"The defining moment for Sergey, however, was when he met future co-president of Google, Larry Page. Sergey was assigned to show Larry around the university on a weekend tour. Reportedly, they did not get on well to begin with, arguing about every topic they discussed, and even throwing a few pies at each other."
Is that true? Is it not true? As a reader of Wikipedia, I have no easy way to know. If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference. If it is not true, it should be removed.
I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar.
--Jimbo
On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar.
And any that takes the time to do a little searching to see if they can provide a source themselves should get two. ;-) --LV
I'm a big fan of referencing, but the problem I have is determining what is common knowledge. I think I tend to over-reference (which is preferable to under-referencing). Could someone give me a good measure of where to draw the line?
On 19/07/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar.
And any that takes the time to do a little searching to see if they can provide a source themselves should get two. ;-) --LV _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I'm a big fan of referencing, but the problem I have is determining what is common knowledge. I think I tend to over-reference (which is preferable to under-referencing). Could someone give me a good measure of where to draw the line?
There is no such thing as over-referencing. There is no such thing as "common knowledge" regarding encyclopedic content. If it feels "common knowledge", it may be lacking relevancy at least in a certain context.
Mathias
Let me give you an example. If I were writing an article on a drug and I included the sentence "tyrosine is an amino acid", I would be expressing a relation that is learnt in secondary education. It being an amino acid is the first thing anyone would learn about tyrosine. Is this reference worthy?
There is no such thing as over-referencing. There is no such thing as "common knowledge" regarding encyclopedic content. If it feels "common knowledge", it may be lacking relevancy at least in a certain context.
Mathias
On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Let me give you an example. If I were writing an article on a drug and I included the sentence "tyrosine is an amino acid", I would be expressing a relation that is learnt in secondary education. It being an amino acid is the first thing anyone would learn about tyrosine. Is this reference worthy?
There is no such thing as over-referencing. There is no such thing as "common knowledge" regarding encyclopedic content. If it feels "common knowledge", it may be lacking relevancy at least in a certain context.
Mathias
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com) _______________________________________________
A counter example. I recently requested a source on the fact that a person (living person) is blind. (Not Stevie Wonder). But it was deemed so obvious that it was ixnayed. Correct or wrong? My sentiment is that even if it is so obvious, why not source it anyway.
To Oldak Quill, please don't top-post.
Garion
Oldak Quill wrote:
Let me give you an example. If I were writing an article on a drug and I included the sentence "tyrosine is an amino acid", I would be expressing a relation that is learnt in secondary education. It being an amino acid is the first thing anyone would learn about tyrosine. Is this reference worthy?
Yes. Either you have a one-sentence stub article, in which case its one required reference could be almost any textbook or webpage mentioning tyrosine, or else you have additional material in the article, whose required source will also happen to mention tyrosine's amino-acid-ness.
Incidentally, one of the interesting side-effects of looking up references is that one regularly discovers that the "common knowledge" from secondary education days is now many years out of date, and no longer correct.
Stan
On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Let me give you an example. If I were writing an article on a drug and I included the sentence "tyrosine is an amino acid", I would be expressing a relation that is learnt in secondary education. It being an amino acid is the first thing anyone would learn about tyrosine. Is this reference worthy?
Have a look at [[Tyrosine]]. The sentence in question reads:
"Tyrosine (from the Greek tyros, meaning cheese, as it was first discovered in cheese), 4-hydroxyphenylalanine, or 2-amino-3(4-hydroxyphenyl)-propanoic acid, is one of the 20 amino acids that are used by cells to synthesize proteins. "
While the factoid (the usual connotation is different but I like this word in the sense as the smallest information unit) tyrosine=amino acid is something a secondary school pupil in the industrialized world has learnt (that leaves about 4.5 billion people), the context itself is something that could live with a reference.
In this case, you can watch for redundancy: There are wikilinks to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28biology%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_biosynthesis and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein
If these articles (especially the Amino acid one) is already heavily referenced, you feel a little more relaxed. Otherwise: Find a suitable reference that serves to provice information to any of the factoids (see above) in that sentence.
