Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

WP:VERIFY shortcut

I added this a couple of minutes ago for the simple reason that it's a likely search term for anyone looking for this page, and it's possible that newer users might not immediately think of V (which could be vandalism or viewpoint). ProhibitOnions 13:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Multiple sources

I support this edit. -Lumière 17:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Raphael1 17:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It contradicts the policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a contradiction, instead it is an additional recommendation, which could improve Wikipedias quality. If you wish, I can change the last sentence to "This shows that it is recommended to verify by multiple independent sources." Raphael1 18:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read the policy page you're editing. What you added contradicts the rest of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. Of course I've read the article. It says, that an article need to be verifiabile by a reliable source. Where is the contradiction to my recommendation, that multiple independent sources are even better? Wikipedia articles are certainly not necessarily true, but wouldn't it improve Wikipedia, if they actually were "true"? Raphael1 19:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The example you gave contradicted: ""Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would be citing the Washington Post an original research, whereas citing the New York Times is not? Raphael1 19:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No one said it would be. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Then I can't see, why my recommendation to verify with multiple independent sources would be a contradiction to the policy. Raphael1 23:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1, my advice is to never mention the word "true" or "truth" here. (-; -Lumière 19:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Anyway, we just have to wait to see if we have consensus or not. -Lumière 19:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Things are not black and white. The policy is not a text of law. We are obviously considering cases where the material is controversial (highly political, etc.) and sources that are reputable for this kind of information might not be easy to find. It is perfectlty in accord with the policy to argue against the reputability of a source, and when no individual source can be totally trusted, it is just common sense to consider more than one source. -Lumière 18:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed improvements

Even New York Times articles are false sometimes. Flawed reporting by New York Times reporter Judith Miller helped to promote the misleading belief that Iraq possessed large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. One of Miller's prime sources was Ahmed Chalabi, who is currently the interim oil minister of US occupied Iraq. This shows that it is strongly recommended to verify by multiple independent sources.

I would change it to:

~~Some material can be controversial.~~ Outlandish claims beg strong sources. ~~In such a case~~ In some cases, even the New York Times might not qualify as a reputable source. For example, flawed reporting by New York Times reporter Judith Miller helped to promote the misleading belief that Iraq possessed large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. One of Miller's prime sources was Ahmed Chalabi, who is currently the interim oil minister of US occupied Iraq. In such a case, when no single publication qualifies as a reputable source, it is necessary to verify by multiple independent sources. In all cases, it is preferable to provide multiple independent sources.

and I would put it as a new subsection in the section about sources under the header ===Multiple independent sources===. It does not contradict the policy. I want to know if other editors feel that it is in opposition with the spirit of this policy. I think it is not.

-Lumière 17:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I support your change. Raphael1 16:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

remark

Don't see any form of consensus for the text proposals above, neither for the first version nor for the second version. It's not even clear who authored them.

I revert the policy page to SlimVirgin's = Jossi's version per {{policy}} template: "make sure that changes you make to this policy reflect consensus before you make them." Neither the wikipedian sometimes known as "Lumière", neither "Raphael1" appear to have assured that, and rather appear as if they're testing how far they can go before someone actually calls it WP:POINT. --Francis Schonken 17:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. We were not testing anything. It is just that SlimVirgin and others do make edits, sometimes relatively important, without checking consensus. So, because I was told that admins and experienced editors do not have special previleges, I tend to follow their examples as a way to respect the rules. -Lumière 17:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Francis Schonken, don't you want to tell us why you don't want that addition, rather than just informing us that you don't consent? Raphael1 17:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Major changes and/or additions to policy pages require wide community consensus. The burden to seek that consensus is on the editor that want to add new content. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

In particular when the editors wanting to make such changes are relatively new to Wikipedia. Please respect the current wide consensus achieved in current versions of policy pages. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I think the proposal is reasonable. Just forget about who is proposing it, in case it matters to you. -Lumière 18:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear jossi, do you agree or disagree to the addition? If you disagree, please explain why. Raphael1 19:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Raphael, please stop trying to change the meaning of this policy. You're a new editor who has made 79 edits to 18 articles, most of which show you trying to challenge what Western newspapers have said about events in the Middle East, [1] and now you're trying to change this policy to help you. If you want to change the thrust of a policy (which your edits would do), you need wide-ranging consensus, wider even than all the editors on this page agreeing with you, which they don't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Raphael, SlimVirgin and a few more editors that have taken the mission to protect the policy don't like when other editors work on the policy pages or in their talk page except if they feel that they are still in control. It is not because you have few edits in specific topics. I have seen them acting in the same way with experienced editors that have been working on a variety of topics. I have also seen them being positive with new editors that proposed change to the policy, but only when they feel they are still in control. There is a rule that says that we should not edit the policy pages without checking for consensus. If because you have worked on specific topics or for any other reason, they feel you may easily oppose their views, you are quickly reminded of this rule. Only these few editors can violate this rule. In this way, they keep control over the policy pages. The exigence for a community wide consensus only applies if in their view you try to "change the thrust of a policy".

In my opinion, what you do is very natural. You have been working on some articles and perhaps realized that the policy was an important tool. It is normal to care about the tools that we use. So, you decided to participate in the improvement of this policy. That new editors wants to improve the policy can be very healthy for Wikipedia. However, I think that you are wise to not oppose these few editors, which have taken the mission to protect the policy. In my opinion, there is hope that we can work all together (with these few editors) to improve the policy. Just stick around and whenever you have another idea for improvement, just propose it, or participate in the discussion of other proposals. If we are friendly, others might join. My hope is that, as a group, we can accomplish something. -Lumière 09:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think these changes would be good in the suggested form because they don't specify the requirements for rejecting a source in a way that allows us to avoid our own opinions. We already have the ability to cite more than one source, including sources that disagree, and we already have the ability to report controversial claims as claims or opinions. --Zero^talk 08:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Self-published sources in articles about themselves

The section with this name has problems. One is that most of the ruleset is given in the context of an extreme example (Stormfront) which is not representative of most self-published sources. This gives a wrong impression and artificially justifies rules that might be too strict for more common cases such as the home page of an uncontroversial person or organization.

Three examples which seem to violate the rules but should not, in my opinion:

Suppose my personal home page says I was born in Nairobi but CNN says I was born in Vienna. Unless there is some clear reason for which I would want to lie about my place of birth, I think we should use Nairobi. Clearly I am in a better position to know this information than CNN is. (Principle: some uncontroversial information on which a person or organization is the clear authority should be taken directly from that source - this is the principle of preferring primary sources over secondary sources where appropriate.)

If you say you were born in Nairobi, but CNN says Vienna, we go with Vienna. See V, NOR, RS, and BLP. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

My intention was to start a discussion on what the policy should be. Your opinion on what the policy says now is relevant but does not constitute a rebuttal. In my opinion, the policy is steadily edging towards "Wikipedia is a collection of claims; we don't care whether they are right or wrong." I don't believe this was either the intention of Wikipedia's founders or the opinion of most Wikipedia editors. At some point the need to control original research led to the baby being thrown out as well. We should identify the places where the existing rules do not have the most desirable effect and fix them. --Zero^talk 23:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to change the principal of "verifiability, not truth," you'll have to change the no-original-research policy too, but these policies are essential to the way Wikipedia functions. Individual editors can't set themselves up as judges of what's true, or as though they are journalists who interview primary sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you are not the only that does it, but it is not consistent with the definition of primary source which is cited in the policy (see wikilink in WP:NOR#Primary_and_secondary_sources) to refer to people as primary sources. We do not interview primary sources. Every source is some fixed information, which in the case of a primary source may take the form of a picture, a manuscript, some piece of evidence in a trial, the transcript or video of an interview, etc. People say one thing at one time and another thing at another time, so they are not primary sources. I would not be surprised that even guidelines and perhaps even the policy do the mistake of contradicting its own definition, but we should stop doing that. I have not found examples where the policy refers to primary sources as persons. If there is such an example, it is in contradiction with the definition that the policy cites and uses most of the times thereafter. Of course, I am not referring to the general term "source", but only to the technical expressions "primary sources" and "secondary sources". -Lumière 11:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What some people should stop doing is redefining words to support their own agendas. News reporters, historians, biographers, investigators etc. "interview sources" all the time. "Source" means [Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 10th ed.] "1(3): one that supplies information" and "2(3): a firsthand document or primary reference work." The word's use to describe a person is therefore more common than its use to describe a document. Lumiere-Etiencelle, before claiming what a word means, you should first check a dictionary. It's always a whole lot easier to obfuscate than to clarify.Askolnick

I see that The One With Many Names has "rebutted" my comment by simply emphasizing the words "in the policy." However, from the top to bottom, the policy uses the word "source" to mean "one that supplies information." For example, the very first rule to be observed: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources." The meaning of "source" can not possibly be "a firsthand document of primary reference work" because documents and reference works cannot publish. Only individuals, groups, or organizations of people can publish. The policy repeatedly refers to "sources" as publishing. Either Lumiere-Etincelle-Lumiere-Amrit has a serious reading comprehension problem, or he is simply trying to win an argument by obstruction and obfuscation. Askolnick 15:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

And yet another attempt to obfuscate and obstruct. In his latest revised rebuttal, Lumiere, a.k.a. those other names, demonstrates again that he is unwilling to accept correction. Right there in the references he just added, is the statement: "Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate." As I clearly pointed out, documents cannot publish, only people and organizations publish. The word "source" is used in Wiki policies to describe both the supplier of information as well as the actual document or record containing the information. L-E-L-A's persistent attempt to deny this fact is another example of his continuing disruptive obfuscations. Askolnick 17:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere, saying the same thing louder doesn't make you any more convincing.

