access to the proper libraries. We cannot update them without similar facilities.
On the other hand, examine the German WP-- most article are not sourced or are sketchily sourced, and yet of of an average quality way beyond us. Their popular culture is concise summaries of what's important, not long rambling sometimes careless plot summaries. My German has been getting much better since I followed some good advice to check there when needed.
Obviously we want higher standards, but we should not aim beyond our capabilities, and we should not ask for things beyond the actual interests of the WP editors in the project.
You raise a very important point. I often wonder about the extent to which students are taught research skills. Until they are old enough to attend many do not know what wonderful resources may be available in a local university. I often seem to detect an anti-elitism streak among some editors.
Maybe we need some kind of "how to research" instruction to be made available. It would need to recognize that the amount of sourcing needed will indeed vary according to the subject. The common fundamentals of a science that is taught in the schools can adequately be referenced by listing a few popular textbooks without the need to document in detail every single statement. On the other hand, controversial political issues require far more support.
I welcome the effort of some librarians to link Wikipedia to various library collections. In many cases knowing where sources reside is an important first step to using those sources. It is the beginning of a layered approach to sourcing that gives the future researcher the opportunity to take the matter a little deeper. Yet we do have some editors who are too quick to decide that these linkages are just another form of spam.
When we use popular magazines or books as a source we assume that the writers there are working in good faith, but if they fail to give any sources we find ourselves at the same dead end as with an absence of sources in the Wikipedia article.
Perhaps those who advocate sourcing of 100,000 articles in five days should themselves spend five days sourcing articles. Then we could ask them, "How many articles were you able to source in those five day?" I absolutely support the principle that the ultimate responsibility for sourcing material lies with the person who contributed it, but that does not mean that others have no responsibility at all. The person who sees an unsourced article, and has a relevant source on the shelf beside him, helps no-one by insisting that the original contributor provide the source. The nature of collaboration includes helping when we can.
Thank you for your comments.
Ec
On 6/19/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Goodman wrote: ....
And it is not just finding sources. It is necessary to find multiple sources in a thorough way, and see what part of the article can be supported, and then do the secondary research necessary to rewrite the article. How many WP editors know how to do this properly? How many of the enthusiasts working on popular culture actually know how to do an adequate job filling the gaps there?
A drive to rapidly source articles will get low-quality sourcing--will get sourcing from what printed textbook happens to be handy which sort of covers the general subject. How were these articles written--many from the old Enc Brittanica, which in turn was written by people who did have access to the proper libraries. We cannot update them without similar facilities.
On the other hand, examine the German WP-- most article are not sourced or are sketchily sourced, and yet of of an average quality way beyond us. Their popular culture is concise summaries of what's important, not long rambling sometimes careless plot summaries. My German has been getting much better since I followed some good advice to check there when needed.
Obviously we want higher standards, but we should not aim beyond our capabilities, and we should not ask for things beyond the actual interests of the WP editors in the project.
You raise a very important point. I often wonder about the extent to which students are taught research skills. Until they are old enough to attend many do not know what wonderful resources may be available in a local university. I often seem to detect an anti-elitism streak among some editors.
Maybe we need some kind of "how to research" instruction to be made available. It would need to recognize that the amount of sourcing needed will indeed vary according to the subject. The common fundamentals of a science that is taught in the schools can adequately be referenced by listing a few popular textbooks without the need to document in detail every single statement. On the other hand, controversial political issues require far more support.
Hmm. Sounds like a Wikimania workshop to me, and/or a series of workshops online. Perhaps a wider support network being built between those with access to resources and those without, or some research done into what editors really *need* to source comprehensively (access? training? motivation through policy or culture? all of this?) ... The problem is a big one, with differences and subtleties depending on the article topic and the language of research, and our sourcing troubles won't be easily solved by either a "let's delete it all tomorrow" or a "let's let it all sit around" approach -- I think it's pretty clear that neither entirely works.
For constructive efforts: did anyone happen to go to Gary Price and j Baumgart's presentation at the last Wikimania on finding good sources*? If so did you find it useful? Would things like this be helpful in the future?
phoebe
Ec wrote:
Perhaps those who advocate sourcing of 100,000 articles in five days should themselves spend five days sourcing articles. Then we could ask them, "How many articles were you able to source in those five day?" I absolutely support the principle that the ultimate responsibility for sourcing material lies with the person who contributed it, but that does not mean that others have no responsibility at all.
Also, it's worth remembering that the {unsourced} template has two complimentary functions. It does *not* solely mean, "The slacker of an editor who wrote this article had better get off his butt and find some references, pronto, before we delete it." An equally important message is to the *reader* of the article: "We're sorry, this article does not yet meet our standards of verifiability. Please take it with an extra grain of salt, until such time as we're able to reference it properly."
This second interpretation can hold indefinitely, and the same is obviously true for the {fact} tag. Neither tag need be taken as an ultimatum that the sentence or article must *ipso facto* be deleted unless a reference is speedily found.
G'day Jossi,
A Wikiproject to "eliminate unreferenced articles"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_articles
This seems a bit excessive.
Thoughts?
There are three ways to deal with the problem of unreferenced articles:
1) Find references 2) Delete 3) Adopt an eventualist approach
The order of approach should be '1', then '3', then '2'.
If we come across an unreferenced article and we want it fixed, damn it, then the Right Thing to do, firstly, is to go looking to see if we can find reliable sources that verify what the article says. If we find reliable sources, then we add them to the article, and remove anything that contradicts those sources.
