Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Jguk's version

To start with

I'll want some time to digest this, and thoroughly compare it to the existing policy. One quick note, in 'Citing sources', you have, Any edit lacking a source may be removed. If an article topic has no third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. If you doubt the accuracy or origin of an unsourced statement that has been in an article for a long time, delete it or move it to the talk page. My feeling from other discussions is that we are not ready to endorse the first sentence. And I suspect that you intended to say in the last sentence, If you doubt the accuracy or origin of an unsourced statement that has not been in an article for a long time, delete it or move it to the talk page. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 19:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The first sentence has been endorsed already, though it was recently questioned on the talk page. But it has had widespread support for as long as I've been editing. And for your second point, it doesn't matter how long a claim has been in an article: if you doubt the accuracy or origin of it, you may remove it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I would love to just rip out unsourced material, but I think doing that wholesale would be disruptive. I do try to source some articles I find, but that can be time consuming, and leads me to related articles that need work, as well. I am experimenting with marking articles [[unreferenced]] and linking to them from a 'suspense' page, and that has provoked an attempt to supply references in a couple of cases, but I'm still trying to figure out how to escalate without disrupting. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The first sentence has never been so directly stated in policy before. SlimVirgin is right, however, in saying that it is accepted. Good editors already appreciate the need for sources, and I think this has improved a hundredfold in the last year. If you revert something with the edit summary "Revert - removing unreferenced information. Please only re-add if you can cite a source, see Wikipedia:Verifiability", you will generally find a positive response. (By the way, I wasn't sure of this until I experimented for an hour myself doing just that. I found that, except on an article where an edit war was in progress, info either stayed out or was re-added but with references.

On the second point, I didn't omit "not". Whilst you'll find good editors accept that new edits need sources, there is much unreferenced older material on Wikipedia. People do have problems if this is removed wholesale, so greater care is needed. Even if there is something that you think is wrong or dubious it may be best to raise the issue on the talk page first before deleting everything. In essence, there is a transitional "rule" for old material. All I'm trying to do is make reference to it, jguk 20:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) The strongly phrased version was only recently added by SlimVirgin [1]. Prior to this, and IMO, what is still generally accepted practice is that you should only summarily remove unreferenced edits that you have reason to believe are false or inaccurate. I very much do not like giving license to remove *any* edit simply because it is not sourced. I have not encountered editors summarily removing unreferenced material simply because it was unreferenced--nearly always the material was rather obviously dubious and could have been removed on any number of grounds. There are differences between handling edtis by anons and registered users as well. For an anon with only a few questionable edits, few would consider it worth the effort to try and engage in dialogue. But for a registered user, I would hope we would assume good faith and try to engage the user rather than simply summarily remove the edits. older≠wiser 20:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:NOR are inextricably linked, because the only way to show you're not doing the latter is to comply with the former. NOR does not allowed unsourced material either, so any wording that suggests unsourced material can stay in an article for reasons of politeness runs counter to the entire philosophy of Wikipedia. Realistically, have you ever encountered anyone systematically going through articles and removing every unsourced edit in order to be disruptive? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Realistically, have you ever encountered anyone systematically going through articles and removing every unsourced edit in order to be disruptive? No, of course not. But what is the point of such a strongly phrased policy when it does NOT correspond to actual practice? Since so many unsourced edits are accepted without question, it makes this policy appear ineffectual. older≠wiser 21:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Bkronrad, it does correspond to actual practice. New information can and is regularly removed when it isn't sourced, and old information, when questioned, can be removed.

On SlimVirgin's point, I beg to differ in approach (though not in consequence). To my mind "no original research" follows immediately from the three Verifiability criteria I've listed. WP:NOR doesn't need to be (and therefore shouldn't be) policy. If something is original research it will not be possible to come up with a reputable source for it - either no source will exist, or the source will not be reputable. Although I'm certainly not going to argue we dispense with the guidance on WP:NOR, I would suggest that, if the wording I suggest here on Verifiability is adopted, WP:NOR need not be policy (though I'd suggest that later rather than now), jguk 17:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Editors need no special authorization to remove or edit content. This strong phrasing gives license to remove ANY edit that is not sourced. While it has not been a problem yet, with this being accepted as policy, on what basis would you stop someone who did go about removing ANY edits that did not cite a source? I'm sure that the community would intervene quickly enough, but simply on the basis of how this policy is phrased, such editors would have a strong basis for claiming such removals are authorized.