Coyoty 19:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere adds another ridiculously false statement to keep the rest company. Now he tries to narrow down what he had said to mean not "sources" but "primary sources" and "secondary sources." And says he is unable to find examples of the use to mean people or organizations. How about trying Reliable Sources [2] , oh One With So Many Names? Those guidelines have numerous examples of such usage. For example:

Independent secondary sources:

There is separate editorial oversight. This

means that they have different employers, or

different editors (but not necessarily publishers).

Have not collaborated in their efforts.

May have taken their own look at the available

primary sources and used their own judgment in evaluating them

Clearly none of these statements make sense if "sources" means "document" instead of "person," "persons," or "organization." So, Lumiere formerly Etincelle formerly Lumiere formally Amrit, why do you keep compounding one transgression on top of another as you're doing here? Will there ever be an end to this disruptive conduct? Askolnick 21:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

We can continue in your user talk page. Here is the main point -Lumière 21:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Often respectable news organizations quote a few words or sentences from a longer document that can be found on a web site that is generally of dubious reliability (maybe a personal site but this example is more general). In that case we should be able to quote additional text from the document and cite its location. (Principle: we can use documents that respectable sources have judged authentic enough to quote from, not only the fragments that they quoted.) Note that I'm not saying we should regard the document as true, but we shouldn't be blocked from quoting it as a claim or opinion.

It would depend on the website. The news organization might have had solid legal and editorial reasons for quoting only the part they did. If the website really is dubious and is making claims about third parties, we could not use the material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper stories usually only quote small fragments with ellipses. I don't see why we can't flesh them out by filling in the gaps and quoting surrounding sentences. And I think we should always be able to give a link to the full version of a document which is quoted by a source we cite, regardless of whether we quote additional parts of it. --Zero^talk 23:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

We don't use dubious websites or personal websites as sources, except in articles about themselves. That is the policy as it stands. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

When a serious charge is made against a person or organization and that person or organization has published a denial, we should always be allowed to cite the denial. In fact, in most cases we should cite the denial. (Principle: be fair)

Yes, because the material is then about them, so they're not being used as third-party sources. See V, RS, and BLP. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, "about themselves" should be clarified. If an article about person A has a paragraph about person B, then "about themselves" should apply to B for the material in that paragraph. Otherwise we have the anomoly that the sources allowed for some information depends on which article that information appears in. We should consider changing "articles about themselves" to something like "for information regarding themselves". --Zero^talk 08:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You have to be very careful here, otherwise you get yourself into a situation where person A can manipulate the contents of Wikipedia by putting something up on their personal website, then adding it to their own Wikipedia article, or to a paragraph about them in another article, using their website as the source. If a serious charge is made about a person, then of course their rebuttal is published, but otherwise people are not allowed to influence the contents of our articles by simply adding material to their own websites. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the source allowed varies from article to article. If A is regarded as a dubious source, A could be a source on A (and in an article about A), but not on B (or in an article about B), even if it's in the same sentence. In an article about SlimVirgin, you may quote me saying, "SlimVirgin is a wonderful human being," but you may not quote, "and Zero steals his clothes from charity shops." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I intended to make the point more about facts than about opinions. In an article about you, we would take basic information like your educational background from your web page and nobody would object. But if you appear in a different article (about a subject in which you played some role), then we aren't allowed to mention your educational background unless we can find an alternative source for it. That can't be right. Either your web page is a valid source for such information or it isn't. --Zero^talk 23:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The policy acts to limit the extent to which I could influence the contents of Wikipedia simply by adding material to my own website. But I have to add that, even in an article about me, information from my website could only be used with caution, and only if not contradicted by reliable, published, third-party sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

But how do you know what "the facts" are? Especially when they are so often highly disputed, and when anyone can create a webpage to promote his/her own version of "the facts"? If we appoint Wikipedia editors as arbiters of "the facts", then, by definition, we are insisting that they do original research. Wikipedia recognizes that "the facts" are slippery at best; instead, it sets itself the more reasonable goal of citing what reliable sources say about a subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't even disagree with you. I don't object to the OR and V rules in general principle (though I really dislike that "verifiability, not truth" slogan). The difficulty is that it just shifts the decision-making to a different place. Instead of deciding what the truth is, the editor has to decide which sources are "reliable". "Reliability" is better than "truth" because we can bulk-ordain some classes of sources as "reliable", but when we move outside those classes we are back into slippery territory. We try to make the reliability decision algorithmic by giving lots of guidelines, but (A) there are lots of cases where the result of applying the guidelines is unclear and subjective judgement is still required, (B) sources that are "reliable" according to the guidelines often disagree so then we get arguments about relative reliability, and (C) in some cases I think the guidelines don't select the most reliable sources. An example of (C), imo, is the case of innocuous personal information, which I argued above. The cases of (A) and (B) are more serious issues, but one thing at a time. --Zero^talk 12:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Using your examples, while we can state in the article that your web site says you were born in Nairobi, we also must state that CNN says you were born in Vienna. Many celebrities do distort their bios, and it would be against this policy to try to make a determination of which source is correct. If there is conflicting information, we can only provide sources for the different version, and let the reader sort it out.

I wonder who _{(Al Lewis)} would distort their bio like that.

Coyoty 18:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

On your second point, please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#The leap-frogged citations problem. As for your third point, that is part of the NPOV policy. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 12:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Slim and Donald, and note this is what the founder feels on the issue too, see Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance where Jimbo states What is it that makes (something) encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion. and also When I say 'verifiable' I don't mean 'in some abstract fantasy theory' I mean actually practically verifiable by Wikipedians. Jimbo basically places WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV at the heart of wikipedia policy. A person's website may be considered a valid source of information about that person, but information which contradicts it should also be presented. Hiding talk 12:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY shortcut

Multiple sources

I support this edit. -Lumière 17:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Raphael1 17:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It contradicts the policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read the policy page you're editing. What you added contradicts the rest of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would be citing the Washington Post an original research, whereas citing the New York Times is not? Raphael1 19:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No one said it would be. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Then I can't see, why my recommendation to verify with multiple independent sources would be a contradiction to the policy. Raphael1 23:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1, my advice is to never mention the word "true" or "truth" here. (-; -Lumière 19:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, we just have to wait to see if we have consensus or not. -Lumière 19:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed improvements

I would change it to:

-Lumière 17:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I support your change. Raphael1 16:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

remark

Don't see any form of consensus for the text proposals above, neither for the first version nor for the second version. It's not even clear who authored them.

Dear Francis Schonken, don't you want to tell us why you don't want that addition, rather than just informing us that you don't consent? Raphael1 17:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I think the proposal is reasonable. Just forget about who is proposing it, in case it matters to you. -Lumière 18:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear jossi, do you agree or disagree to the addition? If you disagree, please explain why. Raphael1 19:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Raphael, please stop trying to change the meaning of this policy. You're a new editor who has made 79 edits to 18 articles, most of which show you trying to challenge what Western newspapers have said about events in the Middle East, [3] and now you're trying to change this policy to help you. If you want to change the thrust of a policy (which your edits would do), you need wide-ranging consensus, wider even than all the editors on this page agreeing with you, which they don't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Self-published sources in articles about themselves

Three examples which seem to violate the rules but should not, in my opinion:

Suppose my personal home page says I was born in Nairobi but CNN says I was born in Vienna. Unless there is some clear reason for which I would want to lie about my place of birth, I think we should use Nairobi. Clearly I am in a better position to know this information than CNN is. (Principle: some uncontroversial information on which a person or organization is the clear authority should be taken directly from that source - this is the principle of preferring primary sources over secondary sources where appropriate.)

If you say you were born in Nairobi, but CNN says Vienna, we go with Vienna. See V, NOR, RS, and BLP. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere, saying the same thing louder doesn't make you any more convincing.

Coyoty 19:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere adds another ridiculously false statement to keep the rest company. Now he tries to narrow down what he had said to mean not "sources" but "primary sources" and "secondary sources." And says he is unable to find examples of the use to mean people or organizations. How about trying Reliable Sources [4] , oh One With So Many Names? Those guidelines have numerous examples of such usage. For example:

Independent secondary sources:

There is separate editorial oversight. This

means that they have different employers, or

different editors (but not necessarily publishers).

