[Foundation-l] Requiring a References section (was Re: Enforcing WP:CITE)

[SJ]

On 12/1/05, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> >>If you're writing about one of those topics that is a) not private
> >>research/analysis of your own, but b) has never been written about
> >>anywhere else [that you know of], then we need a new class of references :
> >>"personal observation by [user]", with a relevant tag not unlike the
> >>original-reporting templates used on Wikinews.  Then it will be crystal
> >>clear that readers should visit your page, and see whether they trust you
> >>as the primary/original observer/author.

Walter, please read what I wrote carefully.  The kind of article you
wrote should surely be kept in Wikipedia, but it should also clearly
identify you, Walter van Kalken, Wikipedia editor, as the source -- in
a template that clarifies which of various reasons led to the lack of
external links.  From least to most like OR :
  1) printed references exist, but the author couldn't find a cite at the moment
  2) the author knows of no printed references; personal communication
with (named source/authority)
  3) the author doesn't know of any printed references; direct
personal observation (simple observation, similar to a photo; not
'research')
  4) the author doesn't know of any printed references; 'common
knowledge' or 'common sense'

> >Much of this falls under 'original research', doesn't it?  Or are you
> >talking about the cases where someone believes that something is true
> >but doesn't have the references to hand?

Not necessarily.  It is important to distinguish between 'research'
and 'observation'.  When I add a photo I took of a U2 concert, and say
"U2 concert in Boston, December 2005", that's personal observation. 
The image page tells you that [[User:Sj]] took the photo and uploaded
it on a given date.  Likewise for articles, in the very-rare case that
you've learned about a fact not noted elsewhere online (part of an
article); or a topic which is /referenced/ in many places but not
/explained/ anywhere online (a new article), perhaps first-hand from
an expert.  In practice, I think the number of such topics is
miniscule.  For instance...

> I am surprised that both you SJ and Mart are saying this. Obviously both
> off you didn't read my case about the soi article on english wikipedia.
> Which is an article like many which is almost impossibly referenced.

A minute's googling turned up at least two suitable references; I
added them to the English article.  If I knew any Thai, I'm certain I
could come up with more in that language.


> Since the two of you never read it I'll post it again here.

Don't get your undies in a bundle.

> 3) All the even-numbered sois are on one side of the street, the
> odd-numbered ones on the other.
>
> How do you want me to prove that from citations without flying you over
> here?

That's tough to find by searching online.  Nvertheless, I'm certain
there are references that discuss simple street numbering, in all
manner of languages; even guidelines for numbering new streets in
Thai.

> 4) If for instance a soi is added between soi 7 and soi 9 it will get
> the name soi 7/1, the next one soi 7/2 etc.

Ditto.

> 6) On lower Sukhumvit road in Bangkok for instance the soi's are named
> after important landowners or families of landowners who had land in the
> area in the past.
>
> Verified with Thais whose families actually come from these landowners
> and have been living in the area for a long time. Again no books.

Just name individual named-sois, and perhaps link to references that
mention that name for one or two of the major ones.

> 7) Some sois become major thoroughfares and because of that get known by
> their name only. Examples are Thonglor (Sukhumvit soi 55), Asoke
> (Sukhumvit soi 21) etc.
>
> Again plain fact. Books anyone?

Again, just link to sources that refer to these by their name (ideally
also mentioning their soi number as well)

> or that are known IRL. Like me, anyone can always call me (see my
> phonenumbers) I even put my homeaddress up once. I might not always be

Right.  Which is why, if the author can't find a source (generally one
will exist, /somewhere/), there should be a standard way to add a
'reference' bullet to an article that explains the author should be
treated as the source until a better one is found... and listing a
reason that no other source is provided.

++SJ