Also, you didn't address my second point. Yes, while some unsourced edits are removed, many, many more are not. This discrepency between actual practice and the strongly phrased policy makes it appear ineffectual. This is sort of a "Do as I say, not as I do" situation, where the authority of the policy is undermined because there is in fact so much unsourced material that is accepted. Dubious unsourced material should be removed and it usually is. But so many edits are made in good faith and are quite factual and are also unsourced. I don't think this policy should imply that the proper conduct is to summarily remove such edits. older≠wiser 23:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

On the first point, I would encourage people to go round new edits reverting those that insert information that isn't sourced. Do so politely, of course - "Revert edit as it lacks a source, please only re-add the information if you have one" will go down much better than "Revert unreferenced POV crap". I have, by the way of an experiment, tried this for an hour or so by monitoring new edits over a five minute period one hour after they were created (after all, existing policy does not ban doing this). I found there were surprisingly few that were unreferenced and that material if it was re-added was re-added together with a reference! I genuinely don't think any good editor would mind being asked to reference his or her work - most good editors are already doing this.

On your second point - wikipedia is quickly getting better at references. Ideally every snippet of information should be sourced. In the past, whole articles were being written without references, and no doubt wholesale deletion of those would not go down well. But we need to promote references. A strongly worded policy gives good editors the ammo they need to shoot down dodgy unreference material. Let's not beat about the bush - every bit of info ought to be referenced. At present, that isn't generally true, but we're getting better all the time, jguk 11:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you're using a different selection criteria. I see many, many unsourced edits that go completely unquestioned. Many of these are trivial additions. Or are of the nature of "plain as the nose on your face" type of edits, but no source is provided and I don't see editors requesting sources (and I really don't think sources are needed for ALL edits, as some seem to). What I object to is that this strong phrasing, Any edit lacking a source may be removed, is rather indiscriminate. With that blunt phrasing, it explicitly authorizes persons to remove any edits for which no source is provided. And, while I have often removed dubious materials with only an edit comment, for unsourced material added by registered users, it is rather rude to simply remove good-faith edits with only an edit comment--by far more common in this case (at least in my experience), is either politely asking the editor for a source on the user talk page or else raising a question on the article's talk page (and sometimes moving the content to the talk page). The current phrasing appears only intended to provide blunt force instruments to remedy the worst aspects of unsourced contributions. older≠wiser 12:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It's meant to be a blunt tool - those ones are the hardest to find loopholes to! Also as noted above, there's nothing stopping anyone removing unsourced new information at present, this is just a direct restatement of what is current acceptable practice. Let me ask you a question, are there any edits where you are adding information where you'd consider it unreasonable to ask for a reference? Is it really rude to ask for references by way of an edit summary? Anyone seeing the comment on their watchlist knows immediately what the issue is, and how to rectify it. Do we really want to risk a weeklong discussion on the talk page and then debate whether or not at the end of it, that material should be removed, when all that's really needed is a good, honest reference.

As restated, the WP:Verifiability policy would be both a blunt tool and a straightforward one. One that firmly places the onus on editors, rather than requiring any work other than a simple revert from editors seeking to prevent unreferenced material being added and encouraging use of good sources, jguk 14:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it really rude to ask for references by way of an edit summary? For good faith additions by registered users (with more than a few edits), yes, I would think it rather rude to simply remove the addition with merely an edit comment. Individual edit comments can easily get missed -- not everyone monitors every edit to every article on their Watchlist -- only the most recent edit summary appears on Watchlists. [A]re there any edits where you are adding information where you'd consider it unreasonable to ask for a reference? This is an entirely different question -- of course references should be provided if requested. There are countless edits I make that I do not explicitly source because they are relative commonplaces (like so and so place is in such and such township). I don't think requiring explicit references for such uncontroversial information is particularly useful in every case -- but if someone questioned whether I might have made a mistake about something, then sure, I would dig around a bit to find a reference to substantiate the edit. But I'd probably be a little POed if someone came along and simply removed the detail without asking me about it, either on my talk page or the article talk page. I think what I'm getting at is that the bluntly worded, strong policy needs to be tempered with some acknowledgement of WP:CIVIL, WP:EQ, and WP:ASG, as well common sense. What I find missing from this version is any sense of discrimination regarding the quality or nature of the edits. older≠wiser 15:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Civility is covered by a separate policy. But I take your point that it is especially important to consider it when removing material. I have added a sentence to the proposed revision to refer to it, jguk 22:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's better now, thanks. I'm still a little unhappy with the "big stick" position taken here, but I guess it may be a necessary evil. I do my best to avoid vexacious topics, so I'm really not in good position to say what sort of weapons are needed. But as in RW politics, if you surrender too many liberties in the name of defending those liberties, you may have ended up with a bad bargain. older≠wiser 03:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's last amendments