Have not collaborated in their efforts.

May have taken their own look at the available

primary sources and used their own judgment in evaluating them

We can continue in your user talk page. Here is the main point -Lumière 21:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Often respectable news organizations quote a few words or sentences from a longer document that can be found on a web site that is generally of dubious reliability (maybe a personal site but this example is more general). In that case we should be able to quote additional text from the document and cite its location. (Principle: we can use documents that respectable sources have judged authentic enough to quote from, not only the fragments that they quoted.) Note that I'm not saying we should regard the document as true, but we shouldn't be blocked from quoting it as a claim or opinion.

It would depend on the website. The news organization might have had solid legal and editorial reasons for quoting only the part they did. If the website really is dubious and is making claims about third parties, we could not use the material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

We don't use dubious websites or personal websites as sources, except in articles about themselves. That is the policy as it stands. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

When a serious charge is made against a person or organization and that person or organization has published a denial, we should always be allowed to cite the denial. In fact, in most cases we should cite the denial. (Principle: be fair)

Yes, because the material is then about them, so they're not being used as third-party sources. See V, RS, and BLP. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder who _{(Al Lewis)} would distort their bio like that.

Coyoty 18:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Fictional Characters

There is currently a huge debate in Freddy Krueger over wether or not this policy should apply. He is a pop culture icon, and nothing said about him is fact since the films change so much information. When attempting to add information, people jump your case saying none of your additions are from verifiable sources when, in fact, none of the information on the page is. Most of it is from the films, which people claim are not verifiable, the rest is from a not-so-widely known book called The Nightmare Never Ends, a history of the making of and plot of the films that includes a Freddy backstory. I believe there should be some kind of ammendment to this policy for articles about fictional characters, especially those from films and books. I think it's safe to say if we went by print articles vs the actual films, Boba Fett would still be alive.
--The Skunk 21:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Surely the films themselves count as sources? I.e. if I state, say, "According to Christian tradition, God didn't let Abraham into the promised land" I don't have to find a secondary source that says this, I can use the Bible. I'd say the situation with fictional characters in movies is analogous: statements in Krueger's bio is verifiable if it actually occurs in one of the movies. As for "nothing said about him is fact since the films change so much information," why then not deal with the differences directly. I.e. in movie 1 Krueger met character X in 1918. In movie 3 Krueger met character X in 1999, or whatever. I doubt WP:V needs to change; I could be wrong however. Mikker ^... 21:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The "films themselves" can only be sources if there is an agreed-upon way to cite them that allows the citations to be verified easily. Obviously we can't accept an editor saying something like "It's in the film because I say so and I know what I'm talking about."

I'm not involved in the debate... just a personal opinion... it seems to me that in the case of a film that is widely available on DVD, it should be possible to reference the specific edition DVD itself and give a scene number and/or the number of minutes into the film. For example, "A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 - Freddy's Revenge," (1985), New Line Home Video DVD (2000; ASIN: 0780630858), [description of scene], appears at 68 minutes into the film"

The point of the verifiability policy is to make it possible to check to see that the source really says what the contributor says it says. In the case of a book source, we accept that it is not necessary to have the instant access of clicking on a link; it may take a trip to the library, and/or an interlibrary loan request, and some books may be hard for some people to get access to. A mass-produced DVD is as accessible as a book. And the number of minutes at which the action being referenced occurs serves the same function as a page number: once you have the book/DVD, you can locate the reference in minutes rather than having to spend hours reviewing the entire work.

One of the reasons for the verifiability policy is that even when someone is citing a real reference in good faith, it is amazing how easy it is to put just a little bit of spin on it without even meaning to. It's very important that someone be able to go back and check the context and the actual words...

(In the case of the Bible, for example, you wouldn't say "it's in the Bible." You'd literally cite chapter and verse. And quite often someone checking such a reference might find that there was some possibly-disputable interpretation involved...)

Anyway, as I say it's not formal policy, but if someone cited a DVD's title/distributor/ASIN number and the number of minutes into the film, if someone else were to remove it on the basis merely of not being a print reference, I'd think most people would say that is an unreasonable application of the verifiability policy.

Availability on DVD is important here. I wouldn't be so inclined to accept a reference to an actual physical film print because personally I don't even know how I could get access to a print, or a 35mm projector, to check such a reference.

What we can't do, of course, is to say that just because it's a movie, we won't require sources, or will accept a lower standard of verifiability than we would for anything else. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So, we have to use sources, no one else does? None of the info on that page specificly is sourced. They don't even source the book their info came from!

I mean, it seems to me that all information in the entire Wiki should be done this way, but it can't. Not only that, even if I DID supply sources, they'd still delete it, because I asked and the people who apparently don't like their wrong information corrected said you can't because it isn't in print by a refutable author. It isn't fair. I thought this was the free encylopedia, that can be edited by everyone. Obviously not everyone can edit it if you say that! Further more, the fact that these people who keep re-editing the article don't know enough about the films to be able to do so. For example, one editor added in Freddy's jump rope song and had the words wrong. No sources! Didn't cite a freaking thing. No one questioned him, no one removed it, the only thing they did was fix it. Still no sources. You're imposing rules on some members, and not on others.

How can that be fair?

--The Skunk 06:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

1) The verifiability rule does apply to the entire Wikipedia and everything in it should be sourced. Most experienced Wikipedians understand this. 2) The application of Wikipedia policy is never "fair" because there is no central authority that could apply it evenly and impartially. And Wikipedia so huge that doing anything systematically is slow. For example, there is total agreement that images that are not properly licensed must be removed, but the process of removing them has been going on for well over a year. While it is in progress, there will be some images that have been removed and other similar one that have not been. That may seem "unfair." 3) You and other editors should not be trying to game the system or selectively apply rules in order to establish pecking orders or dominance hierarchies. But, human nature being what it is, it happens.

An important reason for the verifiability policy is that without it, you get exactly what you are observing: sterile personal battles between people of different opinions claiming personal expertise.

Don't argue that your unsourced material shouldn't have been removed. Instead, set a good example by adding some well-sourced material yourself. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

P. S. If someone says material is from "a book" it is completely fair to ask them to cite the book and to remove the material after a reasonable amount of time if nobody can find the book it came from. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

While I admit I'm slightly swayed by Dpbsmith's "minute and second on DVD = chapter and verse in bible" argument, after careful consideration I must disagree.

When we quote and/or paraphrase from a source like the bible or a trascript, were simply moving the same media from one location to another: text → text. There is room for spin, or selective quoting, or any number of other ways to introduce bias, of coure. These however are all fairly transparent once the actual material is at hand.
Watching a DVD, even at the exact moment specified, and putting the results into Wikipedia is different: video → text. But for the most trivial and mundane cases, this will require interpretation of the events. We'd not be talking about "Character A walks through a door at 43 minutes 15 seconds," we'd be looking at things like "Character B demonstrates his disgust with the situation as he walks through a door and slams it behind him at 43 minutes 15 seconds."

The overwhelming majority of the time when these "Dude, I totally saw it on the film! Watch it yourself!" arguments are raised it is because either other sources for the material do not exist or the editor has not taken the time and trouble to locate them. For the former, we should be asking ourselves the question is this information so trivial that it dooesn't belong in the article, for the latter {{sofixit}}.

Additionally, we'd be opening the door to almost all forms of direct observation here. "Cherry Garcia's flavour is marred by an astringent aftertaste, as easily confirmed by simply going out, buying a carton, and eating it." This would be a very bad thing. I'd say let's stick to Reliable sources and let Freddy K fans just look a bit harder four sources. For ~~any signifigant~~ all but the most obscure film released, there will be reviews in print that cover major plot points, interviews with the actors about the motivations of thier characters, op-ed pieces about how the violence is corrupting our youth in tabloids, etc etc etc.

brenneman ^{L} 07:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you but there are some fine shades here. You're saying that print sources have a standing that cinema does not because of the possibility of direct quotation. True. However, there is no rule that says the only allowable use of print sources is as direct quotation. Paraphrases and interpretation are acceptable as long as the reader can check them. To continue with the Bible example, consider:

1) Christians cannot be soldiers, because the Bible prohibits it.

2) The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" (KJV: Exodus 20:13, Romans 13:9).

3) Christians cannot be soldiers, because the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" (KJV: Exodus 20:13, Romans 13:9).

4) Exodus 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill" (KJV) is cited by some authorities [cite] [cite] as an argument against war .

5) Exodus 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill" (KJV) is cited by some authorities [cite] [cite] as an argument against war but this passage is variously translated ("Thou shalt not commit murder," NEB) and other authorities [cite] [cite] say that it clearly refers only to the crime of murder, and does not apply to legal, authorized acts of killing, as in war or capital punishment

1 is unacceptable. "The source is the Bible" won't wash. 2 is acceptable. 3 is unacceptable because the passage has a proper source, but the opinion ([therefore] Christians cannot be soldiers) does not. 4 is acceptable (or would be if it had real citations) under the verifiability policy, but not the neutrality policy. 5 is acceptable.

