[WikiEN-l] the verifiability of articles we already HAVE

[Mark Wagner]

On 4/26/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> Probably less than 5% of Wikipedia's content actually meets [[WP:V]],
> [[WP:CITE]], and [[WP:RS]].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carnildo/The_100
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carnildo/The_100_Biography

It's not that bad.  Based on my "random article" surveys,
approximately one article in six has some form of referencing
(counting cited books, inline links, etc., but not anything in an
"external links" section), and about one article in ten has a formal
"references" section.

> Probably much less than half of Wikipedia's content meets it even by
> the most charitable interpretation, in which one a) assumes that
> external links to websites run by organizations that are not
> disinterested in their subject matter are reliable sources (I'm
> thinking of things like websites about historic-house museums and the
> like, which are probably mostly sorta-kinda-OK but probably are
> inclined to present the "authorized-biography" view of things), and
> b) assumes that most of the facts in the article could be found in
> the externally linked websites.

Under that criteria, about four articles in ten are sourced.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]