I have reverted SlimVirgin's second amendments [2] as they reproduce much material in Wikipedia:Citing sources, and I think we should make reference to that page, but not get bogged down in how to cite sources. I'm open to re-wording my phrasing here, but I'm reluctant to do much other than direct the reader to Wikipedia:Citing sources. (Mind you, the citing sources page is too complicated for me to understand at the moment! Maybe I'll have to tackle that one next!) jguk 20:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the way you have it, Jguk, is it's incomplete and incorrect. "If the reference is a book, cite the title, author, ISBN and page number. If it is a journal, cite the title, author of the article, volume and issue number and date and page number." We don't do that in the text, and in the references section, we don't include page numbers and we do include the name of the journal/newspaper. Also, a policy page shouldn't refer people to a guideline without itself giving any guidance on the issue, if it's one that matters and this done. No point in telling people to cite sources without giving them at least one example of how to do so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this page should say nothing on how to cite sources, but instead just refer to the Wikipedia:Citing sources page, jguk 17:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

unimpeachable sources

I am repeating part of a comment I made on the actul policy talk page. I do have one specific comment about the policy — this is in Jguk's proposed version, but he adopted it from this version. I am referring to the statement that sources should be unimpeachable. I agree that the policy should convey to editors the importance of highly reputable sources. However, when it comes to contentious topics, some sources will not be "unimpeachable," indeed, the sources themselves may be objects of contention. I do not think such sources should be eliminated. Rather, in compliance with NPOV, we should make it clear what the source of contention is, and provide some context about the parties who contend over the un/impeachability of the source. The source's verifiability of course must be unimpeachable by which I mean that the provenance must be clear and accurate (i.e. verifiability means, if we say "this is the source," i.e. provide information to help people find the source (so they can read it for themselves), this information must be incontrovertably accurate. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I was uncomfortable transferring the word "unimpeachable", but unsure what to do with it. I think the whole clause can safely be removed [3], jguk 17:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth

I have removed the following addition to the first part of the restated policy. It was added by SlimVirgin: " The criterion for entry into Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". The reason is that I think the policy is clear that the entry is verifiability. Any statement as to what it is not is superfluous - it is not anything other than verifiability. I think it's important to try, as far as possible, to stress the positives (although I'm aware I'm just about to add a section on no original research:) ), jguk 22:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I always like the "Verifiability, not Truth" meme very much. It is very effective for ending talk page discussions that go nowhere because an editor tries to convince the others what is really true. I would like it back. Arbor 17:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's essential we make clear that truth, by itself, is entirely inadequate. Many editors fail to appreciate the distinction betwen "truth" and "verifiable", and take a suggestion that something is not verifiable, as an personal attack on their honesty. When challenging unverified claims, it has to be possible to say "I'm sure what you say is true, but it must still be verified to be used". --Rob 17:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important to describe something in terms of what it is, rather than what it is not. Whilst I don't disagree with "verifiability, not truth", the real point is that it is "verifiability, not anything else that you may care to mention that is not verifiability". Rob's last sentence strikes me as a good way to put the point by employing positive terms. Maybe adding a sentence along the lines of "When challenging unverified claims, you may consider taking the approach of writing "I'm sure what you say is true, but it must still be verified to be used", jguk 21:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Reputable sources

I think a line might be added which indicates that "reputability" is a factor of the claim being justified from it. That is, a major Creationist website is not a reputable source for claims about biological evolution, but it is a reputable source for information about the Creationist POV. Similarly a major crank website about the Apollo Moon hoax is not a reputable source for whether or not people landed on the moon, but is a reputable source for information about the hoax theory itself. --Fastfission 21:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you are getting at, though I think such a statement is more appropriate on Wikipedia:Reliable sources rather than Wikipedia:Verifiability. I have removed most of the digression on reputable sources, leaving the reader to go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, where the matter can be more fully explored, jguk 11:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

'Rare occasions'

We do have one general rule though: personal websites, blogs, and other self-published material, are not acceptable as secondary sources (that is, sources about third parties or subjects other than the author), except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website.

