[WikiEN-l] Another sourcing problem

[Jon Q]

 Please pardon me if any of this is redundant as I've just recently joined
in here.  I'm here absorbing the discussions as well as continuing to study
elements of the site, freshly after enduring some measure of frustration due
to the atmosphere I've discovered exists on the site.

One observation I've made is that for a good part, the editors who regularly
review content seem to look down upon many different types of sources online
-- and while there are "real world" sources that aren't online, they don't
seem happy unless they can easily click on something.  They are dismissive
of the IMDb, of YouTube, even smaller newspapers they haven't heard of,
they'll question "reliability" of the source -- and of course anyone
blogging information would be a big no-no as well.  But the thing is -- the
popular internet is largely comprised of these types of sources!  When most
of it is "citizen media," and when there are many "reliable sources" whose
content stands behind a paywall -- it seems that there ought to be at least
some relaxing of standards as much as can be done within fair reason.

Actually the site seems to profess an element of relaxation -- however as
there are many who only relate to "rules," then much room for argument
exists.  And they seem to happen all too often, leading to much
frustration.  I'll then invite you to review one very interesting argument
in progress, relating to the article "List of Apple Inc. slogans":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Apple_Inc._slogans

It really gets my hackles up to read through this -- one person actually
said that EVERY item mentioned ought to be sourced!  One fellow who
valiantly struggles there to get them to consider "the wiki way" (if one
might call it that), seems to face major oppression there from these
deletionist completionists.

Part of the damage here could be, if left unchecked -- fault could be found
with virtually ANY article if one wishes to find it.  This shouldn't be the
point!  To me, this is the perfect type of article I'd like to find on
Wikipedia.  Yet it faces being deleted because of this particular attitude
which seems to be growing there.  Further, let's suppose that Apple is
either a contributor or even just a well-wisher of the site -- if they were
aware of their work being discussed as "non-notable" in any regard -- what
could the repurcussions be?  Maybe that is not for consideration in these
arguments -- but establishing goodwill all around is certainly relevant.
The more little articles that people worked hard to create that are deleted
within this environment -- the more likely you have people proferring
complaints about the site all around.

I've also noticed that these "articles for deletion" are posted in one
place, and there also seems to be a nice batch of people who make it their
business to weigh in on each one -- usually those with the deletionist
perspective.  And if "consensus" is weighed by votes -- even if it shouldn't
be but no doubt IS -- then most articles presented for deletion won't stand
a good chance.  And at least some of this goes back to "sourcing" again, as
so many possible sources just "aren't good enough" for the perfectionists
batting away at these.

Jon



> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:08:04 +0100
> From: FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another sourcing problem
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <AANLkTim1l3wDbbD8e3TDb4NM7x45rC1tMyGRqkeOcKuf at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> This is a point comon to all codification.
>
> For those who have clue about wiki, yes. For the many who don't, are
> learning, do not want to be bitten, might be over-aggressive in
> adding/criticising/removing, or want clearer guidance, we have detailed
> policies that capture key points.
>
> So while ideally IAR does the trick in practice for mass editing it could
> help. Especially where it interacts with our core content policies (and RS
> -> Verifiability -> core to encyclopedic quality) the guidance may help a
> lot in the cases it comes up.
>
> Expanding SELFPUB from an anomalous exception to a principle  will help.
>
> The wider principle is that if the originator of an online post is able to
> be confirmed (author is not spoofed, publication on own website or one
> controlled by him/her, etc), and has some kind of position to speak to the
> point (salience, significant to article or NPOV), then we have enough to
> say
> "X says Y" and the fact that X chose to say Y on a blog or self pub website
> is not really an impediment.
>
> FT2