Sourcing and reliable sourcing seems to be the topic of the day, so it is worth taking a look at some examples of "sourcing" to see how practical they are. In the English Wikipedia, at least, there seems to be a culture of adding {{fact}} templates to articles, and while these are often valid, at other times, the source can be found in the very next sentence. In many instances, a source can be found simply by going to Google or Google Books, so that I wonder whether the person putting in the {{fact}} tags actually bothered to check if any information was readily available.
More disconcerting, however, is the idea of sourcing with Wikipedia articles. This morning I went through the article on [[Italy]]. In the reference section, there are six citations of other Wikipedia articles, which is interesting because the facts there are unsourced too. See footnotes 14-17 and 23, 24 for examples. Note that I am not saying the information is wrong--simply that it would be nice to see it validated and confirmed, and if it is validated, to see it validated properly.
Danny
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
On 10/08/07, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Sourcing and reliable sourcing seems to be the topic of the day, so it is worth taking a look at some examples of "sourcing" to see how practical they are. In the English Wikipedia, at least, there seems to be a culture of adding {{fact}} templates to articles, and while these are often valid, at other times, the source can be found in the very next sentence. In many instances, a source can be found simply by going to Google or Google Books, so that I wonder whether the person putting in the {{fact}} tags actually bothered to check if any information was readily available.
More disconcerting, however, is the idea of sourcing with Wikipedia articles. This morning I went through the article on [[Italy]]. In the reference section, there are six citations of other Wikipedia articles, which is interesting because the facts there are unsourced too. See footnotes 14-17 and 23, 24 for examples. Note that I am not saying the information is wrong--simply that it would be nice to see it validated and confirmed, and if it is validated, to see it validated properly.
Danny
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
People will add tags often before even trying to verify the stuff themselves (which is the whole point of Wikipedia), and all it often takes is a quick Google search to find a relevant website/news article etc. Just as bad as citing Wikipedia though, is citing mirror sites. Ensure the text you cite simply isn't a copy of Wikipedia :P Check the date of the website and try to see which came first, to see if it really is original. And of course, it must be a reliable source, not someone's personal Geocities site :) Wikipedia, sadly is not reliable as we'd want it to be.
On 8/10/07, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/08/07, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Sourcing and reliable sourcing seems to be the topic of the day, so it
is
worth taking a look at some examples of "sourcing" to see how practical they are. In the English Wikipedia, at least, there seems to be a culture of adding {{fact}} templates to articles, and while these are often valid, at
other
times, the source can be found in the very next sentence. In many instances, a source can be found simply by going to Google or Google Books, so that I wonder whether the person putting in the {{fact}} tags actually bothered to
check
if any information was readily available.
This is how it works, obviously it needs to be more clearer and the fact tag will help make the article better. People must think that there are certain "wikignomes" who go through the uncited category and find fact for things like this and that it'll get done faster that way.
More disconcerting, however, is the idea of sourcing with Wikipedia articles. This morning I went through the article on [[Italy]]. In the reference section, there are six citations of other Wikipedia articles, which is interesting because the facts there are unsourced too. See footnotes
14-17
and 23, 24 for examples. Note that I am not saying the information is wrong--simply that it would be nice to see it validated and confirmed, and if it is validated, to see it validated properly.
Well, this isn't really allowed and is discouraged. We're not supposed to source Wikipedia articles with other Wikipedia article.s
Danny
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new
AOL
at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
People will add tags often before even trying to verify the stuff themselves (which is the whole point of Wikipedia), and all it often takes is a quick Google search to find a relevant website/news article etc. Just as bad as citing Wikipedia though, is citing mirror sites. Ensure the text you cite simply isn't a copy of Wikipedia :P Check the date of the website and try to see which came first, to see if it really is original. And of course, it must be a reliable source, not someone's personal Geocities site :) Wikipedia, sadly is not reliable as we'd want it to be.
:-( but true.
