[WikiEN-l] BLP messiness

[The Cunctator]

On 7/11/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What if the material is accurate and can be checked with a quick
> > google search?
>
> The burden of proof is always on the person adding the information.

That doesn't make sense. If someone adds "the famous mass murderer
Charles Manson" to an article, deleting that addition because it
doesn't have a source is silly.

> "Source" does not mean "somewhere which can be used to verify the
> information", it means "the place where the information came from".
> Only the person that added the information actually knows the source,
> so they should be the one citing sources. The whole idea of adding
> sources to existing articles is completely backward. We need to work
> on getting people to actually *use* reliable sources, not just cite
> them. If people were actually using the sources then they could cite
> them as they went along with almost no additional work.

In the real world of editing Wikipedia, source does not always mean
"the place where the information came from". It often means "somewhere
which can be used to verify the information".

For example, a lot of people get knowledge of things from television,
friends, parents, family, local newspapers, blogs, teachers, etc., all
of which are unacceptable or difficult to reference.

Maybe you only learn things from proper sources, but if so, you would
be the exception.