Mathias
Mathias Schindler wrote:
On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Let me give you an example. If I were writing an article on a drug and I included the sentence "tyrosine is an amino acid", I would be expressing a relation that is learnt in secondary education. It being an amino acid is the first thing anyone would learn about tyrosine. Is this reference worthy?
Have a look at [[Tyrosine]]. The sentence in question reads:
"Tyrosine (from the Greek tyros, meaning cheese, as it was first discovered in cheese), 4-hydroxyphenylalanine, or 2-amino-3(4-hydroxyphenyl)-propanoic acid, is one of the 20 amino acids that are used by cells to synthesize proteins. "
While the factoid (the usual connotation is different but I like this word in the sense as the smallest information unit) tyrosine=amino acid is something a secondary school pupil in the industrialized world has learnt (that leaves about 4.5 billion people), the context itself is something that could live with a reference.
In this case, you can watch for redundancy: There are wikilinks to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28biology%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_biosynthesis and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein
If these articles (especially the Amino acid one) is already heavily referenced, you feel a little more relaxed. Otherwise: Find a suitable reference that serves to provice information to any of the factoids (see above) in that sentence.
Mathias
I don't know. I think we can go too far in referencing every fact in an article. Do you need a verifiable reference to say that Harry potter and the Half blood prince is a work of fiction? I mean if that is the standard then every article on wikipedia needs {{fact}} plastered all over it.
Dalf
On 7/20/06, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
I don't know. I think we can go too far in referencing every fact in an article. Do you need a verifiable reference to say that Harry potter and the Half blood prince is a work of fiction? I mean if that is the standard then every article on wikipedia needs {{fact}} plastered all over it.
Again, have a look at the article in question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, released on July 16, 2005, is the sixth novel in J. K. Rowling's popular Harry Potter series. There are seven novels planned."
At least the part about the seventh novel can and should be referenced. By the way, the last sentence is starting to weasel. Who exactly is planning: The publisher, the author, the marketing department?
Mathias
Mathias Schindler wrote:
On 7/20/06, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
I don't know. I think we can go too far in referencing every fact in an article. Do you need a verifiable reference to say that Harry potter and the Half blood prince is a work of fiction? I mean if that is the standard then every article on wikipedia needs {{fact}} plastered all over it.
Again, have a look at the article in question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, released on July 16, 2005, is the sixth novel in J. K. Rowling's popular Harry Potter series. There are seven novels planned."
At least the part about the seventh novel can and should be referenced. By the way, the last sentence is starting to weasel. Who exactly is planning: The publisher, the author, the marketing department?
Mathias
I'm not sure I would call that weaseling since I don't think the person who wrote it was trying to get away with saying something they could not prove. We don't wasn't to over load our terms that we are using to admonish people lets they lose their meaning. That is simply an example of laziness or apathy. But i take your point.
Dalf
ScottL wrote:
Mathias Schindler wrote:
On 7/20/06, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
I don't know. I think we can go too far in referencing every fact in an article. Do you need a verifiable reference to say that Harry potter and the Half blood prince is a work of fiction? I mean if that is the standard then every article on wikipedia needs {{fact}} plastered all over it.
Again, have a look at the article in question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, released on July 16, 2005, is the sixth novel in J. K. Rowling's popular Harry Potter series. There are seven novels planned."
At least the part about the seventh novel can and should be referenced. By the way, the last sentence is starting to weasel. Who exactly is planning: The publisher, the author, the marketing department?
Mathias
I'm not sure I would call that weaseling since I don't think the person who wrote it was trying to get away with saying something they could not prove. We don't wasn't to over load our terms that we are using to admonish people lets they lose their meaning. That is simply an example of laziness or apathy. But i take your point.
Dalf _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Its passive voice, which is not encouraged. -kc-
On 7/20/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Its passive voice, which is not encouraged.