--
Alex (Majorly) _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 8/10/07, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Sourcing and reliable sourcing seems to be the topic of the day, so it is worth taking a look at some examples of "sourcing" to see how practical they are. In the English Wikipedia, at least, there seems to be a culture of adding {{fact}} templates to articles, and while these are often valid, at other times, the source can be found in the very next sentence. In many instances, a source can be found simply by going to Google or Google Books, so that I wonder whether the person putting in the {{fact}} tags actually bothered to check if any information was readily available.
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.
More disconcerting, however, is the idea of sourcing with Wikipedia articles. This morning I went through the article on [[Italy]]. In the reference section, there are six citations of other Wikipedia articles, which is interesting because the facts there are unsourced too. See footnotes 14-17 and 23, 24 for examples. Note that I am not saying the information is wrong--simply that it would be nice to see it validated and confirmed, and if it is validated, to see it validated properly.
This is completely unacceptable and not only for encyclopedia. Referring to own work is possible only as "see *" constructions. I removed all of those "references".
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.
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
On 10/08/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
Few newcomers know about the verifiability policy. Of those that do, how many know where to find references, and how to format them?
Most new users get a welcome notice on their page with relevant links.
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
To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org From: hildanknight@gmail.com Subject: Verifiability leads to systemic bias
Blahblah blah blabha blahbalhlahg
Signed, J.L.W.S. The Special One
On 8/10/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
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
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 10/08/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org From: hildanknight@gmail.com Subject: Verifiability leads to systemic bias
Blahblah blah blabha blahbalhlahg
Signed, J.L.W.S. The Special One
???
In response to: On 8/10/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
Since verifiability is the topic of the day, could someone help me start a thread about how verifiability leads to systemic bias?
On 8/10/07, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/08/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org From: hildanknight@gmail.com Subject: Verifiability leads to systemic bias
Blahblah blah blabha blahbalhlahg
Signed, J.L.W.S. The Special One
???
-- Alex (Majorly) _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I've started the thread - did it go through? If so, this thread can focus on how we could make it easier for newcomers to learn/follow the verifiability policy, as well as issues the original poster raised.
2007/8/10, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com:
In response to: On 8/10/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
Since verifiability is the topic of the day, could someone help me start
a
thread about how verifiability leads to systemic bias?
On 8/10/07, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/08/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org From: hildanknight@gmail.com Subject: Verifiability leads to systemic bias
Blahblah blah blabha blahbalhlahg
Signed, J.L.W.S. The Special One
???
-- Alex (Majorly) _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 8/10/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
I've started the thread - did it go through? If so, this thread can focus on how we could make it easier for newcomers to learn/follow the verifiability policy, as well as issues the original poster raised.
It got through, you gotta love gmail in that regard....
Garion96
I didn't see it in my inbox.
2007/8/10, Garion96 garion96@gmail.com:
On 8/10/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
I've started the thread - did it go through? If so, this thread can
focus
on how we could make it easier for newcomers to learn/follow the verifiability policy, as well as issues the original poster raised.
It got through, you gotta love gmail in that regard....
Garion96 _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
I've started the thread - did it go through? If so, this thread can focus on how we could make it easier for newcomers to learn/follow the verifiability policy, as well as issues the original poster raised.
The important thing with newcomers is to make them feel welcome, not getting them to follow a bunch of rules. By speaking nicely to them about the principles of verifiability one avoids giving the impression that verifiability is inflexible.
Ec
Majorly wrote:
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.
It is wrong to equate what someone personally knew with original research.
I see nothing wrong with citing other Wikipedia articles in some circumstances. In some cases a link to an other-language wikipedia may be suitable because the material does not yet appear on the English language version. Like other web references such citations should probably be dated to allow for the fact that the material may have later been removed from the article.
Ec
If Wikipedia has a detailed article on a subject, with references, and there is also a paragraph about it in some incidental place, or in a general article on the topic, it seems reasonable that the paragraph could rely on the main article. For example, if in an article on art I need to refer to the date of an Italian prince, the Wikipedia article on the prince or the relevant section of the Italy article would seem a perfectly adequate source. I could repeat the reference to some general history of Italy every time, but I do not see what this adds for purpose of scholarship or user assistance.