If we don't find reliable sources, say: Does this article need reliable sources RIGHT NOW? (e.g. BLP) If so, move on to delete. If not: Is this article ever likely to get reliable sources? (Systemic bias vs notability) If not, move on to delete. Otherwise, adopt an eventualist approach, i.e. we have bigger problems to fix.
Finally, "delete" should be fairly clear, although I note there's quite a few people on AfD who don't know what they're doing. Sigh.
Cheers,
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Jossi,
A Wikiproject to "eliminate unreferenced articles"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_articles
This seems a bit excessive.
Thoughts?
There are three ways to deal with the problem of unreferenced articles:
- Find references
- Delete
- Adopt an eventualist approach
The order of approach should be '1', then '3', then '2'.
If we come across an unreferenced article and we want it fixed, damn it, then the Right Thing to do, firstly, is to go looking to see if we can find reliable sources that verify what the article says. If we find reliable sources, then we add them to the article, and remove anything that contradicts those sources.
If we don't find reliable sources, say: Does this article need reliable sources RIGHT NOW? (e.g. BLP) If so, move on to delete. If not: Is this article ever likely to get reliable sources? (Systemic bias vs notability) If not, move on to delete. Otherwise, adopt an eventualist approach, i.e. we have bigger problems to fix.
Finally, "delete" should be fairly clear, although I note there's quite a few people on AfD who don't know what they're doing. Sigh.
Cheers,
I'd tend more toward '1', then '2'. The "eventualist approach" I would advocate is "Remove unverified material now, if there really is a sourced article to be written on this, someone will create it later."
Sourcing is a requirement from the very first edit made to an article. Not a nicety, not something you kinda work at before you're ready to bring it to FA or GA, a requirement. Just like articles should -never- be POV, they should -never- be unsourced. It's not "okay for a while."
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 10:19:47PM -0700, Todd Allen wrote:
Sourcing is a requirement from the very first edit made to an article. Not a nicety, not something you kinda work at before you're ready to bring it to FA or GA, a requirement. Just like articles should -never- be POV, they should -never- be unsourced. It's not "okay for a while."
You certainly know that that opinion doesn't reflect either current policy or practice on enwiki. About the only thing that's generally agreed upon is that sourcing is important. I have personally worked on adding sources to unsourced articles, but the articles were still quite useful to a reader before I added sources.
- Carl
Carl Beckhorn wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 10:19:47PM -0700, Todd Allen wrote:
Sourcing is a requirement from the very first edit made to an article. Not a nicety, not something you kinda work at before you're ready to bring it to FA or GA, a requirement. Just like articles should -never- be POV, they should -never- be unsourced. It's not "okay for a while."
You certainly know that that opinion doesn't reflect either current policy or practice on enwiki. About the only thing that's generally agreed upon is that sourcing is important. I have personally worked on adding sources to unsourced articles, but the articles were still quite useful to a reader before I added sources.
- Carl
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It may or may not. (I've actually seen about an even split between "get rid of it" and "leave it around, someone may source it", but certainly it's common, if disputed and not universal, philosophy and practice.) That being said, I can certainly state that I fully agree with it. While I agree there may be cases where articles were "useful", for one, "useful" is for good reason an argument to avoid against deletion (travel guides are useful, dictionaries are useful, how-to guides are useful, that doesn't mean we should -have- any of those), and for another, there may be articles which are worse than nothing, containing false, outdated, or inaccurate information. Without sources, there's simply no way to know.
And whether or not it reflects -current- practice, I can certainly say things -should- be done that way.
On 6/16/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Sourcing is a requirement from the very first edit made to an article. Not a nicety, not something you kinda work at before you're ready to bring it to FA or GA, a requirement. Just like articles should -never- be POV, they should -never- be unsourced. It's not "okay for a while."
Others have hinted at this, but let's take a look at the verifiability policy.
This page in a nutshell: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed.
It does not say "If the article says the sky is blue, you need a source". Policy is that if something is challenged or likely to be challenged, THEN you need a source. Get that? Sourcing for non-controversial facts really is optional.
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, C.J. Croy wrote:
It does not say "If the article says the sky is blue, you need a source". Policy is that if something is challenged or likely to be challenged, THEN you need a source. Get that? Sourcing for non-controversial facts really is optional.
It's optional until someone comes along and challenges the non-controversial fact insincerely. It's often used as a way to kill an article, and sometimes as a tool of vandals who find they can cause disruption merely by forcing people to run around sourcing that the sky is blue.
On Jun 16, 2007, at 1:38 PM, Jossi Fresco wrote:
A Wikiproject to "eliminate unreferenced articles"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_articles
This seems a bit excessive.
Thoughts?
I saw that they claimed to have {{prod}}ded all the unreferenced articles from June of 2006 that began with Y. I looked through and most of them looked like unreferenced stubs that need attention, not deletion.
Which is about what I'd expect. Projects to delete and eliminate are not going to be exemplars of care and caution.
-Phil
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On Jun 16, 2007, at 1:38 PM, Jossi Fresco wrote:
A Wikiproject to "eliminate unreferenced articles"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_articles
This seems a bit excessive.
Thoughts?
I saw that they claimed to have {{prod}}ded all the unreferenced articles from June of 2006 that began with Y. I looked through and most of them looked like unreferenced stubs that need attention, not deletion.
Which is about what I'd expect. Projects to delete and eliminate are not going to be exemplars of care and caution.
Only the letter "Y"? Even if we endorse the way they are going about things, we need to keep in mind that June is only half-over, and other letters have far more entries. Have they got a business plan?
Ec