There's really nothing wrong with passive voice, whatever Microsoft likes to tell you. It gets boring and formal if overused, but a sentence like "7 series are planned" is perfectly acceptable, and even preferable to something awkward like "The producers have planned 7 series".
Steve
On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
There's really nothing wrong with passive voice, whatever Microsoft likes to tell you. It gets boring and formal if overused, but a sentence like "7 series are planned" is perfectly acceptable, and even preferable to something awkward like "The producers have planned 7 series".
After "Matrix" became a blockbuster, the producers suddenly announced that they always wanted to make a trilogy. It is certainly interesteting who planned what when in this particular case.
In the JKR case, you might want to use the valuable space (it is not limited by storage on wikimedia servers or bandwith on the way to the computer but rather by the motivation of a visitor to wikipedia.org to read boring, content-poor sentences) for more precise information such as "Bloomsbury will release the seventh part of the series on May 35, 2342".
Along with a reference.
Mathias
On 7/20/06, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
I don't know. I think we can go too far in referencing every fact in an article. Do you need a verifiable reference to say that Harry potter and the Half blood prince is a work of fiction? I mean if that is the standard then every article on wikipedia needs {{fact}} plastered all over it.
IMO "obvious" facts don't need a reference tag, but they do need a source under the ==References== heading which contains the fact.
As for use of the {{fact}} tag, maybe there are situations where a source is needed but that tag shouldn't be used.
Anthony
On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Let me give you an example. If I were writing an article on a drug and I included the sentence "tyrosine is an amino acid", I would be expressing a relation that is learnt in secondary education. It being an amino acid is the first thing anyone would learn about tyrosine. Is this reference worthy?
No. Referencing is good, but the current campaign to reference everything (which comes from good motives) has led to the removal of common knowledge from articles simply because "if we leave this in then someone will come and put a bit of made-up nonsense in and claim he doesn't have to reference it."
The solution to this is obvious: don't remove something you *know* to be true. If it really isn't common knowledge, somebody will.
When it comes to biographical articles, however, and particularly those about living people, everything should be referenced.
I only wish we had something better than the revoltingly ugly reference mechanism we have at present ("ref" tags), which required the editor to place all kinds of obstrusive metadata into the body of an article when he really wants it to appear at the end. This makes the text of the article very difficult to read and edit.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
I only wish we had something better than the revoltingly ugly reference mechanism we have at present ("ref" tags), which required the editor to place all kinds of obstrusive metadata into the body of an article when he really wants it to appear at the end. This makes the text of the article very difficult to read and edit.
I'm exactly the opposite. I love having a system whereby I can put metadata right in the exact same place in the article's source as the data that it's referencing. I very rarely did detailed referencing of my work before this system came along, usually just tossing an external link to the source I was working from in "external links" (in those rare cases where I was working with offline sources I might not even do that since a book reference isn't an "external link"). It's super-easy to put in detailed inline references now, though, even to non-Internet sources.
What would be nice is to have an editor a little fancier than a plain old text box, though. Simply having different colors for the different types of text (reference, header, link, image, etc) would make the source way easier to read. No idea how to go about crafting such a thing, though.
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 05:50:38 +0100, "Tony Sidaway" f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
When it comes to biographical articles, however, and particularly those about living people, everything should be referenced.
So what do we do with [[Lance Armstrong]]? All the insinuations about doping are sourced, it's just that (a) they are circumstantial and (b) he has already successfully sued one newspaper for implying that they are true. Every time we point out that he is technically and legally innocent, a number of "balancing" facts implying the opposite are added. I am seriously concerned about this. Should I be?
Guy (JzG)
On 7/20/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
added. I am seriously concerned about this. Should I be?
There is every reason in the world to think that most professional cyclists, especially including Armstrong, have taken one or more prohibited substances during their career. An article which gives the opposite impression would be misleading.
Steve
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:41:45 +0200, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
There is every reason in the world to think that most professional cyclists, especially including Armstrong, have taken one or more prohibited substances during their career. An article which gives the opposite impression would be misleading.
