Wikipedia talk:No reliable sources, no verifiability, no article

[Untitled]

I'm glad to see you have some reliable sources for this essay ;)...but seriously folks, i'm all for this. Articles should have a foundation of at least one reliable source to start with. It would really be a swoon to wikipedia to get more backing to its content, especially as it continues to grow so quickly. JoeSmack ^Talk 22:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles. --Balloonguy 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"An article completely lacking of reliable sources is likely a Crock-pot of original research" -- this is simply not true; if it were, we would have been deleting unsourced material systematically from the beginning. But on the contrary, articles completely lacking reliable sources (which aren't already speedy deleted under current rules) are unlikely to be original research -- the vast majority of them are perfectly accurate and verifiable, which is why simply deleting them systematically would be damaging. Many of them simply contain facts so fundamental that citing them in any other context but Wikipedia would make no sense. In general, this essay incorrectly conflates unverifiability with being unsourced. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• This hasn't been my experience - too many unsourced articles I see have a tendency to be filled with people adding their own personal knowledge of a topic rather than consulting sources to provide verifiability. This practice is especially common in media-related articles, and especially, especially common in plot synopses (and articles which consist of little more than a plot synopsis.) - Chardish 06:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happened to "there is no deadline"? Most stubs are unreferenced, yet they provide a starting point to someone who wishes to build a good article out of it. If we went around deleting all stubs (some whereI heard 500,000 of them) it would not improve the encyclopedia, bite the newcomers, take up a lot of time, and make it harder for people to expand on stubs.--Rayc 06:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should have added something to the essay about stubs. I don't see stubs as being actual articles - I see them as being placeholders. I don't think that any stub carries with it the weight of perceived or assumed factual authority, whereas ideally a complete article should. - Chardish 06:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with those points; if this essay were to be taken as a policy, it would cause a lot of tension and unnecessary work. Immediatism is very controversial, and by this logic, we'd be lacking on a lot of topics, I'm sure. Heck, even Jimbo Wales' first edit on Thomas Edison had no reliable sources (WP:UuU). — Deckiller 06:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I see this tendency in AfD quite a bit: 1) Bad article gets nominated for AfD. 2) Consensus is "keep and cleanup." 3) No one cleans it up. 4) Repeat ad infinitum. The end result is that the bad article stays, and the amount of unverified information on Wikipedia remains high. - Chardish 06:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

So...

Which of our administrators has the guts to go and delete the ~300,000 articles that don't provide any sources? – Qxz 14:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• 300000/365=821 a day/1,105 admins=less than 3/4 of a page per sysop per day. Even with a hundred thousand new unsourced articles in that year, it comes down to under one per sysop per day. (I'll be glad to pick up some of the slack :)Deltabeignet 04:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Totally, all absurd

Take your Britannica, in book, if you have. I have 1993 edition. Do all articles cite their sources or references? No, they don't. So, why are you asking that with such crudeness for Wikipedia? Are you truly going to delete ALL 300,000 articles having no references provided? If you will, you'll lose also me, one who has so far produced at least 1,000 valuable articles: admittingly, not always providing source, sometimes because I forgot, sometimes because I knew the matter by myself and was too lazy to add the books I drew it, other times 'cause I translated from other Wikipedias. I think that there's a level under which we should admit that references can miss: I agree a good article should cite it, but there's no reason why we should deleted useful stuff and ruin the volunteer work of so many people who didn't cite their sources for reasons like mine, or others. Bye. (PS: I think the ones who wrote this article were not so much into the true spirit of Wikipedia, despite what they think... at least, in what I so far seemed it was that spirit). --Attilios 14:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we have to be realists here, and think of the negative consequences. I think this essay is more of a rant, because a lot of people are tired of seeing OR in articles. — Deckiller 15:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Britannica has A)paper limitations, which we don't have, and B)nothing to prove, which we do have. Of course there will be collateral damage, but this is the kind of problem that can only be solved by action now rather than later. Deltabeignet 04:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The only way a encyclopedia can be reliable as a legitimate resource is with the assurance to the reader that all information has been thoroughly fact-checked and is reliable. Britannica (or any other well-known encyclopedia) has the advantage of reputation and expert writers. We have two disadvantages: public distrust of the wiki concept, and a large number of editors who are not experts and may not even know what they're talking about. Because of the second problem, we need to hold every editor to the same standard - that they state the source of the knowledge they contribute to the project. Eventually the first problem will solve itself as the public realizes that verifiability has made Wikipedia trustworthy. - Chardish 06:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Expert time is valuable

