User talk:HighInBC/Removal of uncited content

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems there is a disparity between what is expected of from the community and what the policy explains. I don't know of any other place this information is kept. It seems to be in the ether of the masses. Lets put it down and come to a consensus about this. I have opinions, but I don't know the answers. Until(1 == 2) 18:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues to address[edit]

Below are issues that need to be addressed, please feel free to add items. Until(1 == 2) 18:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • When is it appropriate to immediately remove an uncited fact?
  • What is the policy answer?
  • What does the community expect?
  • How long should one wait after marking a dubious fact before removing it?
  • When is a note on the talk page needed?
  • When is it appropriate to re-add uncited material that has been challenged by another editor?
  • At what point does consensus override the verifiability policy?
  • How should you handle pages with not citations?
  • What if no citations are forthcoming after seeking them through discussion and research?
  • Whose burden is it to find citations?

What do people think of this?[edit]

This is basically what I have gathered from the discussions I have been in, I would appreciate feedback on if I am interpreting things correctly.

  1. Unsourced information may be re-added despite being challenged by an editor if consensus determines that the information is capable of being sourced
  2. Before removing unsourced information it must be marked with a {{fact}} tag and a message on the talk page must be posted, a period of at least a (week/month/year?) must pass before removing the content (unsure of the duration, opinions on this matter are vague)
  3. The person removing the content should search for a citation to support the content being removed, and if one is found the content should be cited and remain (Suggestion #1 may be a better alternative to this, leaving the burden of proof on the person seeking to re-add unless consensus determines it capable of being sourced)
  4. It is not appropriate to remove significant amounts of uncited content from an article (more than half? a third?)

What do people think, does this belong in the essay? Is the good advice for new users who are cleanup up uncited facts? Until(1 == 2) 18:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  1. True.
  2. It is often a good idea before removing unsourced information to marked it with a {{fact}} tag but editorial judgement not blind;y following rules is needed. A message on the talk page may be posted in addition or as a substitute but editorial judgement not blind;y following rules is needed. A period of time determined by editorial judgement must pass before removing the content.
  3. The person removing the content should usually search for a citation to support the content being removed, and if one is found the content should be cited and remain.
  4. It is usually not appropriate to remove significant amounts of uncited content from an article.

Policies are no substitute for editorial judgement. Some people have clue, some don't. WAS 4.250 18:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think people can disagree, and both of the people have a clue. I am attempting to make things easier to understand, not set the bar for participation to a particular "clue level" as defined by whoever happens to be passing by at the moment. Until(1 == 2) 13:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your invitation to discuss this, Until. I'm sorry, but I can't be very useful in terms of support, as I'm obviously alone in my opinion and not a very active or known member of the community. Indeed, the emotional wordings I used on the WP:V talk will probably predispose even more editors against you, if anything. I don't know whether your proposal is meant to be taken seriously and not an example of WP:POINT - if it is serious, I can only repeat that I am totally opposed to every word of it, and I wouldn't want to edit under these conditions. --Anonymous44 20:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, of couse, this essay contradicts the policy as it stands, and what Jimbo Wales is quoted as saying there. But who cares? I'm inclined to think that even if Jimbo himself were to turn up, he would have no problem contradicting himself either. --Anonymous44 20:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are not alone in your opinions, there is not a consensus against policy yet. My proposal was the ideas that others are asking me to follow, I don't support the proposal, but I do want a set of rules so I know what I am allowed to do. What I don't want is passing people throwing out their opinion like it is policy. When you posted there was no essay, just a talk page, I have made a start on the essay now. Until(1 == 2) 13:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem can be illustrated by clicking on "random article" a few times. I just did and got Jan z Tarnowa. It has no external links or references or tags warning of lack of references. It was created in 2005 before the current push for sources. Wikipedia is not helped by deleting that article, unless someone does a good check and finds no sources. On the other hand if someone just now added it, it would be ok to demand sources as the burden lies on them. Perhaps we need to say that this policy is different regarding older articles. Grandfathered in? WAS 4.250 20:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The [WikiEN-l] Elimination of unreferenced articles drive? thread that starts here is very informative concerning this issue. WAS 4.250 21:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should keep discussions at one place rather than copying? Anyway, copying the answer from the WP:V talk:
Nobody ever said that everything without a source must be deleted. According to the policy, anything without a source may be deleted; i.e. an editor is allowed to delete it if he thinks that it should be deleted (because it is or appears likely to be incorrect). The assumption is that editors wouldn't lie and delete for pleasure. If an editor thinks he has reason to believe that a sentence in Jan z Tarnowa is incorrect, then the sentence should stay out of the page until sourced. As for the deletion of entire articles, that is a special area, covered by other pages.--Anonymous44 21:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This jives with my reading of policy. Until(1 == 2) 13:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plan[edit]

Okay, not much is happening, so I will start. I am going to make 2 sections, Policy, and Opinion and just start documented what has been said already. Until(1 == 2) 12:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need some tips, I have been told that I read the policy too literally. How should I read it? Sarcastically? Symbolically? Ironically perhaps? I think it was written with the intent of being taken literally, but I welcome others opinions. Feel free to adjust or annotate the policy section in any manner that makes things more clear. Until(1 == 2) 13:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the knowledge that it is