A point I have made more than once. But this seems to single Armstrong out. The section is gradually getting bigger and bigger, with special pleading and guilt by association creeping back in. I do not see how it can be considered neutral to give the strong impression that he is a doper who has not been caught, which is what one or two editors are determinedly trying to do, when the legal position is that he is clean, despite being quite possibly the most tested athlete in history.
Guy (JzG)
On 20/07/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
A point I have made more than once. But this seems to single Armstrong out. The section is gradually getting bigger and bigger, with special pleading and guilt by association creeping back in. I do not see how it can be considered neutral to give the strong impression that he is a doper who has not been caught, which is what one or two editors are determinedly trying to do, when the legal position is that he is clean, despite being quite possibly the most tested athlete in history.
Well, there is no evidence that he is, or ever has, doped or else he would have been stripped of his titles. I can't see how saying it is a possibility is fair. What we can say is that his number one rival has accused him of doping.
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:37:06 +0100, "Oldak Quill" oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there is no evidence that he is, or ever has, doped or else he would have been stripped of his titles. I can't see how saying it is a possibility is fair. What we can say is that his number one rival has accused him of doping.
We say a good deal more than that. Have you looked at the doping allegations section? It's rapidly coming to dominate the article.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/21/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
We say a good deal more than that. Have you looked at the doping allegations section? It's rapidly coming to dominate the article.
That section needs a good rearrange. It begins well, by establishing that Armstrong has never failed a test despite being one of the most tested athletes ever. However then it goes into 'allegation mode', essentially giving a list of the allegations made against Armstrong at various times.
The section would be better, IMO, by cutting some of the less important or most unreliable allegations (the whole last paragraph, for example, is very shady) and make the descriptions of how he was cleared every time clearer.
Unfortunately it's bed time, so someone else will have to edit if they want to :)
On 7/20/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
That section needs a good rearrange. It begins well, by establishing that Armstrong has never failed a test despite being one of the most tested athletes ever. However then it goes into 'allegation mode', essentially giving a list of the allegations made against Armstrong at various times.
The section would be better, IMO, by cutting some of the less important or most unreliable allegations (the whole last paragraph, for example, is very shady) and make the descriptions of how he was cleared every time clearer.
Isn't it time this discussion moved (more) to the talk page? Don't really want to seem rude, but that seems the appropriate place. Thanks. --LV
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:54:43 +1000, "Stephen Bain" stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
That section needs a good rearrange. It begins well, by establishing that Armstrong has never failed a test despite being one of the most tested athletes ever. However then it goes into 'allegation mode', essentially giving a list of the allegations made against Armstrong at various times.
So now all we have to do is stop Socafan from reinserting the crap when it's removed. Which is what caused the ruckus over the weekend.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/20/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
A point I have made more than once. But this seems to single Armstrong out. The section is gradually getting bigger and bigger, with special pleading and guilt by association creeping back in. I do not see how it can be considered neutral to give the strong impression that he is a doper who has not been caught, which is what one or two editors are determinedly trying to do, when the legal position is that he is clean, despite being quite possibly the most tested athlete in history.
I suppose it depends how you word it. If we could cite some respectable opinion pieces that said he was probably a doper, you could throw in some weasly "he remains under a cloud of suspicion" type sentences.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 7/20/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
A point I have made more than once. But this seems to single Armstrong out. The section is gradually getting bigger and bigger, with special pleading and guilt by association creeping back in. I do not see how it can be considered neutral to give the strong impression that he is a doper who has not been caught, which is what one or two editors are determinedly trying to do, when the legal position is that he is clean, despite being quite possibly the most tested athlete in history.
I suppose it depends how you word it. If we could cite some respectable opinion pieces that said he was probably a doper, you could throw in some weasly "he remains under a cloud of suspicion" type sentences.
Steve
I think the original point of this example (and tell me if I am wrong) is not the specific case but cases like it. Where you risk being POV with perfectly verifiable stuff. Violating NPOV can be done by selection of what to include as easy as it can with how you include it. This is the claim that is frequently made against the media, that their bias is not in untrue reporting but in what they chose to report.