Anyway, I say that citation of minutes-and-seconds-into-a-DVD ain't bad, is much better than nothing, and would probably inhibit most Wikipedians from removing the material as unsourced. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

P. S. I'm not suggesting that "cite movies with DVD ASIN number and minutes" should be formally added to any policy. But around the borders of any policy we try to apply reasonable initiative and common sense. I don't think that our policy says that a bad reference is worse than no reference. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem of introducing interpretation by selective citation is not at all unique to fictional works of any media. While there has been (and to a degree continues to be) considerable tolerance for editors including uncontroversial (or uncontested) facts without the minutiae of cited sources, any time there are challenges regarding material, we have to fall back on citing verifiable sources for the information. That is merely the first hurdle however. Simply because someone somewhere (even in "reputable" publications) has said something does not necessarily make that an unvarnished fact. If what has been said is an interpretation, then it has to be presented in the article as such and attributed as such (i.e., authority so-and-so says such-and-such) and not presented as a simple unattributed factual assertion.

More to the point of the original topic here--if the assertions are of the sort "this character says XYZ" or "character M go to P locale" or "in Film A of the series the character said he was from X while in Film B of the series he said he was from Y" other such simple formulations, then I think Dpbsmith's suggestion for citing a specific edition of a DVD is sufficent. But if there is an attepmt at interpretation or making some rationalization of discrepencies -- that requires some source other than the original works, otherwise it is original research. older ≠ wiser 13:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me that movies also have scripts which are often available on the internet (see, e.g. [5]). Citing these is a Good Thing. Also, re Brenneman: in my (relatively limited) experience in editing articles on works of fiction, it is often quite difficult to find secondary sources for simple matters of plot. In cases like these, it is unavoidable and (it seems to me) unproblematic to cite the original text. Mikker ^... 11:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ohhhh... shiny. I'd be much happier with someone parsing text from the script than taking notes while watching the feature. The question then shifts onto is what's a reliable source for scripts, but I'd be satisfied with having that discussion elsewhere. - brenneman ^{L} 04:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggested adjustment to policy

May I suggest that the policy be adjusted as follows, to prevent editors acting in bad faith from using WP:V as a tool of harassment: Any editor can mark a statement as needing verification. However, no one should remove a statement, not even one specifically marked as lacking verification, unless they are specifically asserting that they doubt the statement's truth.

The reason for this change is that too frequently, editors who are acting in bad faith try to employ the letter of policy while violating its spirit. They use the current letter of policy, which says "Any edit lacking a source may be removed", to remove anything unfavorable to their own POV, even if they themselves know it to be true. For instance, I have personally witnessed an editor removing from an article the fact that there actually exists a POV other than his own on the subject, and then claiming on the talk page that WP:V supports him, because "any edit lacking a source may be removed." If this change in policy were instituted, editors' time would be spent more effectively, sourcing the statements about which there actually may be legitimate doubt, rather than ones which may have gone unsourced for so long precisely because no one thought it necessary to source something so obvious to all. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that can be handled as simple disruption. If most editors know it to be true, and another removes it for having no source, that is disruption. Warn them, and if needed they can be blocked from editing. Citation needed templates are great in theory except they make articles look bad and they rarely cause action. Removing uncited material causes editors to do research to back up the material. The end result is a better article, and that difference is why I think it is worth it. For general material that really doesn't need a citation, it should be covered by the article's general references, and again, removing something supported by the general references is disruptive too. - Taxman ^Talk 17:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been asking for over a year for just one example of an undisputed fact, something we all know to be true, that can't be sourced. No one has managed to come up with one. So I disagree with Taxman. While it might be irritating to have someone insist on a source for a point that is obviously correct, it's usually a lot faster to go find a source than to find an admin to block them for disruption. And if you can't find a source, maybe the other guy was right to question you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confusing what I'm saying with what someone else said over a year ago. I never said these facts couldn't be sourced. What I'm saying is that the policy that any unsourced edit may be removed by any editor is being used by editors of bad faith to harass and waste the time of editors of good faith. I am merely suggesting that the policy would be less vulnerable to abuse if, in order to remove an edit for being unsourced, an editor actually had to commit himself to saying "I doubt that this edit could be legitimately sourced." If such a doubt is reasonable, then absolutely nothing is different from how policy operates currently. If such a doubt is unreasonable, then it becomes easier to demonstrate that the editor is being deliberately disruptive.

If you doubt that WP:V is being abused for purposes of harassment, then please look at this edit, where a practitioner of Scientology who has frequently lectured other editors about how personally effective he has found Dianetics techniques demands a source for the statement (among others) that "many practitioners of Scientology testify that they have found Dianetics techniques to be personally effective". -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You are quite correct, Antaeus. This is rapidly becoming a common harrassment method. Certain editors just go around deleting unsourced claims they want to suppress, claiming "no source given" as an excuse. Their bad faith is clear from the fact that they never do it with text that they like. It is always OK to ask for a source, but this shoot first and ask questions later practice should be curtailed. --Zero^talk 12:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith. Just how do you known that they never do it with text that they like? How do you know how they decide which unsourced claims to delete? If it appears from the pattern of a user's edits that the user is exhibiting a bias, discuss it with the editor first. If an editor is being disruptive, there are better ways of dealing with that editor than by weakening this policy. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 14:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I should have expanded more on "if need be". What I meant was for someone just removing all kinds of material, not in an effort to be helpful. In either case there should be sources found to support the material. But I suppose you're right that everything can be. - Taxman ^Talk 22:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You're mistaken in thinking your idea would save time. It's incredibly time consuming for editors to find sources for claims made by other editors. Often, the best source is offline (or otherwise hard to find), and a fact checker has no idea where to look (because the original contributor gave no clues). However, it takes very little extra time for the original person adding the claim, to cite a source (and non-controversial claims can be covered by general references, without inline citations). A great side-effect of removing unsourced claims, is the editors adding them get into the habit including their sources of information in the future. That then saves everybody huge amounts of time. Adressing the issue of POV you brought up: one thing Wikipedia needs to abolish entirely, is editors writing about opinions without sources, usually with weasel words like "Some people feel such-and-such, but others feels the opposite" or "Some critics have said blah, blah, blah". Points of view, who's only "attribution" is that "somebody somewhere" said them, do not belong on Wikipedia, and should be removed. One reason for requiring sources for opinions, is we ensure those opinions are actually published opinions of identifiable persons, and not just the personal views of the Wikipedian writing them. --Rob 19:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, that editor is correct to request a source for "many practitioners of Scientology testify that ..." beause it's weasel wording, as is "it has been criticized as pseudoscience and quackery by professionals and members of the medical community ..." in the same article. Who are these professionals (and what's a "professional"?); who are these members of the medical community? I'm sorry to disagree, but I'd also ask for sources. (I'm not a Scientologist, by the way). ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I side with SlimVirgin on this one: all your problems would go away as soon as you cite a reputable source. Mikker ^... 11:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

In any case, there is always a risk that any policy will be applied in bad faith. But part of the nature of "bad faith" is that such a problem can't easily be remedied by wordsmithing the policy—certainly not by weakening it in a major way.

I mean, it would make just about as much sense to add a rule saying "This policy is not to be applied in bad faith." Dpbsmith (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess I don't see how the policy would be 'weakened in a major way'. Are there really large number of editors out there who would rather remove information that they do not question the truth of from articles rather than mark that information as needing citation? And why? I mean, technically I could go to George Washington right now and remove the first three paragraphs, because statements such as "Washington first served as an officer during the French and Indian War and as a leader of colonial militia supporting the British Empire" and "After leading the American victory in the Revolutionary War, he refused to lead a military regime, though encouraged by some of his peers to do so" are uncited. Obviously, it would be a violation of WP:POINT for me to do so, but the only thing anyone's said which at all indicates that it would be prohibited (or even undesirable!) for an editor to make such a removal is Taxman's statement that "general material" should be "covered by the general references", and I question why, if someone is already inclined to try and remove material that they do not think is untrue, they would choose to believe that that material is "covered by the general references" when nothing specifically indicates that to be the case. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This policy says "Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed". The example you gave in George Washington is of *sourced* material (even though general sources), so somebody couldn't possibly use this policy to endorse removal. If you think people are purposely misreading/misapplying this policy, and ignoring its clear wording, then no wording would solve that problem. But, if people think it's not already obvious, we could add wording to make clear that general references are very often sufficient, and the "generality" of a reference doesn't justify summary removal of unconsted individual facts. Although, I think Dianetics is definately something that needs lots of individual citations, for pretty much every claim, unlike George Washington. --Rob 04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If material in a lead section is simply an uncontroversial summary or interpretation of material that appears later in the article, and it is properly sourced in the later appearance, I don't see a problem. And yes, if someone, acting in good faith tags a piece of obviously, well-known, common knowledge with a "citation needed" tag, the proper response is for the people who want the item to remain to supply a source, which doesn't take long if the item really is that well known. Of course material shouldn't be deleted rapidly for lack of a source. My own procedure is to tag it, wait a while, in particular wait until I can find time to see if I can find a source easily and instantly. If I can't, I don't just delete it--I copy it, delete it with an edit comment, and paste it onto the Talk page.