• I edit in an area where these rare occasions are not very rare, and the reputed sources are not always reliable. So I would like to know whether personal websites, blogs, and other self-published material can also include usenet and message board posts - also assuming that the person posting it is sufficiently important and reliable, and that the editor is good enough to make a judgement about it. Tintin Talk 22:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This is really an issue about what constitutes a reputable source, and should be discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources rather than on the Verifiability page. I've therefore removed that guidance from this page - but left a clear link to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page, jguk 11:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, though

Editors adding new information into an article should cite a reputable source for that information, otherwise it may be summarily removed by any editor. Do we really want to summarily remove 95% of Wikipedia? This isn't sensible. Surely, surely, SURELY this should be reduced to something like "Suspect information without a reputable source may be summarily removed to the talk page by any editor." I challenge you: Visit Random Page 10 times. I'll be generous, I'll say each paragraph is "one piece of information". Now tell me how many paragraphs you have that contain at least one cite, and how many contain no cites. Then how many articles had no paragraphs without cites. This just isn't feasible. Stevage 23:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the discussion has been that this will be easier to aply to new edits, at least for the interim. I've starting doing it when I see new edits that put in unsourced material. I just revert or move the new material to the talk page with a note that sources are required. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 23:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, this is a shift to Wikipedia practice, and I'm not sure it's desireable. Unless the addition is controversial or very suspect, a better way is to leave the information on the page AND request a source on the Talk page. If no source is forthcoming after a period of time, and you can't easily verify the info yourself via Google, only then should it be removed. We should, of course, encourage all edits to be sourced, but to make sources mandatory significantly increases the overhead of editing Wikipedia, and we want to allow people to participate as easily as possible. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and as such, it's quite acceptable to add the info, and then source it later. — Matt Crypto 10:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a policy change

I agree with the general thrust of this (not all details), but this isn't a redraft for existing policy, its a substantially new policy. It's also badly stated in terms of what's non-negotiable (verifiability is definately non-negotiable, but some of what said here is certainly up for debate). A large, well publicized poll (after substantial discussion), reaching a strong consensus, would be required to endorse this. --Rob 21:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The intention is to restate policy, but in a much clearer way than at present. You don't say where you think that objective isn't being met - it would be useful if you could explain, as either something's missing from the redraft or there's a misunderstanding about what current policy is - whichever way it is, I'd like to see it resolved.

I've changed the term "non-negotiable" to say instead that the policy has "mandatory application". That's definitely true, whilst also allowing for some discussion over the exact wording of what is in the policy box (although the general principle that ideally everything on WP should be sourced certainly is non-negotiable).

Finally, WP works by consensus, and this is intended to be a restatement of policy, not something fundamentally different (as noted above, if you think this objective isn't being met, please say why). Once there has been time to take on board views and comments offered, and given that this page has been publicised on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, IRC, the mailing list and the Village Pump, if it has consensus it will be moved to the main page - remember, polls are evil: However, there is, of course, no rush - all constructive comments are most welcome, jguk 22:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Government sources are not 3rd party, but are sometimes appropriate

Regarding: "If an article topic has no third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic."

Ideally, of course, third party sources should always be used. But in some cases, a government is the only source of *certain* information about some part of itself. One has has to use common sense sometimes, if one wishes to beleive what's said. Some government statistic/census beareaus are highly reliable, while others are not, and we can't make the blanket staements. Also, in many case 3rd party sources are readily available, but seem rather redundant. 38th Canadian parliament could easily cite 3rd party (non-government) sources, but doesn't, as to do so would be utterly redundant. The single link from parliament's web site, is sufficient to verify the information, and is probably a better source then a private newspaper article. --Rob 21:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

A fair point. The important thing is that the source is reputable - ie it can be relied on to be accurate about the bit of information it is referencing. The comments on "third-parties" is a slight over-exaggeration, jguk 22:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This also concerns me, as it has the potential to take this to an unhelpful extreme. There are plenty of sources, particularly online, where getting the information from the horses mouth is likely to be the best source - and may be the only source. As an example, if we write an article on a school, and we cite the a school history page on their website for a history section, is this really likely to be considered an unreliable source because it's not third-party? Such an attitude would be, IMHO, most unhelpful, and I'd like to either see some sort of safeguard against this or for this to go to a vote so it can be struck down. Ambi 12:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Missing details

Some details in the original meaning have vanished.