Dalf
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:07:37 -0700, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
I think the original point of this example (and tell me if I am wrong) is not the specific case but cases like it. Where you risk being POV with perfectly verifiable stuff. Violating NPOV can be done by selection of what to include as easy as it can with how you include it. This is the claim that is frequently made against the media, that their bias is not in untrue reporting but in what they chose to report.
Yes. And in the specific case of Armstrong, he recently won a case against the Sunday Times which strayed over that line. Socafan seems to me to be intent on having the Foundation follow the same path...
Guy (JzG)
On 7/19/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
There is no such thing as over-referencing. There is no such thing as "common knowledge" regarding encyclopedic content. If it feels "common knowledge", it may be lacking relevancy at least in a certain context.
Actually there are times when leaving something as "common knowledge" is better than providing a source. Recently there was a discussion at [[Evolution]] about a statement to the effect that evolution was considered to be responsible for the vast diversity of living things and whether to source that statement. It's very easy to find someone who has said that, but to source it to anyone in particular could be misleading because it implies that there is some special relationship between the idea and the source. If something is common knowledge it should only be sourced if the sourcing helps to establist the origin or development of the idea. Just sticking in a source at random can be misleading.
On 7/19/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
Actually there are times when leaving something as "common knowledge" is better than providing a source. Recently there was a discussion at [[Evolution]] about a statement to the effect that evolution was considered to be responsible for the vast diversity of living things and whether to source that statement.
A strong reference policy does not invalidate the hints to avoid weaseling.
Mathias
Guettarda wrote:
Actually there are times when leaving something as "common knowledge" is better than providing a source. Recently there was a discussion at [[Evolution]] about a statement to the effect that evolution was considered to be responsible for the vast diversity of living things and whether to source that statement. It's very easy to find someone who has said that, but to source it to anyone in particular could be misleading because it implies that there is some special relationship between the idea and the source. If something is common knowledge it should only be sourced if the sourcing helps to establist the origin or development of the idea. Just sticking in a source at random can be misleading.
Scientific papers manage this by citing common textbooks or well-known survey-type monographs or articles, maybe even several of them to emphasize the commonness of the knowledge; I don't think we can go much wrong by following their example.
Stan
On 7/19/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Guettarda wrote:
Actually there are times when leaving something as "common knowledge" is better than providing a source. Recently there was a discussion at [[Evolution]] about a statement to the effect that evolution was
considered
to be responsible for the vast diversity of living things and whether to source that statement. It's very easy to find someone who has said that, but to source it to anyone in particular could be misleading because it implies that there is some special relationship between the idea and the source. If something is common knowledge it should only be sourced if
the
sourcing helps to establist the origin or development of the idea. Just sticking in a source at random can be misleading.
Scientific papers manage this by citing common textbooks or well-known survey-type monographs or articles, maybe even several of them to emphasize the commonness of the knowledge; I don't think we can go much wrong by following their example.
Some do, but that's bad form. Generally papers like that are badly written papers by a grad student - the kind of papers which attribute information to the wrong source (the kind that say X say xxx, when in fact X cites Y as saying xxx). It looks sloppy and amateurish there, it looks equally amateurish here.
On Jul 19, 2006, at 3:54 PM, Guettarda wrote:
On 7/19/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Scientific papers manage this by citing common textbooks or well-known survey-type monographs or articles, maybe even several of them to emphasize the commonness of the knowledge; I don't think we can go much wrong by following their example.
Some do, but that's bad form. Generally papers like that are badly written papers by a grad student - the kind of papers which attribute information to the wrong source (the kind that say X say xxx, when in fact X cites Y as saying xxx). It looks sloppy and amateurish there, it looks equally amateurish here.
