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 Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 1:45 AM, 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.
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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Uh...no?
Sometimes, uncontroversial material which is unsourced or poorly sourced is suffered to remain for purely practical reasons, but -only so long as it remains uncontroversial-, and it is only upon sufferance. If someone disagrees, and no source or only an unreliable source can back it, it must be removed. If it can later be backed by a reliable source, it may be reinserted. Anything else is an invitation for one to cite one's own blog for some ludicrous claim and call that acceptable. All material must ultimately, if challenged, be verifiable through a reliable source.