Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Proposal

Reasoning

I hope this inspires some thought on the issue of where the system is really breaking down. I think that the problems with VfD are a symptom, not the cause. =) Xaa 21:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Citations... Absolutely Brilliant

Even if this isn't part of the final deletion proposal, the essence of this is what I believe will make Wikipedia shine: not only a comprehensive summary of the subject, but also an extensive set of citations to, not just web sites, but peer-reviewed journals and scholarly articles that could serve as the basis for some researcher's quest for primary sources a lot easier.

Unfortunantely, it's effect on VfD is limited at most and should be combined with other methods if possible. The general idea of making citations more important, is, in my humble opinion, a very good idea. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 01:29, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Shifting the problem?

I can see a lot of thought went into this proposal, but I am concerned that we are just shifting the burden to the citation system. What mechanism do we use for validating citations? What happens if a citation is declared invalid? If someone makes a change without a valid citation, is their whole change reversed? What if someone else has changed part of the change already?

Just some things to think about...

--Daedalus-Prime 22:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• To answer each question one at a time:
  • What mechanism do we use for validating citations? - The mechanism laid out in the suggestion. Valid citations are those which are valid from a scholarly point of view. A blog, for example, is not valid, no matter who writes it. Major newspapers and major magazines would be valid (though, obviously, the "Weekly World News" does not count, despite it's circulation).
    • The suggestion addresses the criteria for a valid citation, but does not define the mechanism or procedure for reviewing citations and deleting "invalid" citations. As 204.147.187.240 points out below, without a controlled way to review citations we could end up with a worse problem than we have now. Basically, you need to have the same sort of VfD process for citations that we have now for articles. But, since each article has potentially many citations, the problem is just multiplied!!! --Daedalus-Prime 16:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What happens if a citation is declared invalid? - If the article is based on one single citation and it is invalid, then the article would be VfD'ed. If the problem is merely with a single assertation (like "Abraham Lincoln died in 1869 from influenza"), then that assertation would be deleted from the article.
  • If someone makes a change without a valid citation, is their whole change reversed? - Yes. That's entirely the point - if it doesn't cite, it doesn't stay. Do we REALLY want people putting in information into Wikipedia that they can't cite and might have just made up off the top of their head? If so, then what's the point of the 'no original research' policy? =)
  • What if someone else has changed part of the change already? Obviously, that would be handled the same way it is now - on a case-by-case basis. Did the change put in a cite for the information, or did it just tidy it up for spelling and grammar? If it's just been tidied up and it still doesn't cite, then it doesn't stay.

Xaa 05:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

There is a problem: Look at the changes recently made to Elizabeth Morgan. All of the supporting material was ripped out. Only the text and the link to EM's bussines-promoting web site remain. Only recently were even her credentials added back in.

The supporting material were links, many to very reliable sources, claiming that they were "too stalkerish". They are all gone now. See

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Morgan&oldid=20457111

User:Xaa does not appear to make the changes, but look what he says about the process:

Feedback: The article is good as it stands, your most recent edits
that I have  looked at aren't really necessary. This article is done -
time to move on to another one. =) Xaa 04:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

That means, according to Xaa's proposal, that the article will be vfd'ed and disappear completely. Think about it: By annialiatig the supporting material via some "editing process" and then vfd'ing a page via this policy, Xaa become the new J. Edgar Hoover of all of Wikipedia, except those pages dealing with fiction and entertainment.

Note that if this policy is adopted (even in hypocrisy), but that the promulgator of the policy has no role in the ENFORCEMENT of the policy, then you might still be OK. That is why the U.S. Gov't has separate LEGISLATIVE and EXECUTIVE branches. You also need to not have the authors of the policy not "follow it along" by changing roles from policy-makers and policy-enforcers. Otherwise, hypocrisy MAY be problem. Just THINK, and figure it out for yourself.

Note: It is EASY to delete this message because it is unsigned. If it is ACTUALLY deleted, it is clear sign that the person who does so does not wish the reader to THINK. Such a need to "control the discussion" is a serious sign is WEAKNESS. If the argument is without merit, let the reader decided that. In other words, do not worry about who the speaker was: pay attention to the argument, and judge for yourself. --(Above unsigned comment by banned user Amorrow using a proxy)

---

Mister Morrow, you really need to wake up.