• Detailed citations are preferred. Editors are encouraged to provide as little or as much detail as they can, with other editors encouraged to add details (just as with other Wikipedia material).
• It is desirable to identify which statement uses which source. Extreme examples: Killian documents and Race and intelligence (References).

(SEWilco 03:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

Those are good points, but they really belong in Wikipedia:Citing sources not on Wikipedia:Verifiability. I haven't checked WP:CITE, but if they are not there, I'd certainly support adding them, jguk 22:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Any further comments before this rewrite goes live?

Are there any further comments before this rewrite goes live? I don't want to rush things, I just want to be clear as to whether there are any outstanding points, and if so, what they are, jguk 11:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

See my concern above. Unless that is allayed, I would have great concerns about this going anywhere without a full vote. Ambi 12:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Hasn't the text you were concerned about above now been removed, or am I missing something? Also, do we really need a full vote on a rewrite if there is no real dissent (which is my intention before allowing this to go live)? If people have an issue with things, let them say now and we'll discuss it, rather than stay silent and vote a straight "oppose" with no commentary later, jguk 12:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, it might have been - if so, I apologise. The one lingering thing that concerns me about this is that it leaves no room for common sense - removing something when there's no reason to suggest that it's incorrect, simply because no one has even tried to do a cursory Google search, is not helpful. Ambi 12:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

All Wikipedia policies have to be applied using common sense:) Also, this policy doesn't stand in isolation, the policies on behaviour are still there to deal with problem cases. In the case you say, common sense would suggest (assuming the information is not potentially damaging or libellous) that a "dubious" tag be added, or for the info to be moved to the talk page, to allow people to try to look for information. Mind you, if the information is newly added, I think, if it is unsourced, it is perfectly acceptable to remove it immediately together with a polite request not to re-insert it without also providing a reputable source, jguk 12:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I like this version definitely better than the present wikipedia:verifiability, primarily because it's shorter, clearer, less depending on complicated hermeneutics. Nonetheless, might I suggest the following:

Why not provide:

• {{details|wikipedia:citing sources}} immediately under the "Cite sources" section title, and,
• {{details|wikipedia:reliable sources}} immediately under the "Reputable sources" section title?

IMHO this would show better how these guideline and policy pages are connected. --Francis Schonken 12:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have amended the project page to take account of your suggestion, jguk 12:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe too picky, but could the word onus be replaced by burden/task/work or something like that. I speak english, even legal english and I had to think a few seconds on the meaning. I can imagine that some non native speakers wouldn't understand it. Garion1000 (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Obligation, good change. Garion1000 (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

One comment I have is about the links to guidelines on biographical articles. The guideline on biographies of living persons is still a proposal. There are also guidelines on fiction, music and numbers, and proposed guidelines for corporations and websites. If the policy is going to link to the guidelines on biographies (criteria for inclusion of biographies and auto-biography), I think it should also link to other current guidelines. If this policy links to proposed guidelines, it should note that they are proposed guidelines, and while they may be of interest to individuals making decisions about notability, they currently have no force in wikipedia. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 15:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Aren't those notability discussions though, rather than Verifiability discussions? The comments on Biographies of living persons, if it ever goes live, will stress that everything should be verified to death - it's not about whether we should have a biography in the first place - that's why it's on here and the others aren't. Please correct me if I've gotten something wrong here, jguk 17:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

First, this is not a show stopper for me. I'm content to see the proposal go live as is. However, it currently points to [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)]] (redirected from [[Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies]]), but not to any other notability guidelines. I suggest it would be better to point to [[Wikipedia:Notability]] for questions of notability, and drop [[Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies]]. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 19:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this going live without a full vote. It's a change in core policy, with signficant impact, as it declares a substantial number of articles to be unacceptable topics, due ot a lack of 3rd party sources. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad change in policy, but it is a change in policy. Lessor changes in policy have goten a full formal vote, and so should this. --Rob 16:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The "change" you state is already part of WP:V, although I accept some choose to ignore it (and often end up on AfD for their troubles:) ).