On 8/10/07, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/10/07, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Sourcing and reliable sourcing seems to be the topic of the day, so it is worth taking a look at some examples of "sourcing" to see how practical they are. In the English Wikipedia, at least, there seems to be a culture of adding {{fact}} templates to articles, and while these are often valid, at other times, the source can be found in the very next sentence. In many instances, a source can be found simply by going to Google or Google Books, so that I wonder whether the person putting in the {{fact}} tags actually bothered to check if any information was readily available.
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.
More disconcerting, however, is the idea of sourcing with Wikipedia articles. This morning I went through the article on [[Italy]]. In the reference section, there are six citations of other Wikipedia articles, which is interesting because the facts there are unsourced too. See footnotes 14-17 and 23, 24 for examples. Note that I am not saying the information is wrong--simply that it would be nice to see it validated and confirmed, and if it is validated, to see it validated properly.
This is completely unacceptable and not only for encyclopedia. Referring to own work is possible only as "see *" constructions. I removed all of those "references".
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 8/10/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
If Wikipedia has a detailed article on a subject, with references, and there is also a paragraph about it in some incidental place, or in a general article on the topic, it seems reasonable that the paragraph could rely on the main article. For example, if in an article on art I need to refer to the date of an Italian prince, the Wikipedia article on the prince or the relevant section of the Italy article would seem a perfectly adequate source. I could repeat the reference to some general history of Italy every time, but I do not see what this adds for purpose of scholarship or user assistance.
If some complex article like "List of countries by size" is well referenced, relying on that article will be made through an internal link (over the claim or like "see [[List of countries by size]]"), but it is not a reference. If we assume that the article "List of countries by size" is generated using specific data for every country from their own websites, and you want to define that Italy is at the Nth place by size then it is not reasonable to copy all references.
If you need only to verify specific date inside of some other article, please repeat the source. A reader should know directly where did you find that information.
And if you really don't want to copy reference, please, don't add Wikipedia article between <ref></ref> because of two reasons: (1) Self-referring shouldn't be a part of any scientific paper (including encyclopedia) and (2) Wikipedia articles are *changeable* and you should refer only to unchangeable sources.
Could someone reply to the thread I started so that it will show up in Gmail?
2007/8/10, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
On 8/10/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
If Wikipedia has a detailed article on a subject, with references, and there is also a paragraph about it in some incidental place, or in a general article on the topic, it seems reasonable that the paragraph could rely on the main article. For example, if in an article on art I need to refer to the date of an Italian prince, the Wikipedia article on the prince or the relevant section of the Italy article would seem a perfectly adequate source. I could repeat the reference to some general history of Italy every time, but I do not see what this adds for purpose of scholarship or user assistance.
If some complex article like "List of countries by size" is well referenced, relying on that article will be made through an internal link (over the claim or like "see [[List of countries by size]]"), but it is not a reference. If we assume that the article "List of countries by size" is generated using specific data for every country from their own websites, and you want to define that Italy is at the Nth place by size then it is not reasonable to copy all references.
If you need only to verify specific date inside of some other article, please repeat the source. A reader should know directly where did you find that information.
And if you really don't want to copy reference, please, don't add Wikipedia article between <ref></ref> because of two reasons: (1) Self-referring shouldn't be a part of any scientific paper (including encyclopedia) and (2) Wikipedia articles are *changeable* and you should refer only to unchangeable sources.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 8/10/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
Could someone reply to the thread I started so that it will show up in Gmail?
:) Gmail is not doubling your emails. The right place for checking if mail passed is: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/
2007/8/10, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
If some complex article like "List of countries by size" is well referenced, relying on that article will be made through an internal link (over the claim or like "see [[List of countries by size]]"), but it is not a reference. If we assume that the article "List of countries by size" is generated using specific data for every country from their own websites, and you want to define that Italy is at the Nth place by size then it is not reasonable to copy all references.