The proper threshold for requesting a citation is "I wonder where that came from." That is quite different from "I suspect this is false." Dpbsmith (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have also seen material in articles that did not agree with the source I was looking at. I requested a citation, and when I looked at the source supplied, found that it and the source I originally looked at disagreed. We need to remember that secondary/tertiary sources may offer different selections and interpretations of material in primary sources. So, even if you know something is wrong, or you have a reliable source that contradicts what is in the article, ask for a citation first, as the questioned material might be supported by a reliable source. This works the other way, as well. Even if you know that the material is correct and/or common knowledge, provide a source, because there may be sources you are not aware of that contradict all or part of the material. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 12:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability is needed more for things which are not "common knowledge" that those which are. A statement like "String theory" is growing in acceptance by many leading physicists," needs verification with some citations to leading physicists. "Nelson Rockefeller, Jr., is one of the sons of Nelson A. Rockefeller, who was governor of New York from 1958 to 1973 and Vice President of the United States from 1974 to 1977," needs this much less, because the career of Nelson A. Rockefeller is the subject of objective public record and is widely known. Conversely, a statement like, "String theory is nonsense," would be unacceptable POV bias, but, "Some leading physicists feel that string theory is nonsense," would be acceptable if it were shown by citations to the works of such physicists. In a like manner, the statement, "Nelson Rockefeller was one of the most corrupt politicians of his era," would be totally unacceptable, but "At least one prominent political scientist has declared Nelson Rockefeller to be one of the most corrupt politicians of his era, " could be acceptable if the source was cited and the source was in fact a duly published work of a recognized political scientist." I would also say that it is somewhat silly to tag stub articles with a

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Archive 8" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (March 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

template; most stubs are admittedly incomplete and are admissions that they are such; they are only presented in the interest of being made into fully-researched articles by other editors. Usually if the stub author were prepared to develop a fully-sourced, verifiable article, he would have done so when he submitted the stub. Stubs are in fact basically requests for more info, not sources of it. Rlquall 03:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Press Releases and Unverifiable Claims

Even the most reliable media outlets sometimes reprint press releases uncritically. Where such instances can be identified, it is reasonable to consider that specific article as critically as one would consider the original press release if self-published. The cross-checking and evaluation of sources is a proper function for a Wikipedia editor and should not be confused with original research.

It is common for people in the public eye to make self-serving claims that cannot be independently checked. Examples include having performed secret work for the government or having been nominated for the Nobel or other prizes the nominations and deliberations for which are supposed to be secret. There is a consensus among Wikipedians that such claims should not be included even if reported by media outlets, unless the media outlet indicates clearly that the source of the claim is their own confidential sources, rather than the subject of the claim or his supporters, or unless the claim has caused controversy, in which case verifiable information about the controversy should be included.

I propose this section for inclusion under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources, in response to a discussion on the Village Pump. The wording is my attempt to make the principle as general as possible. I welcome comments. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Robert, there is no consensus that certain types of claims should not be included even if reported by reliable sources. Quite the opposite. We publish what reliable sources publish. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

When I posed this question on the Village Pump, I got the opposite reaction, at least in the special case of Nobel Prize nomination claims, which are usually spurious and all-too-rarely fact checked before printing. This form of resume-padding seems to be growing in popularity, sometimes done by well-meaning supportes of the person. This leaves us with the unhappy choice of omitting either the (technically verifiable) claim or the (substantively verifiable) refutation, or including both and giving undue weight to a matter that may be peripheral.

More generally, are we compelled to parrot the demonstrable factual errors of normally-reliable sources? Must we consider a normally-reliable source reliable in a particular instance if other sources show to a reasonable certainty that the report was in error, and there is no real purpose to recounting and explaining the discrepancy? Unfortunately, as several recent cases have shown, the fact-checking budgets of major media outlets have been cut, resulting in their giving their imprimature to dubious claims that, thirty years ago, they probably would never have printed or broadcast. If you are ruling this question out of bounds, or so rare that it is not worth the instruction creep even if valid, so be it -- the issue often goes also to NPOV and undue weight, but I felt I should raise it here. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In your example about Nobel price nomination, you could for NPOV, write something along the lines of "source ABC claims that XYZ was nominated for the Nobel prize, although these claims are unverifiable as the Nobel prize committee deliberations and nominations are not publicly available." As for your comment about making value judgments about the fact-checking (or lack of it) performed by a reputable source, I am afraid that this would be not possible as it implies a value judgement made by editors, based on perceptions that are in themselves not verifiable. I would argue that the policy as it stands, together with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, already provides a solid foundation to address the concerns you raised. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In the proposed section, I don't think any such "consensus" exists. And I don't see this differing from any other neutrality issue. I think it's perfectly OK to include material from a press release, for example. The important things are: it must be cited; it must be made obvious to the reader that it's a press release emanating from a probably non-neutral source; if it seems like a questionable claim, it should be reported in the article with a qualifying phrase like "the company claims" or "a corporate press release says" or "a company spokesperson says." If the claim is dodgy, it is much more valuable to balance it with well-sourced, reputable counter-claims than to remove it. As always, editorial judgement is required in deciding whether opinions are important enough, or sufficiently widespread, to be worth including.

Company press releases and other propaganda are excellent sources to site in reference to the company's corporate opinions. Which is better:

not to mention any sexuality aspect of Hooters restaurants
say "It is generally perceived that Hooters restaurants have a strong element of female sex appeal,"
say "Hooters itself believes that that the element of female sex appeal is prevalent in the restaurants[[6]"

Would you suggest that the third one be ruled out as coming (as it does) from a clearly biassed and self-serving source? Of course, if some other source claims that the Hooters girls are unattractive, that should be mentioned as well. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sex appeal is clearly a significant aspect of Hooters, so it should be mentioned, with sources to back it up. "It is generally perceived" is a generalization; a more concrete phrasing, with sources, should be used. The third one should be used, but with "The company states in its About page (link the page) that..." Don't ascribe feelings or beliefs.

Coyoty 19:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration and comments. Some of the above is, I think, based on a misreading of what I meant, but that is of itself evidence that my proposal was ill-conceived, at least for this page. I still believe that there is a provable difference between the amount of fact-checking done by the Times for leading articles at one extreme and by the local paper for routine obituaries at the other, and a range in between. If this is alluded to on any WP policy or guidelines page, I have missed it. But, let me go and do my homework and try to write up my case in more detail and with citations and present it in a more appropriate and widely-read forum, such as Village Pump or RfC. That is likely to take me a while. Again, thank you for your time and your helpful remarks. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Etiquette question

Clearly, it's bad form to include unsourced and uncorroborated rumors in a Wikipedia article. Is this also the policy concerning discussion pages? Or is gossip, speculation and innuendo allowable on an article's talk page? Anlala 05:38:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's allowed Anlala, but discouraged, unless it's for the purpose of deciding whether to include the material in the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable statement vs non-verifiable statements

An editor cannot provide ANY verifiable sources for their position, yet I can provide several for mine. What's the recourse to get this resolved? I keep getting responses that this is a "content disputed" when it's a Wiki policy dispute. --Iantresman 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I would point to the policy that reads:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

If the editor does not provide a source within a reasonable amount of time, you can delete the material. If the editor insist in reverting the deletion, I would consider that disruptive behavior. You can then place a request at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

While it is certainly not editor B's responsibility to find the source for editor A's assertion, would it do any harm to commend it (time permitting) as a form of Wikipedia:writing for the enemy? I, at any rate, have learned much by finding sources (or better sources) for material put in by other editors with whom I disagreed. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

From memory, I think WP:RS does suggest that, but this page is policy i.e. it is mandatory, so we shouldn't suggest it here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I looked at WP:RS and I don't see the suggestion, but I apprehend your point about this page being Policy (perhaps even the Mother of all Policies?). I think I will propose something on the WP:RS talk page. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Attempt to bypass WP:V and WP:NOR

A discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archival materials is attempting to make an exception to WP:V and WP:NOR for material held in an institutional archive. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 01:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, I was in fact doing nothing of the sort. First off, RFC has absolutely no power currently to change anything, I was merely trying to get some community thoughts, so the suggestion that it is an attempt to bypass these pages is insulting to me (please see WP:CIVIL). Second, I already did note the discussion on the policy talk page, I simply did it on WP:RS because that was the policy discussed in the RFA that spawned the discussion in the first place. Please do not assume something sinister from a simple discussion in the future. I would also ask that any and all readers of this talk page contribute however they see fit to the public discussion as it is just that. Staxringold 02:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This policy is incomplete and should probably be withdrawn until reformulated

Who writes these policies? Are they always subject to a vote?... The need for a policy such as this one is clear, and yet the expression of the policy's requirements is srikingly inadequate, leaving many holes when one tries to apply it to real encyclopedia writing. Take the case of a rumor. Now, Wikipedia has decided to be such an all-inclusive compendium that even topics like the private lives of celebrities have articles or sections of articles devoted to them. In these areas, writers perforce are dealing with rumor rather than with established, published fact. So, is a Wikipedia writer to note that a large number of people believe rumor X? A rumor by nature is not verified. And yet, that many people believe a rumor can be a fact, not a rumor. Is this suitable material for Wikipedia under this policy? You wouldn't know by reading the policy... I would suggest that policies not be formally adopted until they have been formulated to a much greater comprehensiveness than we typically see. JDG 18:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's OK then, as none of our policies are formally adopted. Some of them, such as this one, have "wide acceptance among editors", to quote the {{policy}} tag, and the general idea of some of them were created by the founders of Wikipedia, and are generally regarded as being quite central to what makes Wikipedia what it is (and what it is not), but none of them are formally adopted. We don't do much formally, here.

