2006/9/17, Christoph Seydl Christoph.Seydl@students.jku.at:
I assume that Jimbo means that only material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources should be used. And if we remove all unsourced statements, Wikipedia will shrink and grow less fast. However, there are reliable sources even for the most simple objects. According to Norstedts svenska ordbok och uppslagsbok, a bucket is a "cylindrical vessel with a carrying handle for the transport of liquids sand or the like".
Can you provide such a reference too for all the other parts of the definition of 'bucket'? And if not, should we delete that? And if you can, should we delete it nevertheless until you have done so?
As Jimbo said, several editors will stop contributing, if all material has to be sourced. At the same time, the motivation to provide sources will increase, whereas there is almost no motivation to source statements, if they will not be removed.
The motivation will certainly increase, yes. Nobody wants to add material to Wikipedia that will be removed again. But it also means that we are going to delete more if the rule is added than in the whole of Wikipedia until now. Use [[Special:Randompage]]. The chance that it's sourced is small. The change that if it is sourced, it is specified what comes from which source is even smaller. You might as well go and delete pages at random.
No matter how a codification of verifiability will look like, there should be at least a statement on verifiability at Foundation Issues in my opinion. There are several options how verifiability can be defined:
- Everything must be sourced, what Jimbo seems to prefer.
- Only critical material (e. g. negative information about living persons, disputed issues, hard facts, quotes,...) must be sourced. Statements on everyday objects (cf. bucket example) may not be sourced.
How do you define critical material?
- Source what you like.
- Abolish sourcing at all.
Why? Can't this rule be left to the separate projects?