If anyone has objections to the proposed rewrite or suggestions for improvements, they really should say so here and now. I'm very much in favour of looking for consensus. The problems with votes are manifold: (1) people might object because they don't like one clause or they'd really like to see one new sentence added - that's silly - we can work round those points in the same way as we've been doing; (2) people might object because they don't like WP's Verifiability policy, full stop; (3) it gives equal (and once we include sockpuppets, unequal) weight to WPians who have never made any substantial edits or contributions to WP and are unfamiliar with our processes; (4) m:Votes are evil;). The proposed rewrite has been publicised twice now on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, the mailing list and the village pump. It has been added to RfC and it has been publicised on IRC for many days now too. Anyone who wishes to express a view and suggested improvements is encouraged to do so, and the proposal has changed substantially [4] as a result of those views. If you think it needs fuller publicity - then please publicise it further, though I'm not aware of having missed any further way to publicise it. Also, there's no hurry to adopt it - constructive discussion is good. But I do believe that it is fair to ask those who disagree with aspects of it to say so and allow the draft to change, if necessary, to accommodate those views rather than come in at the thirteenth hour and vote a simple "oppose" - indeed that approach would be very disrespectful to those seeking to improve our statement of our Wikipedia policy, jguk 17:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, one version has it, another doesn't, or worded in meaningful different manner. People are constantly changing WP:V and other policy documents, and I've lost track of what's old and what's new. As said previously, official sources from government entitities are often accepted as authoritative sources, and accepted, though not 3rd party. I find it absurd we're constantly changing core policy. It seems policy is now directed at whoever edits the policy document, not by broad consensus. --Rob 17:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The bit about 3rd parties has been removed, hasn't it? (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) As the discussion on what is or isn't a reliable source should be on Wikipedia:Reliable sources not Wikipedia:Verifiability, I removed that bit and instead directed the reader to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. On your final point, that is why this rewrite is progressing slowly and with wide publicity, so that it can proceed with consensus, jguk 17:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

In the current temp version there is the text "If an article topic has no third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic". Now, we have lots of government entitties where the only sources cited is the government itself. It's true this version of the main page says essentialy the same thing. When I claimed this temp version made a change, I was going on memory, comparing it to the older main version. There have been one hundred revisions of WP:V since beginning of December. I can't possibly carefully read them all. I doubt anybody can. This temp version is also changing to much *if* you want to copy it over now. I submit, we should do the following: freeze the main version, freeze the temp version for at least 5-days before its copied over; and vote on whether to overwrite the main with the temp. Either way, freeze the main version after. Wikipedia should have about two or three core policy pages which rarely changes (by rarely I mean less then once a month). Anyways, I'm quite sorry, if I've mixed up my facts above, or missed something. I think people who follow this all closely, don't realize the confusion that exists. --Rob 18:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Before new policy goes live, a straw poll may be helpful to determine consensus. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it

What happens when this doctrine goes live? Looks the same to me. Lotsofissues 23:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, but...

It is too damn hard to cite resources... add a way in Mediawiki to cite sources MUCH easier and then, and only then, will I support this.. Hell, a text box right below "edit summary" that asks you where you got the information... perhaps a dropdown box with a bit of AJAX/DHTML to let you easier cite things... Also, there needs to be an implimentation guideline written up before this goes live... because I don't know if I should be ripping up every article on the place or not... --Nick Catalano (Talk) 18:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is it so hard to add sources? You shouldn't be adding information into Wikipedia unless you are looking at a good source. You are not supposed to be relying on your memory. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 19:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The only "hard" part of adding sources is the trivial matter of formatting so it looks "proper". Simple solution: don't worry about formatting. Add all the relevant details of the source, in whatever format is convenient/practical for you. Let those obsessed with formatting worry about formatting. I agree that the software could be designed much better, but it's not. What counts is whether people can find where you got your stuff. If you know your sources, citing them should be easy. If you don't know your sources, you're not ready to make an edit. Also, I find half the time one adds stuff, it's based on references already cited, and I don't think it's necessary (as some do), to put a redundant footnote next to every sentence, as long as the references are cited in the article. --Rob 20:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