As for your specific question, about rumors - My general view on that is that a specific mention of a rumor can be a fact - "On this date, in this newspaper, the following rumor was repeated", and, if the newspaper is notable and it's encyclopedic for us to report what rumors it has spread, we can report this. We can't report the rumor without citing who and where it has been repeated, in a reliable source. You seem to be confusing verifiability of the facts of a claim with verifiability that the claim has been made. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:ARCHIVES

Following a discussion in a FAC then an RFC the following proposal has been organized. Obviously if you have an alternative proposal, please voice it, and vote no matter what if you have an opinion. Basically the proposal includes 3 slight alterations to allow archives to be used as source on Wikipedia provided that additional information is included in the citation to prove the archives existence, public accessibility, and reliability. Staxringold 00:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Self-published sources in articles about themselves

"A Wikipedia article about an unreliable newspaper should not — on the grounds of needing to give examples of their published stories — repeat any claims the newspaper has made about third parties, unless the stories have been repeated by credible third-party sources."

I'm not sure I understand the above. It seems to say that using X, one could not say that X claims Y about third party Z. What is the reason for that? Is it that X is not a reliable source for Y, or is it that Y is not important to the article unless others have also reported that X claims Y? Шизомби 01:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It means that if the Weekly World News, for example, claims that Lindsay Lohan is dating Bat Boy, it should not be sourced unless the New York Times has also sourced it. The assumption is that NYT has fact-checked the story before publishing it, which cannot be assumed of WWN.

Coyoty 16:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What it seems to say is that an article about the WWN could not say that the WWN claims LL is dating BB unless the NYT also reports that the WWN claimed LL is dating BB. That's what I think doesn't make sense. It would make sense for an article about LL or BB not to say that the one actually is dating the other on the basis of the WWN claiming it. Шизомби 17:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Explicitly say Wikipedia articles cannot serve as references for other articles

I'd like to see some explicit language that says something like this:

1) a link to another Wikipedia article is never an adequate reference for a fact;

2) it is certainly not adequate if the linked article does not include a reference for the fact;

3) if the linked article does include a reference for the specific fact of interest, that reference should always be copied into the article that links to it.

What set me off about this is List of people known as father or mother of something, which currently lacks any references whatsoever. It glibly says "Sources for or references to each person being a father or mother of something should be found in the article to which their name is linked." Well, no doubt they should, but are they? Let's check the first three.

The Philip Abelson article indeed says "Dr. Abelson is known as the 'Father of the Nuclear Submarine'." Alas, this is a circular reference—to the List of people known as father or mother of something. The words "father of" appear nowhere else in the article.

The Abraham article says, "Jews and Christians consider him father of the people of Israel through his son Isaac; Muslims regard him as the father of the Arabs through his son Ishmael." It gives a reference to Josephus calling Ishmael the "father of the Arab nation." Nowhere does the article say that Abraham is called the "father of monotheism," which is the "fact" that appears on the list.

Nikolaj Abraham Abildgaard says "Eckersberg, as professor at the same Academy went on to lay the foundation for the period of art known as the Golden Age of Danish Painting, and is referred to as the 'Father of Danish painting'". This is another circular reference, and again there is no other indication that he is called the "father of" anything.

I could go on and on, but this is just one example of something I've seen any number of times. I think it needs to be stressed explicitly that a Wikipedia article can not be a source for a fact in another article, for four reasons:

First, names will usually be linked if an article exists, completely independently of whether the article confirms the claims in the other article. Just because Chris Berman is listed as under "notable alumni" of WBRU, it does not follow that the Chris Berman article will necessarily so much as mention WBRU.

Second, a fact that is important to one article may be relatively unimportant in the article it links to. Frequently the linked article may mention something in passing without giving a reference.

Third, articles change over time. Even if a fact was once referenced in an article, regrettably experience shows that that may not be the case six months later.

Fourth, if, in fact, the referenced article actually does give a reference for the item of interest, it takes less than thirty seconds to copy and paste the reference into the referring article, and it is hard for me to see any reason whatsoever why this should not always be done.

Dpbsmith (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There might already be something that states your point about WP not using itself as a source for itself. I thought it might be Avoid Self Reference, but it wasn't in that one. Wikipedia:Abundance and redundancy touches upon your fourth point. Шизомби 17:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"Note: Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources." Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Why_sources_should_be_cited Шизомби 19:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to mention this in WP:V and WP:RS too? (Is that an example of a rhetorical question?) Dpbsmith (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this does need to be explicitly stated. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stargate. It is one thing to see unreferenced stubs and new articles, but it is depressing to see developed articles like Stargate (device), who have been nominated for featured article status, contain few external links mostly internal references. Armedblowfish 00:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You have fundamentally misunderstood what those Stargate references represent. They are referenceing the television episodes themselves (primary source material), not the Wikipedia articles about them. They contain links to the Wikipedia articles on those episodes purely to be helpful, they're still perfectly good references if you disregard the internal linking entirely. I've seen the same sort of thing done in articles that referenced books that there were Wikipedia articles about. Bryan 06:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think what you are proposing makes sense, but such a change would have little effect. We need to be able enforce existing policy before extending it. List of people known as father or mother of something seems to wantonly violate both existing W:V and WP:NPOV. If people are going to violate existing policy, they'll just ignore any new stricter version. -Rob 22:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this. For example on the page Levellers while the internal link to Putney Debates did not exist, there was a a footnote to the Putney Debates, but once the Putney Debates article was created and included footnotes of its own, the footnote in the Levellers to this debate became redundant and I think User:DanKeshet was correct in removing it[7].

However there are degrees of separation. For example the definition of Länder, is circular:

Länder->State (subnational)->States of Germany->State (disambiguation)->state (sub-national)

So I think that if there are cited references in a secondary Wikipedia article which links from a Wikipedia article then there is no need to cite a reference in the Wikipedia article. If however there are not adequate references in the second article then they should be included in the first article if required. Some times this is not possible because the link is to a subject too broad to be cited in the first article, in which case that there are no citations in the secondary article should be flagged in the article and in the secondary article. I have recently been working through the List of war crimes adding {{Unreferenced|date=March 2008}} to the articles used as references by "list of war crimes" if they have none, and in the table row for the specific entry in the list of war crimes. As an example of what I mean see the entry for War Crimes in the Pacific.

--Philip Baird Shearer 15:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Flaw

WP:V has a flaw. Wikipedia is not allowed to be the first source to report on a fact; we have to wait until some other source that is deemed a verification source has already reported on it. We should not have to wait until there is a single "good enough" source. Having some number of Google hits should be good enough to say "yes, this is verifiable", even if none of those hits are good enough on their own to merit verifiability. What that "some number of hits" should be may need to be left up to interpretation. (See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#The_Game_(game)_and_its_AFD.) - UtherSRG (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. At least, not that one. How does a number of dodgey hits on Google make something verifiable? A number of unreliable sources do not add up to reliability. Rumors, bad information and deliberate disinformation spreads fairly rapidly on the Internet, and getting a bunch of hits on something that isn't true doesn't make it true. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 15:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the purpose of verifiability? Is it "this data is verified, you can trust us, don't bother with the man behind the curtain", or is it to say "this data is verifiable, you can prove it yourself". I posit that it's the latter; we don't verify, we provide access to verification. Journalistic and academic write ups are certainly and will remain the dominant vehicle for verification, but any legitimate level of multi-source data should be a sufficient vehicle for the reader to judge whether the article provides the right information, or if the article needs to be editted or removed. If this were a paper-based or otherwise static encyclopedia, then using only the sources a paper-based and static encyclopedia normally uses would make sense. However, we're a collaborative, electronic, dynamic encyclopedia, we should be able to have a somewhat broader(?) verification scheme than a peper-based, static encyclopedia. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, somewhere between the two. The idea of Wikipedia is not for every reader to verify the information, but for our editors to verify the information and allow any reader to do so if he/she wants. A reader with a casual inquiry, or one who is looking for peripheral information (perhaps to help understand a term in a scholarly article) shouldn't have to go through the work of deciding for themselves -- they should be able to trust Wikipedia because by and large we do what we claim. That is the volunteer service that Wikipedia editors provide. A reader who is doing scholarship is a different matter, but even there we want to be a quality starting point and provide a quality bibliography. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