So, what if someone threatens to remove your statement as 'unreferenced'?
If you need only to verify specific date inside of some other article, please repeat the source. A reader should know directly where did you find that information.
And what if that other article is unsourced?
On 8/10/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
So, what if someone threatens to remove your statement as 'unreferenced'?
Offer to add 300 references into the article from referring one ;) Or add them ;)
I think that some kind recommendation should be written on Wikipedias.
And what if that other article is unsourced?
(1) find source and add or (2) mark that statement is not verified or (3) if there are no sources, remove it from both articles (or put the other article on RfD because it is original research).
Milos Rancic wrote:
On 8/10/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
So, what if someone threatens to remove your statement as 'unreferenced'?
Offer to add 300 references into the article from referring one ;) Or add them ;)
I think that some kind recommendation should be written on Wikipedias.
And what if that other article is unsourced?
(1) find source and add or (2) mark that statement is not verified or (3) if there are no sources, remove it from both articles (or put the other article on RfD because it is original research).
Number 1 is clearly the best option. By marking the statement you show that you disagree with it, and are thus warning the reader to be careful. The absence of sources should absolutely '''not''' be the reason for deleting an article. Nor does it justify jumping to the conclusion that it is original research.
Ec
On 8/11/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Number 1 is clearly the best option. By marking the statement you show that you disagree with it, and are thus warning the reader to be careful. The absence of sources should absolutely '''not''' be the reason for deleting an article. Nor does it justify jumping to the conclusion that it is original research.
If I add {{fact}} tag, it simply means that it is a statement without a source. Yes, I will do that mostly in the cases where I saw some disputable statement, but it doesn't have to mean that. Readers should carefully read all articles and should be able to check all statements. Sometimes statements are trivial, sometimes are disputable, but sometimes statements seem to be trivial, but they are not.
I just made a gradation between possible actions: (1) it is the best to add a source; (2) if you don't have a time, please add a {{fact}} to mark that the statement should be referenced; (3) if both (part of article and another article as a whole) are very problematic, remove the part from the first article and mark the other for deletion.
I think the {{fact}} tag should be split into two tags - one for quotes, figures and potentially controversial material; and one for information which, although relatively uncontroversial, could do with a reference.
The former would be used to "challenge" material, and if no source is found within a reasonable period of time (for example, a week), the information would be removed. The latter would not be used to "challenge" material, but suggest that a reference would be useful, particularly when polishing potential GAs or FAs.
2007/8/11, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
On 8/11/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Number 1 is clearly the best option. By marking the statement you show that you disagree with it, and are thus warning the reader to be careful. The absence of sources should absolutely '''not''' be the reason for deleting an article. Nor does it justify jumping to the conclusion that it is original research.
If I add {{fact}} tag, it simply means that it is a statement without a source. Yes, I will do that mostly in the cases where I saw some disputable statement, but it doesn't have to mean that. Readers should carefully read all articles and should be able to check all statements. Sometimes statements are trivial, sometimes are disputable, but sometimes statements seem to be trivial, but they are not.
I just made a gradation between possible actions: (1) it is the best to add a source; (2) if you don't have a time, please add a {{fact}} to mark that the statement should be referenced; (3) if both (part of article and another article as a whole) are very problematic, remove the part from the first article and mark the other for deletion.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
There is a little tag {{or}} for challenging original research. Fact is challenging source and there is no matter is the statement POV or not. If statement is like "That is like this" and the statement is POV, it should be removed or reformulated as "This person said that that is like this<ref>...</ref>". In general, POV is a problem at least on section level. In other cases, POV is not a problem because it may be easily removed or reformulated.
On 8/11/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
I think the {{fact}} tag should be split into two tags - one for quotes, figures and potentially controversial material; and one for information which, although relatively uncontroversial, could do with a reference.