I strongly disagree. While we certainly should not do partial citations - if we cite someone else citing a third source, we should list the full chain - we *should*, most of the time, cite "common textbooks or well-known survey-type monographs or articles" over the original sources they are based on - this goes along with being an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. What the actual folks doing novel research say is exactly what we should *not* be citing - that gets into original research. It's the long-standing, uncontroversial material in multiple textbooks that we should be including in Wikipedia, and we should cite it from there. We are not writing scientific papers, and we shouldn't blindly take their style guides as our own. Furthermore, as for looking "amateurish", we *are* amateurs - remember - "anyone can edit"? Looking amateurish is simply looking honest, in our case.
Jesse Weinstein
On 7/19/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/19/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
There is no such thing as over-referencing. There is no such thing as "common knowledge" regarding encyclopedic content. If it feels "common knowledge", it may be lacking relevancy at least in a certain context.
Actually there are times when leaving something as "common knowledge" is better than providing a source. Recently there was a discussion at [[Evolution]] about a statement to the effect that evolution was considered to be responsible for the vast diversity of living things and whether to source that statement. It's very easy to find someone who has said that, but to source it to anyone in particular could be misleading because it implies that there is some special relationship between the idea and the source. If something is common knowledge it should only be sourced if the sourcing helps to establist the origin or development of the idea. Just sticking in a source at random can be misleading.
I think a better idea might be to make the general statement, but source it to multiple sources. If it's common knowledge then there will be plenty of sources saying the same thing; once you have enough reliable sources repeating a claim, you can simply state it generally.
Jay.
jayjg wrote:
On 7/19/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/19/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
There is no such thing as over-referencing. There is no such thing as "common knowledge" regarding encyclopedic content. If it feels "common knowledge", it may be lacking relevancy at least in a certain context.
Actually there are times when leaving something as "common knowledge" is better than providing a source. Recently there was a discussion at [[Evolution]] about a statement to the effect that evolution was considered to be responsible for the vast diversity of living things and whether to source that statement. It's very easy to find someone who has said that, but to source it to anyone in particular could be misleading because it implies that there is some special relationship between the idea and the source. If something is common knowledge it should only be sourced if the sourcing helps to establist the origin or development of the idea. Just sticking in a source at random can be misleading.
I think a better idea might be to make the general statement, but source it to multiple sources. If it's common knowledge then there will be plenty of sources saying the same thing; once you have enough reliable sources repeating a claim, you can simply state it generally.
Jay.
I have a question about all of this. What about a case when you are claiming something relatively complex about something related to the current article but not the primary subject of that article, and you have wikilinked to the term. If the claim (or series of related claims) are explained and referenced at the article on that topic do you need to reference them again? If an interested reader can still find the references by following the link do they need to be reproduced locally?
Dalf
On 7/20/06, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
I have a question about all of this. What about a case when you are claiming something relatively complex about something related to the current article but not the primary subject of that article, and you have wikilinked to the term. If the claim (or series of related claims) are explained and referenced at the article on that topic do you need to reference them again? If an interested reader can still find the references by following the link do they need to be reproduced locally?
Good question, in some cases I've seen "See linked article for full references." Be explicit about it - don't let people think we don't actually have the sources.
Steve
On 7/19/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
source that statement. It's very easy to find someone who has said that, but to source it to anyone in particular could be misleading because it implies that there is some special relationship between the idea and the source. If something is common knowledge it should only be sourced if the sourcing helps to establist the origin or development of the idea. Just sticking in a source at random can be misleading.
One solution is to source it to a very general reference work, such as Britannica, or even an introductory science textbook. You can also put "e.g." in the citation, to reinforce the idea that this is just one possible reference amongst many.
Overall, citing common sense is probably still beneficial as it doubles as "further reading" material for readers. If the reader is really interested in whether evolution is responsible for this diversity, why not give them a place to check that statement out? A low priority for us, but not harmful.
Steve
On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I'm a big fan of referencing, but the problem I have is determining what is common knowledge. I think I tend to over-reference (which is preferable to under-referencing). Could someone give me a good measure of where to draw the line?
When in doubt, provide.
