[WikiEN-l] Another sourcing problem

[Charles Matthews]

Jon Q wrote:

<snip>
> 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.
>
>   
We do have a "problem" with sourcing from web pages. Which is that no 
permissive definition of what a _reliable_ online source is will work 
out for us. We have to be aware that there is little enough posted on 
the Web that is actually authoritative. I expect we'll have to adjust 
the criteria as time passes.

 > 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
>   
This AfD discussion is now closed, with no consensus to delete
> 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.
>   
Actually, complete sourcing for lists is not in itself a bad idea. It is 
certainly not applied uniformly across the site (nor should it be). But 
it is going to pick up errors and exclude "original research" in some 
cases. And it can be interesting (the list in [[Lord President of 
Munster]] taught me a great deal about the history).
> 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.  
I think that article is no longer under threat - it now is well 
referenced. Nomination to AfD just to get an article improved is a 
misuse of the site processes, however.

> 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.
>   
We should actually disregard this kind of consideration, really. I 
imagine Steve Jobs has enough to do with iPhone 4, rather than worrying 
about geek-on-geek disputes about Apple slogans from the 1980s. But in 
any case we operate without fear or favour with respect to large 
corporations.
> 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.
>   
There are some bad arguments at AfD, certainly, and some may be 
presented by serial deletionists. In an ideal world - not the wiki we 
have - what is said at WP:BEFORE would be followed and the discussion 
there would be about the notability of the topic (in short, whether it 
belongs in Wikipedia). Too many people, in general, throw around 
considerations they say are policy, and which are in fact partial or 
slanted views, or mere sloganising. Certainly the process should always 
be case-by-case, and the wisdom "voting is evil" should be noted by the 
closing admin; people who are really saying "I hate the article as it 
stands" should be disregarded if they have no point to make.

You''l find David Goodman has similar views to your own.

Charles