I disagree with this idea. Providing sources and corrections is what experts can do, but they may have little time/interest to write whole articles. In my opinion, it is better to have possibly wrong (and marked as such) unsourced article, which will tick off some expert so much that s/he will correct it (but s/he would never write it in the first place). Maybe this is just an another version of old deletionist/inclusionist debate. Also, I think that the quote is taken out of context - I believe Jimbo Wales was referring to the unsourced personal accusations, that may be damaging. 130.119.248.12 17:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• The idea of experts being goaded into writing better articles is nice, but, especially in light of the huge volume of unsourced articles, unrealistic. Deltabeignet 05:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to complain or something, but if you're right, why is there no maintenance project for this yet? 86.49.63.162 13:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Who says that they have to be a whole articles? I'm okay with a stub as long as the content that's there is sourced.--Rmky87 23:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, what I often miss in Wikipedia is some sort of expert noticeboards. The experts for some topic could register there, and then could be asked/contacted for advice about certain articles. Wikiproject pages do this, in part, but there is not an active wikiproject for every field. 141.202.248.12 17:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Well I do agree this more of a rant but a justified one. Special:Random is testament to this. So what if we could implement a time period for keep voters to provide sources. For all AFD nominations that question the information verifiability and reliability (not notability of the subject, don't get confused) the admin should give the "keep" voters 48 hours (let's say) to provide sources and verify the information. If not the article should be deleted. How does this fly with others? Personally I only see a benefit from such a proposal, a lot of 'crappy' articles who weren't going to be improved any time soon are going to be improved once they are on afd by the people who care about the subject to scream (in capitals) "STRONG KEEP". — Tutmosis 17:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

New policies should be proposed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). In this case, there is another very similar proposal at WIkipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles. CMummert · talk 01:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

It is a lot easier to delete the articles than look up sources. There is a lot of confusion about what is a reliable source. If you are writing a plot synopsis of the simpsons, a simpsons episode is a reliable source. If you are writing about crackpot theories, the writings of crackpots (or george Norry's radio show) are reliable sources. A lot of articles are marked as unsourced because some editors have the idea that anything not written in a peer reviewed academic journal is not a reliable source--this might be true for academic subjects, but not for every subject! It would be nice is people took five minutes to see if sources are easily available before they start deleting someone's hard work. Not everybody in the world has acsess to a good library! Puddytang 17:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That's true that not every subject has sources, but what your saying is original research. If someone wants to put in hard work into an article they can also state from where they getting their information, if its their personal knowledge then that 'hard work' is not welcome. We should not sacrifice professionalism and reliability of this encyclopedia over personal feelings, people come here to learn and its wrong to provide information that has not be confirmed by anyone other than the author, and had no time to be disputed by other researches. Allowing this leaves a wide open door for misrepresentation. Yes plot summaries are an exception but if you want to make an article on Pegasus-Class Assault Landing Craft you need sources with no exceptions. — Tutmosis 17:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

My $0.02

Although I understand the importance of reliable sources for verifiability, I think this essay goes much too far. Aggressive deletion of an article just because it doesn't initially have any sources is a good way to waste a lot of valuable content. "Keep and improve" is not an excuse for shoddy work - it's a genuinely beneficial procedure. Obviously, unsourced statements that are libellous or patently untrue should be deleted straight away; but a lack of sources, in a brand-new article, is not a reason to delete it. Take Wakeham Report for instance. I created this nearly a year ago, without citing any sources (as I was new to Wikipedia at the time). It sat there for a year. Last month I went back to it and added sources. If it had been deleted in that time, not only would my work have been wasted, but Wikipedia would have lost a valuable and accurate article. Or United Arab Emirates. A major article on a country - but it has no sources at present. So are you planning to delete it all and start again? Yes, sourcing is important - but it shouldn't take precedence over common sense. Walton monarchist89 17:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully concur. The onus should be on the person who objects to an article to show that there are no verifiable sources that could possibly be used and deletion should only happen once they have done so. CalJW 03:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

While a policy based on this essay would obviously have to be applied with a degree of caution, I have always argued that the burden of responsibility is on the contributor to source information, or else to forgo the right to add it. Removal of text stays in the history, and deleted pages can always be recovered. Deltabeignet 03:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I also concur that it goes way too far. Whoever wrote it is way out of touch with editing reality. --DavidHOzAu 11:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

While I don't entirely agree with the above comments in this section, I am concerned about the extreme language in this essay. Wikipedia already has too many people choosing to solve problems by shooting first & asking questions later. I'd suggest that a better way to solve the problem this essay is directed at -- too many articles lacking verifiable sources -- is to use a carrot & stick tactic:

• The carrot is to contact the person who added the unverifiable information, & ask for sources in a diplomatic manner. Yes, this requires time, but (speaking for myself) a gentle request may be nudge needed to complete a task the editor knows needs to be done. If nothing else, try adding the {{fact}} tag first and see what happens.
• The stick comes when one has tried to encourage the contributor to supply sources -- or said person cannot be found. (As one study has shown, most content to Wikipedia is added by people who make a few edits then leave.) At that point, I would endorse submitting the article to AfD to see what happens. If the consensus is to "keep and cleanup", & after a reasonable time (say 90 to 180 day, or 3 to 6 months) no one has made any significant edits to it, list it again -- & point out that & send it back to AfD. It should be obvious by this point that the topic is not significantly important to anyone to work on, and that it is unlikely to receive the work it needs in the foreseeable future. -- llywrch 00:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo is God?

You make some nice points but lose me with the whole "Jimbo is God" thing. Merely citing Jimbo does not get me aboard your bandwagon. ask123 (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)