RS

Phil, your revert implied that RS allows non-published sources. [8] It doesn't that I'm aware of. Can you say what you had in mind? (And even if it did, this is the policy page, not RS.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Published, in its most conventional sense, requires a dependency on paper that we do not have. Given that we are linking to RS as our explanation of what a reliable, published source is, we ought accurately describe its content in the link - which is not based on publication, but on, perhaps, accessability? That seems the more accurate term to me, at least. Phil Sandifer 19:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Phil, "published" simply means entered into the public domain. Wikipedia "publishes" articles: that they're on the Web makes no difference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that's what we mean by it, but it's fairly misleading - as you can see on WP:AN right now, as people are citing WP:V as an argument against web-only sources. Phil Sandifer 19:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Phil, please don't change the core wording of this policy without a consensus here. This a core policy on Wikipedia, and it is not lightly changed. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 19:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh give me a break. The "don't change" means don't change the meaning - not don't remove words that are misleading people. Phil Sandifer 19:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think published is misleading, it's just inconvenient for some editors. We just went through an attempt to define archives as reliable sources becasue they are "accessible", even if they aren't "published". -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 19:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Which, I think, gets to a larger problem, which is that we are completely incoherent on the subject of sources - by the standards proposed in the archives debate, out of print academic books would be just as problematic. Phil Sandifer 19:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Just popping in with two cents here. On some of the articles I've edited, I've relied on out-of-print books that I personally own. For 19th century firearms (for example), most of the interesting documentation of their history happened years and years ago. Surely, nobody is proposing that an out-of-print is an unacceptable source? - O^O

An out-of-print book would still be in the public domain; it would just be harder to find than a book in print. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. My point is that the archives issue seems to me to be basically the same, unless I'm missing some facet of the issue. Phil Sandifer 21:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Out-of-print does not necessarily mean hard-to-find. Out-of-print books may be available in libraries, book storea, and for sale on-line. Even old books that are only available in university libraries are still much more accessible than archives that are available at only one place. Moreover, books from reputable publishers are more likely to be reliable than raw material from an archive. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 21:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Phil, the issue is not only public accessibility. I could put a few sheets of my own typed material in my front yard, post the title of my article and its location on my blog, and that would make it, strictly speaking, accessible and in the public domain. The second requirement for a source to be reliable is that there's some degree of pre-publication third-party scrutiny, some kind of fact-checking process and editorial oversight. Almost all publication processes have this, whether it's a large newspaper where everything is scrutinized by several editors before publication, or a small book publisher where one editor will glance through it to check for libel and obvious errors. With personal websites and posts to Usenet, there's nothing standing between the writer and the act of publication, just as there isn't on Wikipedia, which is one of the reasons we can't use Wikipedia as a source. We have to rely on the editorial processes of other publications when we cite them, because we don't have our own, and the same goes for posts to message boards. I can see what you're saying in the case of comics, but imagine what would happen to articles like Abortion and Israel, or about controversial living people, if we started allowing posts on message boards to be cited. Could you try to come up with a very tightly worded section that would allow more of what you want without opening dangerous loopholes? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

To some extent. But as I've said, when one teaches this in college, one spends a month or two on it - it doesn't collapse to single sentences well at all. Phil Sandifer 02:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Third party sourcing as a notability definition

Given that the page states Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources, would people care to look at Wikipedia:Notability/Proposal? I've attempted to build a guideline which will equate notability with credible, third party sourcing. Improvement attempts, discussion and comments welcome. Hiding The wikipedian meme 23:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Top-of-Page Notice

On April 22, SlimVirgin changed the 2nd sentence of the top-of-page notice from this :

Feel free to edit the page as needed, but please make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus before you make them.

to this:

Please make sure that any changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus before you make them.

Since I preferred to old version, I reverted it back. I'm posting this notice here (and on WP:NOR and WP:NPOV), because it seems like a better place to discuss it than the template page. Ragout 04:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Do articles require third party sources?

Okay. I'm currently in a silly edit war at UGOPlayer, and I should probably know better, but this issue is driving me nuts at the moment. The guidance here states "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." To me, that means an article should have third party sources, and if none exist then there's no article. Granted, there are minor technicalities in that staement, but I'm of the opinion that the argument I'm being countered with isn't one of those. Now the person I'm arguing with is attempting to convince me that since the guidance states that "For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source of information on itself in an article about Stormfront", this means that all we need is the foo website as a source to write an article on foo. If that's the consensus, great, I'll get to work on creating articles on my blog and all the others. If it isn't the case, can we please tighten this area up. I like to think I do add useful information, almost everything I write is well sourced, but I'm growing weary of this inane fight every day. Perhaps I'm losing the point somewhere, and I should focus my energies at the print edition. At least articles there would hopefully require better sourcing. Hiding The wikipedian meme 09:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I also keep running into the same attitude on other articles, where an article on a book (or film or whatever) is just a book report -- or worse, just a plot summary and some cultural references. When I complain that there are no secondary sources the response is that "the book is obviously notable" and "the source on the book is the book." It has always seemed obvious to me that, a primary source is proper if judiciously used in addition to secondary sources, and almost never otherwise. Am I wrong? Guidance would be appreciated. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As said in most headers of policies, the main policies of Wikipedia work together and should not be applied individualy and in isolation of each other. For example, the fact that a fact is verifiable is not enough. It needs to be notable, it needs to be NPOV and not WP:NOR, etc. So, to write an article on foo, first question that should be asked is: Is foo notable?, then you should ask: Are there reputable sources that describe foo? etc. See also WP:N and WP:AUTO ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

In practice, many articles lack proper sources because they haven't been put in yet. But, if you're talking about whether a subject is verifiable (or, if you prefer, notable) enough to have an article, an absolute minimum requirement for inclusion is that the subject is discussed in reliable sources. Exactly how many are needed and exactly which sources are reliable is subject to discussion, of course. If this minimum requirement is not sufficiently clear, I'd support tweaking the policy a bit to make it more clear. Friday (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the confusion arises when a book or movie is unquestionably notable, but there is not a large corpus of critical discussion. (In many cases this is really FUTON bias, but that is a distinct question.) Many Wikipedians seem to feel that a plot summary, a list of related games and movies and some trivia make an article. These are not labeled stubs, but they are not NPOV, because they are essentially the editors' critical views, or lack thereof. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm in an edit war where this is germane, so I can't edit this, but if consensus is that an absolute minimum requirement for inclusion is that the subject is discussed in reliable sources, then that should be explicitly stated. Hiding The wikipedian meme 21:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I for one would count that as what this policy already says. If you can take out anything that is not verifiable that leads to the conclusion that if a topic is not verifiable, there can't be an article on it/the material can't be included in an article. Now of course as previously discussed, you can't take that to the level of instantly removing large swaths of text, you have to point out the problem, request references, and only then remove (probably by copying the removed content to the talk page for later verification efforts) if no references are possible or are forthcoming. To the point Robert West brings up, that is unnaceptable as a violation of WP:V and WP:NOR, and there's a ton of it going on. Avoiding that is exactly what these policies are for. - Taxman ^Talk 22:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- I propose to change "If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." to "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources ~~independent of the subject of the article~~, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Do I correctly relate consensus? Would this be a clearer statement? Robert A.West (Talk) 23:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to examin independent of the subject of the article to make sure it always means what we want it to mean. I'm a bit uncomfortable with it, though I can't pin down why. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 00:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What exactly does it mean in this context? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see now. You mean no reliable third-party sources. I thought the policy said that already. If not, NOR does or ought to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Third-party" then. While the point is clearly intended, I don't see it said anywhere explicitly. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes that turns out to be a minor change, but with three adjectives there should be another comma, unless you're counting 'reliable third-party' as a unit, where reliable descrbes the third party, not the reference. (so I've added the comma) And of course we can agree on this here, but it seems there is a large group of editors out there that are not aware of the specifics of the WP:V policy like this. You'd see a swarm of controversy from if more people realized the implications of this to such things as AFD. I suppose that's our job to educate. - Taxman ^Talk 19:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the comma. Yes, this probably means few Internet Memes, but if this is not what Wikipedia is about, then I might as well go back to The Fray. Seeing no objection, I will make the edit. Please revert me if you feel I have been premature.Robert A.West (Talk) 10:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