1. I do not run Wikipedia, nor do I want to.
2. So far, I have nominated exactly one article you wrote for VfD. It was the article on Reproduction you wrote, and it was unanimously agreed to be rambling, POV and completely unencyclopedic with zero citations. On the VfD page, even you admitted the article stank.
3. So far, I have flagged one of your articles as being a copyright violation - and that is cited both as to where the text appears on the internet, and you even admit yourself in the article's text that you typed parts of the article from a copyrighted work.
4. Now, somehow, I have become "The Enemy," and you're all hot and bothered over the Elizabeth Morgan article and how I'm blocking you from telling the world the truth. For your information, Mister Morrow, I was not being sarcastic when I said you were done. When I wrote "This article is done", that's because You WERE done. The article was GOOD, you had proper citations for everything, you did not need the extra crap you were trying to stick in. THAT'S WHY I DID NOT EDIT IT. I LIKED IT. It was a GOOD article. As far as I was concerned, you were DONE. Contrary to your assertations on your webpage, I didn't insert a =) to be sarcastic. Look at the time-date stamps. That was my first comment to you. I actually meant it - the article was good, you were done.

But, unfortunately, that answer did not meet your satisfaction. So, you began to argue on this page, then rant, then suddenly you began rambling on and on and on about civil-war armies and blood and sex and how you wanted to sniff Morgan's crotch and have sex with her daughter. And did you stop there when people asked you to stop? No, you kept right on going, rambling on and on about how Wikipedia was a huge consipiracy against you, how the opera Turandot had relevance to the Morgan article and needed to be included in the article amoung it's citations - and all of this in between inserting various comments about how you'd had psychotherapy and how your own child had been taken from you, so this had become your personal crusade. Then, when you get banned from here twice, you post a hateful page on your website that lambastes me as being the leader of some grand conspiracy against you here on Wikipedia, and begin filling my e-mail box with even more of this odd, eerie and flatly frightening prose, in e-mail after e-mail written from both your home and from work. Some of them, to me, even look like death threats.

Mister Morrow, I say this with all possible respect and without any intent to offend: Have you ever considered that, looking back on all the scary, creepy comments you wrote about Elizabeth Morgan, a woman you don't even know, that this kind of behavior is having the opposite effect to what you are trying to accomplish? Think about it - I am an occasional contributor to Wikipedia who is considered so trivial that my votes on VfD have been publicly declared invalid TWICE because of the short time I have been posting here. This proposal, which you have decried on your website as my secret attempt to become a "cop" for Wikipedia, has drawn a whopping TWO comments, neither of which endorse this suggestion. And yet you're trying to present me as actually being some kind of grand conspiratorial leader of Wikipedia on your website?

Mister Morrow, I say this with all honesty: Please wake up. Your behavior is totally out of line and is actually hindering what you are trying to accomplish.

I realize that nearly all of what I have said above will fly completely over your head. And I realize that you have fixated on me as being the source of all your problems. So, I am going to make your life easier, because unlike you, I *don't* enjoy fighting. I am going to not only withdraw this suggestion, I am going to cease participating in Wikipedia.

And yes, I mean it. It is VERY clear to me that those in charge of Wikipedia can't keep you out despite banning you twice, and it's equally clear that so long as I participate here, you are going to continue to follow me around with various proxies and attack every post I make as being a post by your personal enemy. Well, I've a news-flash for you, Mister Morrow - I don't want to fight you. I never did. The war is over - YOU WON. I am withdrawing from Wikipedia. DO WHAT YOU WANT with it.

You want to edit the Elizabeth Morgan article to put in your citations? Go ahead. It's obvious nobody can stop you, you can't be banned from here. If you can edit this page, you can edit that one - so go ahead. DO WHAT YOU WANT with that page. You love to say "check the edit history." I invite you to do the same, Mister Morrow - I never changed any of your edits to that article. I was never your enemy, Mister Morrow. My first comment you to regarding the Morgan article was that of approval, not of reproach.

Xaa 17:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)