We need to build intolerance for missing citations of non-obvious material. Once we've done that the solution simply is to provide citations when every anyone thinks you need them... and then we watch for folks abusing the practice to create disruption and deal with them on a case by case basis.
On 7/20/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar.
And any that takes the time to do a little searching to see if they can provide a source themselves should get two. ;-) --LV _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Folks,
I tried searching for Sergey Brin, Larry Page and pies. I couldn't come up with a reliable source so it has been removed. A message has been left on the talk page.
Regards
Keith Old
On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar.
Ack. I would like to point out to this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis
There are currently 88 different references. Some of them are referenced in the article several times. Some of them contain multiple sources (hmmm, there could be a better solution for that)
Apart from the rather ugly poste^wtemplate at the bottom and the atomisation on different subpages, I recommend this article to anyone when it comes to referencing.
Mathias
On 7/19/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar.
Ack. I would like to point out to this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis
There are currently 88 different references. Some of them are referenced in the article several times. Some of them contain multiple sources (hmmm, there could be a better solution for that)
Apart from the rather ugly poste^wtemplate at the bottom and the atomisation on different subpages, I recommend this article to anyone when it comes to referencing.
Mathias
For proper sourcing of biographical articles, I'd actually recommend [[Joel Brand]]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Brand
an article written by SlimVirgin, which recently achieved Featured Article status.
Jay.
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:42:38 -0700, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar
Close - I got an ArbCom case :-)
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:42:38 -0700, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar
Close - I got an ArbCom case :-)
Guy (JzG)
All I get is Someone Investigate Vandal Admin KillerChihuahua!!! posts on AN/I
-kc-
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:52:48 -0400, Puppy puppy@KillerChihuahua.com wrote:
All I get is Someone Investigate Vandal Admin KillerChihuahua!!! posts on AN/I
Maybe you need to apply a little [[WP:ROUGE]]...
Guy (JzG)
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar.
In practice (maybe I'm not looking in the right places), I don't see much resistance to someone taking the initiative to remove unsourced material. The problem is more that the scribbling is outpacing the reviewing.
Also, with articles that already have references (which is true of many of them now), it's usually not obvious whether newly-added material is coming from the listed references, or from an unlisted reference, or is simply made up, and often only people with the physical works open on their laps are in a position to check.
I don't have any answers, just noting the daily quandaries.
Stan
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:34:18 -0700, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
In practice (maybe I'm not looking in the right places), I don't see much resistance to someone taking the initiative to remove unsourced material. The problem is more that the scribbling is outpacing the reviewing.
Depends. I have been involved in several extremely bitter edit wars over the insertion of highly questionable content whose removal is condemned as "suppressing information".
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:34:18 -0700, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
In practice (maybe I'm not looking in the right places), I don't see much resistance to someone taking the initiative to remove unsourced material. The problem is more that the scribbling is outpacing the reviewing.
Depends. I have been involved in several extremely bitter edit wars over the insertion of highly questionable content whose removal is condemned as "suppressing information".
Guy (JzG)
Ah, you're censoring information too, eh? -kc-
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:34:18 -0700, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
In practice (maybe I'm not looking in the right places), I don't see much resistance to someone taking the initiative to remove unsourced material. The problem is more that the scribbling is outpacing the reviewing.
Depends. I have been involved in several extremely bitter edit wars over the insertion of highly questionable content whose removal is condemned as "suppressing information".
Yeah, I've been working more in the science area these days, and not only does it tend to have fewer rabid partisans, but there is an ever-so-gradual influx of professional scientists for whom adding citations is as natural as breathing. (Not long ago, I narrowly saved myself from embarassment when I was about to disagree with an editor on a fine point, then realized he was the very author of the printed material open on my lap...)
Stan
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:02:27 -0700, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Yeah, I've been working more in the science area these days, and not only does it tend to have fewer rabid partisans, but there is an ever-so-gradual influx of professional scientists for whom adding citations is as natural as breathing. (Not long ago, I narrowly saved myself from embarassment when I was about to disagree with an editor on a fine point, then realized he was the very author of the printed material open on my lap...)
