[WikiEN-l] Elimination of unreferenced articles drive?

[Ray Saintonge]

David Goodman wrote:

>About 25% of the WP articles cannot be properly sourced without access
>to one of the about 250 existing research libraries (in the
>english-speaking world), and perhaps  a third of those can be done in
>only one of the top half of those, the ones with high quality pint
>collections.  
>
High quality pint collections may be found in the local pub.  :-)   
(Sorry, I can't help myself, even when I strongly agree with what is said.)

>Most WPedians clearly do not have such access, and most
>of those who do are clearly unaccustomed to using it for such
>purposes. Those who can do this, are not likely to assume the burden
>of sourcing a few hundred thosand articles in 5 days.
>And it is not just finding sources. It is necessary to find multiple
>sources in a thorough way, and see what part of the article can be
>supported, and then do the secondary research necessary to rewrite the
>article. How many WP editors know how to do this properly? How many of
>the enthusiasts working on popular culture actually know how to do an
>adequate job filling the gaps there?
>
>A drive to rapidly source articles will get low-quality sourcing--will
>get sourcing from what printed textbook happens to be handy which sort
>of covers the general subject. How were these articles written--many
>from the old Enc Brittanica, which in turn was written by people who
>did have access to the proper libraries. We cannot update them without
>similar facilities.
>
>On the other hand, examine the German WP-- most article are not
>sourced or are sketchily sourced, and yet of of an average quality way
>beyond us. Their popular culture is concise summaries of what's
>important, not long rambling sometimes careless plot summaries.  My
>German has been getting much better since I followed some good advice
>to check there when needed.
>
>Obviously we want higher standards, but we should not aim beyond our
>capabilities, and we should not ask for things beyond the actual
>interests of the WP editors in the project.
>
You raise a very important point.  I often wonder about the extent to 
which students are taught research skills.  Until they are old enough to 
attend many do not know what wonderful resources may be available in a 
local university.  I often seem to detect an anti-elitism streak among 
some editors. 

Maybe we need some kind of "how to research" instruction to be made 
available.  It would need to recognize that the amount of sourcing  
needed will indeed vary according to the subject.  The common 
fundamentals of a science that is taught in the schools can adequately 
be referenced by listing a few popular textbooks without the need to 
document in detail every single statement.  On the other hand, 
controversial political issues require far more support. 

I welcome the effort of some librarians to link Wikipedia to various 
library collections.  In many cases knowing where sources reside is an 
important first step to using those sources.  It is the beginning of a 
layered approach to sourcing that gives the future researcher the 
opportunity to take the matter a little deeper. Yet we do have some 
editors who are too quick to decide that these linkages are just another 
form of spam.

When we use popular magazines or books as a source we assume that the 
writers there are working in good faith, but if they fail to give any 
sources we find ourselves at the same dead end as with an absence of 
sources in the Wikipedia article. 

Perhaps those who advocate sourcing of 100,000 articles in five days 
should themselves spend five days sourcing articles.  Then we could ask 
them, "How many articles were you able to source in those five day?"  I 
absolutely support the principle that the ultimate responsibility for 
sourcing material lies with the person who contributed it, but that does 
not mean that others have no responsibility at all.  The person who sees 
an unsourced article, and has a relevant source on the shelf beside him, 
helps no-one by insisting that the original contributor provide the 
source.  The nature of collaboration includes helping when we can.

Thank you for your comments.

Ec