-------------- Original message --------------
I've been spreading {{unreferenced}} tags with great (slightly restrained, after the TFD nomination ;-) glee, and I see others have taken to it too.
What are your standards for applying an "unreferenced" tag? Do you apply it to every statement in an article that doesn't have a reference? Or do you just select statements that appear to be outliers or unlikely from your experience?
I think in a scientific article, indescriminate use of the unreferenced tag would collide with the assumption of good faith. Many facts in our articles are not referenced, but if you were to challenge for instance the statement that beta blockers inhibit the nocturnal release of melatonin, especially after the statement had been in the article for awhile, the burden should be on you to at least have checked the PDR and have done a medline search.
-- Silverback
actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
I've been spreading {{unreferenced}} tags with great (slightly restrained, after the TFD nomination ;-) glee, and I see others have taken to it too.
What are your standards for applying an "unreferenced" tag?
To articles that have *no references whatsoever* and no external links and aren't stubs. i.e. not "your references are crap" but literally, "this article has no references at all."
Now then, the question I asked before. You wrote:
Nah, the kooky view is too easy. A better case would be a passage in a
scientific article written by one of our inhouse experts that correctly states the basic concept of a scientific field, but in a way that hasn't been "published" because it is trivial grad student exercise the derive it, and all published work is at the bleeding edge of the field. Imagine his/her frustration at being asked for a citation for something that is obvious, and not being able to provide one, even though he can explain it so well that even the arbitrators understand it.
Sorry, no original research, no insightful explanations and yes, a big
hole in making the subject more accessible.
I asked: Do you have real-life examples of this happening?
- d.
actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
-------------- Original message --------------
I've been spreading {{unreferenced}} tags with great (slightly restrained, after the TFD nomination ;-) glee, and I see others have taken to it too.
What are your standards for applying an "unreferenced" tag? Do you apply it to every statement in an article that doesn't have a reference? Or do you just select statements that appear to be outliers or unlikely from your experience?
I think in a scientific article, indescriminate use of the unreferenced tag would collide with the assumption of good faith. Many facts in our articles are not referenced, but if you were to challenge for instance the statement that beta blockers inhibit the nocturnal release of melatonin, especially after the statement had been in the article for awhile, the burden should be on you to at least have checked the PDR and have done a medline search.
Indiscriminate unreferenced tags could be a problem anywhere, not just in scientific articles. The primary obligation for someone challenging a statement should be to put a polite question on the contributor's talk page and give him at least a week to respond. Doing that would be prima facie evidence that you have assumed good faith. If the wrong facts have been there for a year another week won't make a big difference.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Indiscriminate unreferenced tags could be a problem anywhere, not just in scientific articles. The primary obligation for someone challenging a statement should be to put a polite question on the contributor's talk page and give him at least a week to respond. Doing that would be prima facie evidence that you have assumed good faith. If the wrong facts have been there for a year another week won't make a big difference.
It's not for indiscriminate use - it's for *nothing resembling a reference of any sort*. You'll see a pile of these articles if you middle-click "Random page" twenty times - four- to six-paragraph things which look like okay articles, but have nothing resembling a source, reference or even external link. That's what it's for. The debate on WP:TFD made it *very* clear its use was to be for unambiguous cases. And not for stubs either.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Indiscriminate unreferenced tags could be a problem anywhere, not just in scientific articles. The primary obligation for someone challenging a statement should be to put a polite question on the contributor's talk page and give him at least a week to respond. Doing that would be prima facie evidence that you have assumed good faith. If the wrong facts have been there for a year another week won't make a big difference.
It's not for indiscriminate use - it's for *nothing resembling a reference of any sort*. You'll see a pile of these articles if you middle-click "Random page" twenty times - four- to six-paragraph things which look like okay articles, but have nothing resembling a source, reference or even external link. That's what it's for. The debate on WP:TFD made it *very* clear its use was to be for unambiguous cases. And not for stubs either.
I don't dispute that at all. Still, givng people the first opportunity to fix their own deficiencies is good for the social atmosphere.
Ec