True enough. But if there are no existing references listed for the article, then you really do need to provide sources for what you add. I would also note that if are adding references reguarlarly, you quickly learn how to enter references in pretty good form. And there is now a book reference citation generator available which produces plain Wiki text that you can paste into an aticle. See [5]. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 20:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

We have a little different experience then. I do cite references regularly, and what I've learned is there's a wild west, and lack of standards. And each person "knows" their approach is best, and "the" approach. That's why, I've adopted the approach of citing as best I can, and not yet worrying about form. p.s. Is there one of those generators for a magazine or newspaper article? --Rob 21:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure there is a generator for Newspapers, etc: Easybib.com --Nick Catalano (Talk) 21:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, lets do an example of how many cool ways an anonymous editor who has no experience with Wikipedia but has something useful could cite:

Example Sources

• james book ISBN 19239102 Author: Cool Guy 102390
• Author: Goodguy Book: Biography of Cool Guy
• Interview with Cool Guy, New York Times, January 12, 2005
• interview with Cool Guy, NY Times, 2005/1/12
• The source of this entry is http://www.coolguywebsite.com/biographyexample.htm

Sorry... no... I shouldn't have to look up a style guide every time I want to make a change... I should be able to simply add the URL or Citation information below my entry and it should show up under the sources... Or on a seperate page that gives the sources... it isn't that difficult to impliment and makes it acceptable... Also, I still don't have anyone telling me how this is going to be implimented with current articles... If it means I can blank every article I find on Wikipedia well hot damn lets do it! In all seriousness, lets get our heads out of our asses and think over some of the difficulties of implimenting a major change that will overhaul the entire editing experience here at Wikipedia --Nick Catalano (Talk) 21:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The current WP:Verifiability shows that citations with more detail are preferred, so you should provide as much as you know. The material is more likely to be challenged if there is not enough detail for finding the source (including if the URL no longer works and nobody can find what you were trying to link to). As with everything in Wikipedia, it is expected that others will improve the citations (except for me because the ArbComm doesn't follow policies such as this). (SEWilco 04:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

Actually a new way to automatically build reference lists from inline citations was just added to MediaWiki a couple weeks ago. Take a look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php. Kaldari 22:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This policy change could lead to massive disruption of Wikipedia

