Based on the recent "Unreliable sources, or no sources at all?" thread, it appears that the great majority of the members of this list have major disagreements with Wikipedia:Verifiability.
WP:V says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed".
WP:NOR states it more succinctly. "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source".
However, the members of this list clearly do not agree with the above. The consensus here seems to be that unreliable sources are better than no sources at all, and that therefore unreliable sources are acceptable, while not preferred.
As the people here are obviously not new or uninformed editors who merely misunderstand our policies, but instead are likely our most experienced editors who pay attention to and think about the meaning of our policies, this implies that a major rewriting of our basic policies, and especially WP:V, is in order.
If unreliable sources are acceptable, this means that WP:V becomes a mere suggestion, not a policy. We would still have WP:NOR, we still would need to avoid original research, but this could be done by insuring that our articles were based on anything written anywhere outside of Wikipedia.
WP:V could then be replaced by a rewritten version of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which could be renamed Wikipedia:Sources. We could, and of course probably would, value higher quality sources better than lower quality sources, and WP:S would explain how to go about determining the relative quality of sources.
To avoid the claim that I've misinterpreted the position of the members of this list, here are some pertinent quotes from the recent thread:
"It is better to have a source than no source at all".
"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".
"Removing sources is contrary to the spirit of the encyclopedia and the point of our sourcing policies.... Having information in Wikipedia that is wholly lacking in sources is poorer information to information that is properly sourced to a second-rate source".
"We're better off with having sources, even if their reliability is questionable".
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
On 25/03/2008, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
Based on the recent "Unreliable sources, or no sources at all?" thread, it appears that the great majority of the members of this list have major disagreements with Wikipedia:Verifiability.
What you mean is, you don't like having it pointed out to you that WP:RS is not a reliable robotic rule, and you're looking for ax excuse to go ahead and do it anyway. Considering you had sitting arbitrators responding to you and telling you that you were wrong, you may wish to consider the possibility that you were wrong.
- d.
--- David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/03/2008, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
Based on the recent "Unreliable sources, or no
sources
at all?" thread, it appears that the great
majority of
the members of this list have major disagreements
with
Wikipedia:Verifiability.
What you mean is, you don't like having it pointed out to you that WP:RS is not a reliable robotic rule, and you're looking for ax excuse to go ahead and do it anyway. Considering you had sitting arbitrators responding to you and telling you that you were wrong, you may wish to consider the possibility that you were wrong.
- d.
What I meant was exactly what I said. If I merely wanted an excuse to pull references from hundreds of articles, I would have done it without bothering to ask anyone about it here, just as I didn't bother asking anyone about pulling the urban dictionary references.
If the disagreement with what I had originally proposed, removing unreliable sources from large numbers of articles, had been because people in general are wary of mass action of that sort, or because people wanted to make sure that I was careful not to remove references in the few limited situations where personal websites are acceptable references, or because people thought that some of the time when the reference was removed the text the reference was supporting would need to be removed as well while other times it shouldn't be, so I would need to be careful to make sure I was doing the right thing, I could understand that.
However, after reading the various responses and WP:V and thinking about it all, what I found surprising was that the majority here were actually saying, "No no, even if a source is totally unreliable, don't remove it, any source is better than no source". And even at times "Personal websites may be ok if they're well written and seem to be accurate", which is the sort of understanding of "reliable sources" one generally has to correct in new and unexperienced editors.
If this group of wikipedia editors, which are probably the most experienced editors around and which as you pointed out contains sitting arbitrators, if this group believes that totally unreliable sources should be left in place, which is in fundamental opposition to the letter and spirit of Wikipedia:Verifiability, then we have a problem.
____________________________________________________________________________________ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
bobolozo wrote:
If this group of wikipedia editors, which are probably the most experienced editors around and which as you pointed out contains sitting arbitrators, if this group believes that totally unreliable sources should be left in place, which is in fundamental opposition to the letter and spirit of Wikipedia:Verifiability, then we have a problem.
I am not a full-time student of these matters, so I could be wrong, but I suspect the "problem" here is that the letter of Wikipedia:Verifiability has been written by a group of editors with a much more rules-based and lawyerly mindset than the ones on this list who are preaching for more a less stringent, more fluid stance. Which group more appropriately reflects the spirit of what Wikipedia's verifiability policy truly ought to be, I couldn't say. (Well, I suppose I could, but for now I won't.)
Yes, when the _de jure_ policies diverge too far from the _de facto_ actions of a population, it can certainly be a problem.
On 29/03/2008, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
I am not a full-time student of these matters, so I could be wrong, but I suspect the "problem" here is that the letter of Wikipedia:Verifiability has been written by a group of editors with a much more rules-based and lawyerly mindset than the ones on this list who are preaching for more a less stringent, more fluid stance.
Yes. Wiki-[[nomic]] - the urge to make things go to your personal implications by rewriting policy and guideline pages - typically kicks in around three to six months into an editor's career on Wikipedia. As Phil Sandifer has pointed out, it's not terminal in *all* cases.
- d.
On 29/03/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
implications by rewriting policy and guideline pages - typically kicks
implications -> inclinations
- d.
On 29/03/2008, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
However, after reading the various responses and WP:V and thinking about it all, what I found surprising was that the majority here were actually saying, "No no, even if a source is totally unreliable, don't remove it, any source is better than no source". And even at times "Personal websites may be ok if they're well written and seem to be accurate", which is the sort of understanding of "reliable sources" one generally has to correct in new and unexperienced editors.