Dream ticket! I'm off to do a bit of wikistalking...
Guy (JzG)
On 7/19/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Yeah, I've been working more in the science area these days, and not only does it tend to have fewer rabid partisans, but there is an ever-so-gradual influx of professional scientists for whom adding citations is as natural as breathing. (Not long ago, I narrowly saved myself from embarassment when I was about to disagree with an editor on a fine point, then realized he was the very author of the printed material open on my lap...)
Lol. I'm finding that sourcing can actually be fairly easy and fun. I mostly contribute to tourism-type stuff. Example: I recently visited Kilkenny Castle in Ireland. I took a couple of photos and bought a copy of the Kilkenny Castle Visitor's Guide (80c for a single sheet of cardboard - what a rip!) Then I added material to the article and cited the Guide. Sure, it's not university-level citation, but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing.
Or, in other cases, I just cite the web a lot. I think it's far more useful to have information of dubious reliability where we have cited a website of dubious reliability, than either a) no information at all, or b) the same information of dubious reliability, unsourced.
Steve
On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
"The defining moment for Sergey, however, was when he met future co-president of Google, Larry Page. Sergey was assigned to show Larry around the university on a weekend tour. Reportedly, they did not get on well to begin with, arguing about every topic they discussed, and even throwing a few pies at each other."
Is that true? Is it not true? As a reader of Wikipedia, I have no easy way to know. If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference. If it is not true, it should be removed.
I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar.
Actually, and forgive my immense lack of knowledge on the subject, is there any automated way to see which articles [[Category:Living people]] and [[Category:Articles lacking sources]] have in common? Thanks in advance. --LV
Actually, and forgive my immense lack of knowledge on the subject, is there any automated way to see which articles [[Category:Living people]] and [[Category:Articles lacking sources]] have in common? Thanks in advance. --LV
A feature which does this is soon being introduced. It is called "category math" (probably at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_math).
Oldak Quill wrote:
Actually, and forgive my immense lack of knowledge on the subject, is there any automated way to see which articles [[Category:Living people]] and [[Category:Articles lacking sources]] have in common? Thanks in advance. --LV
A feature which does this is soon being introduced. It is called "category math" (probably at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_math).
I can't wait for the stub cabal to instantly lose their purpose.
G'day SPUI,
Oldak Quill wrote:
Actually, and forgive my immense lack of knowledge on the subject, is there any automated way to see which articles [[Category:Living people]] and [[Category:Articles lacking sources]] have in common? Thanks in advance. --LV
A feature which does this is soon being introduced. It is called "category math" (probably at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_math).
I can't wait for the stub cabal to instantly lose their purpose.
Pfft, if the stub-sorters didn't exist you'd have had to invent them. Indeed, my occasional attempts at surfacing on AN/I and IRC lead me to believe you've already found a new antagonist.
Let's just hope you don't make the same mistake the /TNG/ producers did, replacing the old villanous Klingons with the Ferengi ...
On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
"The defining moment for Sergey, however, was when he met future co-president of Google, Larry Page. Sergey was assigned to show Larry around the university on a weekend tour. Reportedly, they did not get on well to begin with, arguing about every topic they discussed, and even throwing a few pies at each other."
Is that true? Is it not true? As a reader of Wikipedia, I have no easy way to know. If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference. If it is not true, it should be removed.
I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar.
--Jimbo
http://www.ebooks.com/ebooks/book_display.asp?IID=225408 http://www.google.com/corporate/history.html
I could not find anything about pies, however. Probably from The Google Story; I don't feel like digging through the copy on Google Books, however.
~maru
On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar.
I've asked a few times, but I'll do so again, more bluntly: How do you intend to encourage this, beyond occasional rants to this mailing list? Are we authorised to make big changes to WP:V and claim that Jimbo said it was ok? How far are we going with this? Is it just a cultural change, or policy change?
Steve