The former would be used to "challenge" material, and if no source is found within a reasonable period of time (for example, a week), the information would be removed. The latter would not be used to "challenge" material, but suggest that a reference would be useful, particularly when polishing potential GAs or FAs.
2007/8/11, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
On 8/11/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Number 1 is clearly the best option. By marking the statement you show that you disagree with it, and are thus warning the reader to be careful. The absence of sources should absolutely '''not''' be the reason for deleting an article. Nor does it justify jumping to the conclusion that it is original research.
If I add {{fact}} tag, it simply means that it is a statement without a source. Yes, I will do that mostly in the cases where I saw some disputable statement, but it doesn't have to mean that. Readers should carefully read all articles and should be able to check all statements. Sometimes statements are trivial, sometimes are disputable, but sometimes statements seem to be trivial, but they are not.
I just made a gradation between possible actions: (1) it is the best to add a source; (2) if you don't have a time, please add a {{fact}} to mark that the statement should be referenced; (3) if both (part of article and another article as a whole) are very problematic, remove the part from the first article and mark the other for deletion.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Milos Rancic wrote:
On 8/10/07, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Sourcing and reliable sourcing seems to be the topic of the day, so it is worth taking a look at some examples of "sourcing" to see how practical they are. In the English Wikipedia, at least, there seems to be a culture of adding {{fact}} templates to articles, and while these are often valid, at other times, the source can be found in the very next sentence. In many instances, a source can be found simply by going to Google or Google Books, so that I wonder whether the person putting in the {{fact}} tags actually bothered to check if any information was readily available.
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.
That's preferable, but not always practical. If I'm working on something else and find something debatable on some marginally related other article I prefer to avoid getting off on a tangent that could take up as much time as what I'm really working on. Better to put the fact-tag and retain focus on what I'm really doing. In other cases I don't personally have access to the proper sources. Where the material is in most "standard" texts on the subject it should be enough to refer people to those works in a more general way.
More disconcerting, however, is the idea of sourcing with Wikipedia articles. This morning I went through the article on [[Italy]]. In the reference section, there are six citations of other Wikipedia articles, which is interesting because the facts there are unsourced too. See footnotes 14-17 and 23, 24 for examples. Note that I am not saying the information is wrong--simply that it would be nice to see it validated and confirmed, and if it is validated, to see it validated properly.
This is completely unacceptable and not only for encyclopedia. Referring to own work is possible only as "see *" constructions. I removed all of those "references".
That's a bit hasty.
Ec
On 8/11/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
However, if someone is working on some article, such person should find sources instead of putting {{fact}} there.
That's preferable, but not always practical. If I'm working on something else and find something debatable on some marginally related other article I prefer to avoid getting off on a tangent that could take up as much time as what I'm really working on. Better to put the fact-tag and retain focus on what I'm really doing. In other cases I don't personally have access to the proper sources. Where the material is in most "standard" texts on the subject it should be enough to refer people to those works in a more general way.
My point here was related to people who are working on that "marginally related article", not on "active visitors" (like you are in such cases and like I am the most of time).
Also, adding source (instead of {{fact}}) should be encouraged while dealing with articles which are rarely edited because one such {{fact}} may stay for a years.
This is completely unacceptable and not only for encyclopedia. Referring to own work is possible only as "see *" constructions. I removed all of those "references".
That's a bit hasty.
I was thinking about my action (was it wrong or not? do I need to fix something, to readd?), but... If I think that something is wrong on Wikipedia, I will try to fix it. It is much better to change an article on Wikipedia then not to change and talk how much it is wrong. If I am wrong and I edited an article, it is easy to recover article to previous edit. If I am right and I didn't edit an article, article would stay wrong.
One of the usual answers to outsider's scream "This fact is not correct on Wikipedia!" is "Go and fix it." And one of the usual Wikipedian reaction (including my usual reaction) when something is not correct on Wikipedia is not to go and not to fix it. So, I am trying to fix at least my reaction :)
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org