I am certainly one of the guilty parties. When I first started editing there were huge subjects on which there was nothing. I remember creating [[Tucson, Arizona]]. There was a temptation to create and contribute to articles on subjects you knew about due to experience or education. As laypersons, rather than academics engaged in teaching daily about the subject, sources were seldom at hand.
Today, I work almost exclusively from sources. I find a source then add to an article. Although, I still sometimes cheat a bit; I do know from personal experience which way is up, and might rotate an image that is upside down...
Finding sources for information that you learned in school decades ago is rather difficult, even impossible, and certainly tedious. As a volunteer organization such a demand is not tenable.
I recently made an edit to [[Stream capture]] using a geography text I bought for $3.95. It is an older edition of a college text that sells for over $100. I didn't look down to check the reference section, but noticed that someone had made an edit after I did, adding a reference section. I had added the first source to this article, an article created, by me, August 2, 2003:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stream_capture&oldid=3082210
That original information is not wrong, and I did get it from a source, but at that time we had no regular mechanism for citing sources. Today I don't remember the original source, but I do plan to use my geography textbook to add a few more references should I have the time, which I don't. I have no time, or life...just endless half-finished projects and ideas.
Fred
Wikipedians have proven to be quite adept at creating scripts, software, bots etc to automate all kinds of things.
We are now in a situation where anything added - a new article of information added to an existing article - immediately gets challenged if it has no sources, and often the sources get challenged.
That's fair enough, it goes to the credibility of the project and the information we make available.
However, at the same time, that are millions of older articles that 'got away' without or with few sources when they were created. Some have since been tagged as being "without sources".
SUGGESTION:
Can't someone create something that will identify ACTIVE editors who at one point contributed significantly to each of those unsourced articles and alert them to see if they would show interest in going back and adding a few sources? I am working from the premise that someone who constribute more than a casual correction of a typo etc has some affinity with the subject and would be the most indicated person to quickly find valid sources.
I included "(tagged)" in the subject line. This, because with my 'limited' knowledge, I presume that it would be easier for such would-be mechanism to pick out articles tagged as having no sources. At the same time, I recognise that it would not be impossible for the software or whatever to scan the whole article looking for surces and if none, add it a basket of unsourced articles.
Also, I remember reading about a bot created by the Ducth WP that has created about half of the articles in the Swedish WP. It apparently has - among aother things - the ability to find valid sources.
Best regards,
Rui
Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na Ãfrica do Sul +27 74 425 4186 _______________ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe