[WikiEN-l] Elimination of unreferenced articles drive?

[phoebe ayers]

On 6/19/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> David Goodman wrote:
> ....
>
> >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.


Hmm. Sounds like a Wikimania workshop to me, and/or a series of workshops
online. Perhaps a wider support network being built between those with
access to resources and those without, or some research done into what
editors really *need* to source comprehensively (access? training?
motivation through policy or culture? all of this?) ... The problem is a big
one, with differences and subtleties depending on the article topic and the
language of research, and our sourcing troubles won't be easily solved by
either a "let's delete it all tomorrow" or a "let's let it all sit around"
approach -- I think it's pretty clear that neither entirely works.

For constructive efforts: did anyone happen to go to Gary Price and j
Baumgart's presentation at the last Wikimania on finding good sources*? If
so did you find it useful? Would things like this be helpful in the future?

phoebe

*http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:JKB1