In uncontroversial fields, though, they are in fact enough. This is the point you're missing.
If this group of wikipedia editors, which are probably the most experienced editors around and which as you pointed out contains sitting arbitrators, if this group believes that totally unreliable sources should be left in place, which is in fundamental opposition to the letter and spirit of Wikipedia:Verifiability, then we have a problem.
The thing is that they're often not "totally unreliable" for the purpose. They may be low-quality sources, but they are in fact an improvement on nothing.
WP:RS remains utterly unsuitable as a source of robotic directions. Stop trying to use it as one.
- d.
--- David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/03/2008, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
However, after reading the various responses and
WP:V
and thinking about it all, what I found
surprising was
that the majority here were actually saying, "No
no,
even if a source is totally unreliable, don't
remove
it, any source is better than no source". And
even at
times "Personal websites may be ok if they're
well
written and seem to be accurate", which is the
sort of
understanding of "reliable sources" one generally
has
to correct in new and unexperienced editors.
In uncontroversial fields, though, they are in fact enough. This is the point you're missing.
If this group of wikipedia editors, which are
probably
the most experienced editors around and which as
you
pointed out contains sitting arbitrators, if this group believes that totally unreliable sources
should
be left in place, which is in fundamental
opposition
to the letter and spirit of
Wikipedia:Verifiability,
then we have a problem.
The thing is that they're often not "totally unreliable" for the purpose. They may be low-quality sources, but they are in fact an improvement on nothing.
WP:RS remains utterly unsuitable as a source of robotic directions. Stop trying to use it as one.
- d.
So I believe you're saying that some of the least reliable sources, self published sources such as personal websites and blogs put out by unknown or non-notable people, are acceptable sources when used to support non-controversial claims.
This is certainly not contained in any of our policy or guideline pages, and to me it appears clearly contrary to our policies. However, if you believe this and if you think it either is how we do things or should be, why not try to get it added to WP:V?
Regardless of what the policy pages say, I question why this is a good idea. One of the main reasons to cite sources is to show that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, written based off sources which the public would respect, and not just whatever some random editor thought up himself or heard from his brother or saw written on a message board once.
If we use unreliable sources as references for our articles, if somedudeswebpage.tripod.com or "Megan's Kickass Hannah Montana Fan Site" are what we're using as sources, we're telling the public that Wikipedia articles are unreliable crap. We're saying that we value these references, and that therefore we have basically no standards at all.
Whereas an unsourced paragraph of text says either "this is not controversial so no source is necessary" or "whoops, sorry folks, Wikipedia is still a work in progress, we'll find a source eventually", either one of which is preferrable to "You can trust this, because some 14 year old girl said it on her website".
(And, this is the 3rd time, I believe, that you've mentioned WP:RS to me in this discussion. When I've been using the phrase "reliable sources", I've actually been using it as explained in WP:V, not WP:RS, as WP:V is policy and RS is not. Note that the subject of this thread mentions WP:V)
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
bobolozo wrote:
If unreliable sources are acceptable, this means that WP:V becomes a mere suggestion, not a policy.
This conclusion does not follow.
We very strongly want everything in Wikipedia to be verifiable -- that's why WP:V is policy. However, we realize that providing unimpeachable references for every fact in Wikipedia is extraordinarily difficult. So we don't insist that every fact have an unimpeachable reference this instant.
Or at least, that's my take on it. But this question clearly touches on one of the core divides across Wikipedia, namely the eventualism/immediatism dichotomy.
Sources are of varying reliability. There is no source whatever that can not make a mistake. There are no absolutely unimpeachable sources--we do sometimes use the word to indicate one that is considered to be highly reliable for ordinary purposes. There is no source, however biased, that is not reliable for at least some very limited purposes. What requiring RSs means is that we require sufficiently reliable sources in the context of the article to justify the inclusion. There will always be dispute over the reliability of a particular source in a particular context. There is some dispute about the general reliability of some particular sources in certain contexts. There is a practice of not rejecting non-controversial articles if it seems clear the sourcing, while still incomplete, will probably be obtainable. There is no real dispute whether sources are required.
I note that other Wikipedias interpret it a little differently. For example, deWP often does not seem to consider it necessary to give sources for routine material that will be in standard references, which sometimes gives problems with material taken from there.
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
bobolozo wrote:
If unreliable sources are acceptable, this means that WP:V becomes a mere suggestion, not a policy.
This conclusion does not follow.
We very strongly want everything in Wikipedia to be verifiable -- that's why WP:V is policy. However, we realize that providing unimpeachable references for every fact in Wikipedia is extraordinarily difficult. So we don't insist that every fact have an unimpeachable reference this instant.
Or at least, that's my take on it. But this question clearly touches on one of the core divides across Wikipedia, namely the eventualism/immediatism dichotomy.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
We very strongly want everything in Wikipedia to be verifiable -- that's why WP:V is policy. However, we realize that providing unimpeachable references for every fact in Wikipedia is extraordinarily difficult. So we don't insist that every fact have an unimpeachable reference this instant.
Or at least, that's my take on it. But this question clearly touches on one of the core divides across Wikipedia, namely the eventualism/immediatism dichotomy.
That's right. Eventualism [1] has long been the general way we've operated, but with the greater focus on quality rather than (solely) quantity lately, this is being challenged.
I think we're still generally operating on an eventualist basis, but lately we've seen that there are certain areas - of which BLP is the clearest - where we switch into an immediatist [2] mode.
-- For those who aren't aware of these already: [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Eventualism [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Immediatism