Specifically point 3:
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source is on editors wishing to include information, not on those seeking to remove it.
I see this point of policy being used to delete any information that POV-pushers don't agree with, even if it's been in an article for years. If we must have this sentence (which seems mostly redundant with the previous one), it should clarify that this policy is not retroactive, i.e. it only applies to new material. Otherwise someone could stroll over to an article like Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses and just blank the entire article and the blanked version would have to stand (since there are no references). Wikipedia is full of good articles with no references. This is due to the fact that Wikipedia did not originally emphasize the creation of references, nor provide an easy way to create them until quite recently. Do we really want all those articles blanked? If you consider individual article sections, virtually every article in Wikipedia is vulnerable. I certainly applaud encouraging editors to add references to articles, especially when adding new material, but can't we do it in a way that will be less disruptive? Kaldari 23:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I lied, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses has 2 inline citations. It was just a random example though. I'm sure there are plenty of controversial articles which have few or no references. How about Foreign relations of Israel (1 citation) or Vietnam War (only 4 citations in an 85K article)? None of those articles have a references section. Even many older featured articles would not survive this policy change. Kaldari 23:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the policy (old or proposed) means every sentence needs it's own inline citation. It means collectively the cited sources must back up all that's in the article. If none of the sources mentioned in the article, back up a claim, and I challenge it, I may remove it. That's good. If I link to imdb in an actor's bio under "External links", I needn't cite every acting job he's had with an inline citation. The articles you mention are good examples of controversial topics, where removal of material quickly results in it's re-addition with better sources. Frequently articles go unattended/unfixed until somebody "shakes things up" with a large textual removal. Tempers may flare, but the problems are generally fixed. I do think we must put the onus on the adder of the info, as it's often impossible for the "challenger" to ever "prove" something is false. For instance, how do you "prove" somebody wasn't suspected in the Kennedy assasination? You can't. However, I do agree with you, that we should be softer on older established material. Keeping a year-old paragraph one more day, will do little extra harm, but keeping a new unsourced claim just one day, could do great harm, as we spread new rumors/hoaxes that way. --Rob 23:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The way this proposal is worded makes me fear neo-nazis blazing through and systematically deleting every unsourced paragraph about the holocaust. Or a Christian fundamentalist deleting every unsourced paragraph about evolution and then the evolutionists fighting back by deleting every unsourced paragraph about Jesus (and there are certainly a few). Of course the end result for Wikipedia may be positive, but in the short run it will be armegeddon. There needs to be a certain allowance or grace period for older material IMO. Kaldari 04:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I assert that's already been attempted continuously (almost) since our founding. That's why every important word on the holocaust is well sourced (prove me wrong). Same deal with other extremely controversial topics. It's more likely the neo-Nazis, and other hate groups, are some of the ones who already spread maliscous rumors, by making allegations against people they hate, without proper sources. If we make those wishing to remove the statements prove them false, the statements will be left in for long enough to acheive their ends. In your Jesus example, I disagree. We don't (shouldn't) have unsourced claims of Jesus. We do state what *others* claim to be true about his life, and hopefully show alternate views as well. If we're currently stating as fact (not as an attributed opinion) something about the life of Jesus, then I do hope its removed promptly, and I don't much care who does it. Basically, I'm saying people "ready for a fight" have always done what you fear, which is mass removal of unsourced stuff they don't agree with. But, many non-controversial articles are left unsourced/unreliable, because somebody sees unsourced material, doubts it, but isn't "ready for a fight". We want to tell that person, acting in good faith, that they should go ahead, and remove the content. The person acting in bad faith, has already acted, and won't be reading this policy document. --Rob 07:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I share this concern. Also, I would like to see a clear summary of what this changes about policy. I don't want to have to do my own point-by-point comparison. Offhand, this seems to go farther in a direction about which I have already raised concerns. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. It would be nice to have an item-by-item explanation of the changes rather than just "Do you like this document?". (SEWilco 04:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC))

At the very least can we change the following statement: "If the article has many unsourced statements that have been there a long time, you may request sources on the talk page before removing them" to: "If the article has many unsourced statements that have been there a long time, you should request sources on the talk page before removing them" as this has always been standard practice and seems necessary to comply with Civility and Assume Good Faith. Kaldari 14:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is more likely that the new page would be used as a justification to go on a slash-and-burn campaign against genre-fiction-related entries. Consider (to pick a random example) the Chewbacca article. No references whatsoever. Most entries regarding fan culture, be it anime or Rugrats, are in a similar state. As current discussion over at WP:VPP suggests, there are a few folks who would love to delete all such entries. The explicit wording of item 3 would give them the justification (and possibly the motivation) to do so. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 16:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Those aren't totally unsourced, because the widely known published works of fiction are primary sources, which may be used (but shouldn't be used alone, and explicit citations aught to occur). However, if somebody removes material, and its added back with better sources, more explicit sources, that would be good. I dislike reading such fiction articles, and not being able to whether something is nonsense vandalism, or nonsense fiction. Cleanup would be good, even if it's induced by temporary content removal. --Rob 17:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And sometimes the only way to get the attention of someone who can supply sources is to remove the material. Most requests to cite sources are simply ignored, or reverted without bothering to try to supply sources. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 17:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Dubious sources

Dubious sources are sources that are reliable persuant to our policy, but which must be named when used as a sole-source of fact (compare -> "Something is true (source: New York Times)" vs. "The New York Gossip Magazine said something is true. (source: New York Gossip Magazine)." This section of the policy is removed from the current draft. I must request it be returned. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate citations

It is misleading to assert that reputable sources are a sure sign of good editorial scholarship. Bad citations can point to reputable sources and while remaining inappropriate in a number of ways. These include:

1. Misrepresenting the facts of a source.
2. Misrepresenting the opinions of an author.
3. Citing a tangentially related fact and claiming it has direct relevance to the article.
4. Burdening a primary (factual) source with interpretive statements.
5. Naming one source in the text while citing a different source in the associated footnote.

Durova 21:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)