  • written by whatever volunteers show up
  • continually changing in small ways, so don't sweat the details
  • sometimes self contradictory (note again WP:IAR)
  • subject to being poorly written
  • subject to being out of date with current best practice
  • does not even pretend to "give clue" as it can't
  • is at all times subject to interpretration, which varies as we have 13 year old admins and people of whom english is not their first language
  • not to be applied blindly, but in a thoughtful careful case by case way that includes consulting with others. WAS 4.250 13:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, I will take it into account. Until(1 == 2) 15:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists and verifiability[edit]

Consensus in the past was not to put cites in lists but consensus is slowly reversing that. The same thing will occur in the future with citing image captions to verify that the image is what it is claimed to be and belongs in that article. WAS 4.250 14:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to that? A historical context will help form a better understanding of todays opinions. Also, there is no exception for image captions, they need a citation like anything else. It is just that most of the time it is clear enough to not be disputed. Until(1 == 2) 15:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a matter of judgement if to add the cites when writing it, but if challenged then simply copy the cite from the other article as it is easier and faster than arguing about it. WAS 4.250 14:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look here and here, you will see that what you suggest is exactly what I did. Until(1 == 2) 16:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "Verifiability" in the context of WP:V[edit]

Much of this confusion seems to be rooted in a misunderstanding of what WP:V means when it says "Verifiable". It does not mean that the information is capable of being sourced, it has a special meaning defined in the first paragraph which says:

"Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.

This post seems to be an example of this honest misunderstanding of definition. A fact is not "verifiable" until there is a reliable source that any editor can check. In other words it needs to be cited before it is returned. Until(1 == 2) 15:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

I came here to give you advise and explain things. Not to argue or to prove. So i'll move onto other stuff that I enjoy doing. I do not enjoy fights. WAS 4.250 15:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to "fight" with you. I am trying to come to a common agreement, that may entail me correcting you, or disagreeing with you. But I hold no hard feelings, and I have found you to be rather reasonable. I am trying to talk about ideas, not people, and if I "called you out" know that it was not my intention. It is just that when you say something that seems to be based on a false premise, correcting you seems to be the most productive way forward. This is an academic issue, no need for any hard feelings. If you came simply to explain, and not argue(discuss a contrary opinion to reach a common understanding) then I suppose you need to do what you must. I was really hoping for two way dialog on this, I have read all the pre-written material on the subject(that I can find). Until(1 == 2) 15:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

read the talk page archives. it is all there. WAS 4.250 16:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume I have read the discussions I participated in. Until(1 == 2) 16:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "Claims made about living persons or claims that seem to be unsourced libel or copyright violations or OTRS issues are important exceptions to our "eventualism" method of writing this encyclopedia", I could not agree more. Except I am unaware of this "eventualism" concept, is there an essay/mos/guideline/policy/discussion on the matter you could point me to? Until(1 == 2) 16:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While the people you are disgreeing with about the meaning of "verifyable" have read and written both policy and talk pages for years. You refuse to accept that verifyable does not mean cited. It does not. Proof exists in the wording of the policy, the testimony of those of us who participated in writing it and the talk pages where this was discussed. It is not my job to prove things to you. Your contempt for my experience is telling. WAS 4.250 16:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

I undid this edit: [1]

Those are policy quotes and should not be modified. I you wish to add opinion, place it in the opinion section, you are welcome to re-add it in that manner. Comments and suggestions go on the talk page. Until(1 == 2) 16:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the claims in the opinion section. I was hoping to keep the opinions wide enough that I could have more than one person supporting a specific opinion. Your opinion, so your call though. It is just that being so specific, it will be hard to find more examples of people agreeing with it than just you. You make some valid points, that if generalized could be said to have a consensus. But you have attached several "riders" that seem to establish a class system based on experience and reputation, as opposed to the consensus based system we are more used to. One issue at a time hehe. Until(1 == 2) 16:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need more context[edit]

Does anyone out there know of other discussions on this matter that have taken place? I would appreciate broadening my source information on this matter to sources older than a few days. Until(1 == 2) 16:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. See Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/archive_toc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The [WikiEN-l] Elimination of unreferenced articles drive? thread that starts here is very informative concerning this issue. WAS 4.250 21:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ambuguity in WP:V[edit]

Does "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." mean to give warning that under some circumstances the information might be removed, as in "If a kid does his homework, he may get a good grade"? Or is it granting permission you remove such content, as in "If a kid does his homework, he may have a cookie"? Until(1 == 2) 17:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective[edit]

In the interest of NPOV, I am going to let this essay sit for a while. I will edit in other areas of Wikipedia. I will continue to observe discussions related to this, and watch how the people who hold the various opinions contribute. It is my hopes that in time I will gain a better perspective on this issue, as right now I am a little frustrated which only confounds attempts at NPOV. Please feel free to add documented opinion and policy. Please be careful to keep policy and opinion separate. Until(1 == 2) 15:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HighInBC/Removal_of_uncited_content&oldid=682081505"