Since verifiability is the topic of the day, could someone help me start a thread about how verifiability leads to systemic bias?
2007/8/10, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com:
Few newcomers know about the verifiability policy. Of those that do, how many know where to find references, and how to format them?
2007/8/10, Majorly < axel9891@googlemail.com>:
On 10/08/07, Milos Rancic < millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
The main point here is that a person who is putting some information inside of article -- should put reference, too. Amount of unverified statements on Wikipedia is enormous (however, I don't say that the situation is better in Britannica, for example) and *there are* contributors who are primary checking unverified statements.
I completely support {{fact}} tagging (instead of {{sources-section}} and similar tags) because {{fact}} tells to other contributors what do they need to find.
However, if someone is working on some article, such person should find sources instead of putting {{fact}} there.
This is often stuff from a long time ago, when things like verifiablity were probably not as well enforced as today. People would probably copy stuff from other places, or what they personally knew (original research) but not give a source (or, they didn't research properly and simply cited another Wikipedia article which was done in the same way.) For an article like Italy, I personally think it is vital such source don't exist. It's one of our "Vital articles" and an article that should be on every language Wikipedia. It's a bad choice for an article to have such bad sourcing.
-- Alex (Majorly) _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l