(undent) Given that so many articles, cite no sources (a bad thing), I don't see the point of demanding 3rd party sources yet. Shouldn't we first get to the point, where every article has to have some source, before we get more picky about the quality? We can't really evaluate the quality of sources, when so many articles don't mention what sources were used. --Rob 10:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the above comment before I saved, so I cancelled my edit. I think there is an important distinction between an article like Remainder which has no sources cited, but which contains valid information that unquestionably exists in a third-party source, and an article about, say, a small-but-influential SF/Gaming convention that has no sources independent of its organizers, past and present. The former topic belongs in Wikipedia, but needs to be improved. The latter topic doesn't belong in Wikipedia, at least not until there is a third-party source. The problem on AfD is often that there is no problem finding first-party sources (the annual ads in various magazines and the website), and no reason to suspect that the program is fictitious, so it is often argued that the article is "verifiable". Similarly, it is often argued that the article is NOR because it merely reproduces the sponsor's materials without comment. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- I should add that the SF/Gaming convention article example is deliberately chosen because there are several such articles I would love to write if they could be made V and NOR, but they can't, and so they don't belong. If the evolving misunderstanding of V ever becomes policy, I could write them, and that would (IMO) weaken Wikipedia. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Rob, the fact that many articles contain no sources is exactly why we need to tighten this policy now. Added material with no sources is nearly useless because greater effort needs to be expended later to verify the material or replace it with material from a good source. We're turning the corner where more people are realizing reliable sources rule the day, but we need to step on the accelerator with that, not slow it down. And Robert A, those are good points and a good example too. - Taxman ^Talk 13:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- I made the proposed change. It seems practical consensus that this is not a change to policy, but clarification of what was always intended. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Looks godd. We'll probably have to defend it for a few dsys, though. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 15:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    - Friends don't let friends type too fast. :) - Taxman ^Talk 05:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
      - It's the...uh...arthritis in my fingers. Yeah, that's what it is!. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 11:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A bad source is much better than no source

IMHO It's much more important that a fact be sourced than that the source be reliable. To rank-order some hypothetical situations:

Worst: No sources.
Next: The article has some implicit sources, in the form of book citations or external links, which probably served as sources for whomever was writing the article at the time those citations or links were added to the article... but you can't trace any particular assertion in the article to a source, and you can't tell which things in the article came from the sources and which were added later by other editors.
Next: The article's source is a single website from a party that is not disinterested. For example: articles about products where the only reference is an external link to the vendor's own website, articles about historic house museums where the only reference is a link to the museum's own website, articles about companies where the only reference is a link to the corporate website, etc. Such a reference proves that a fact is not made up, but in a surprising number of cases will contain at least an element of "spin." (E.g. Princeton's website gives Princeton's founding date as 1740 without mentioning that this is a famous disputed question, the Garibaldi-Meucci museum is likely reliable as to when the house was built, but is not the place to look for an unbiased review of Meucci's role as inventor of the telephone.
Next: The unsourced facts in the article are marked with the ^{[citation needed]} tag, and the unsourced sections with {{Unreferencedsection|date=March 2008}}. This gives the reader fair warning, shows clearly that Wikipedia is a work in progress. The presence of such tags on a page may inhibit editors from adding more unsourced items, may motivate them to source them, and so forth.
Next: Facts in the article are sourced to sources that don't come close to meeting WP:RS. Blogs, forums, personal websites. Any reader can judge whether they trust the sources. These sources at least show that the editor is (probably) not spouting off an original personal view, and that the fact being supported is, at least, believed by a small group of people.
Next: Facts in the article are sourced to what I'll call a "labor-of-love" source. This would be, say, a website with no obvious axe to grind, that has an identifiable author or authors, and appears to have had enough work put into it that you get the clear impression that the site's author is trying to be "encyclopedic." Some fan sites belong in this category. The point here is that the material in the article is not something that one person tossed off casually, like an email or USENET posting. Would you trust the Spindrift Island website's description of "The Whispering Box Mystery"? I would. How about "Chahda" (a character's name) meaning 14 in Hindi? Well, if I were putting that in an article I'd qualify it, "According to a fan site," but I'd think it could go in.
Next: Facts in the article are sourced to a source meeting WP:RS.
Gold standard: Facts in the article are sourced both to a print source and to a version of the print source that is available online.

Where in this hierarchy do you say "the unsourced information really should be removed?" I say... it depends, and in Wikipedia's current state, I'd be lenient. As long as there's a source, and as long as the reader's in a position to judge its reliability, that's... well, better than 99% of the factual items in Wikipedia today.

I'm not talking here about POV wars, where a highly disputable item is claimed to be a fact and referenced to a biassed source... or where WP:RS is used in a dishonest way as a pretext for removing material when the real motive is to suppress a point of view. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I would totally agree with your ranking. For example, the articles on Mathematics are kept pretty clean by a group of knowledgable Wikipedians who often don't bother citing their sources because, in a peer-reviewed journal article, you state that an Hermitian matrix can be diagonalized, you don't give a citation. I would rate such articles above the article on, say, The Fray (band) which is really just a listing and tells us nothing that couldn't be found on the band's website, but contains citations, and I would rate both of those above a crank article with numerous dubious citations. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's a product of there being no doubt within the community of matematicians that that is true. Where there is any doubt, or controversy, you will see references or proofs. In pop music, the more obscure the band, the more sources would be useful. To say that Kurt Cobain was an influencial grunge musician who killed himself would not need a source citation, whereas something about The Fray would need it. It's about the Consensus reality of the community maintaining the article. For great justice. 18:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Kurt Cobain example proves the need for sourcing everything, as there could be people who question his influence (albeit unlikely), and there definately are people who question his suicide. --Rob 05:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, by policy all the examples should have sources. Unsourced consensus-reality articles are a lesser evil, but still an evil. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, fair enough on the CK example, but do you agree with the point that the less well known and agreed on a fact is within the interested community, the less urgent sourcing the claim is? In practice an unsourced claim gets sourced if and when someone disptes it. For great justice. 19:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with the whole ranking either, especially you include in #2 good sources that were used right, just not cited explicitly as worse than a few layers of crappy sources. But also that it's not that hard to tell where to remove unsourced statements or those with worthless sources. It's not like someone can't find a better source and put it back or if there is none, it should stay out. - Taxman ^Talk 05:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This rule sometimes does more harm than good.

I have been a Wikipedian for slightly over two months and my focus is writing (and expanding) articles related to websites and Singaporean TV shows. Given my field of expertise, this rule has caused me significant problems when editing Wikipedia.

For articles related to historical events, for example, there are likely to be an abundance of easily available sources. However, for websites and TV shows, finding reliable sources is often difficult. Let's use a couple of general examples. If an online forum is notorious for receiving lots of spam, do you think there are reliable sources to verify the fact? As for TV shows, you need to have actually watched the show to know the plot. Any sources that detail the plot are likely to be blogs or unofficial fansites.

Now for some actual (and potential) headaches this rule has caused me.

I am the writer of the article on Homerun. Homerun is a Singapore movie, based on the Iranian film Children of Heaven. Before writing the article, I watched Homerun (using a VCD). While writing it, I watched the movie again, and wrote as I watched. After the movie finished, I organized everything into the "Plot" section. Then I recalled a blog with an interesting post about Homerun. I found it through Google, and used material from it to form the "Trivia" section. I then wrote the "Political satire" section from my memory of various newspaper reports, and found a source about it. I placed both sources into the article. I added a link to the Homerun website, slapped an introduction from contextual knowledge, and that was about it. I'm sure this article could be regarded as original research. But if I didn't use my personal knowledge gained from watching the movie, how could I have written the Plot section?

Since Homerun is a movie and Homerun VCDs are regularly sold in VCD shops, one could buy and watch the VCD to verify the information. However, I also plan to write articles about famous Singapore TV shows, such as A Child's Hope. TV shows seldom have VCDs, so one has to write the plot entirely from memory and information on the MediaCorp website, since it is unlikely that the TV show will be shown again, even if it is very notable in Singapore.

I also wrote the Google Groups article. Apart from the History section, the article is practically unsourced, and has been tagged as such. When writing the "Interface and Features" section, I kept surfing back and forth through Google Groups to verify the information I was adding. The only "sources" are the screenshots I have taken. Other than the Google Groups Help Centre, do you expect to find enough reliable sources about the features of Google Groups?

The Criticism section was partially written off the top of my head. These are not personal opinions, but the experiences and opinions of many Google Groups users I have met in my 6 months of using Google Groups, and some self-verified facts (e.g. the bugs). I have actually and personally witnessed incidents of users requesting managerial privileges and then destroying groups. The part about being presumptous and trying to take over Usenet is based on numerous posts and complaints that I read.

I have also contributed some information to the NeoPets article, and nominated it for Featured Article status. The main reason for the nomination failing was the lack of references. I have been a regular user of NeoPets since August 2001, and have developed a love-hate relationship with the website. I have a significant amount of knowledge about NeoPets (and can easily verify anything I don't know). Much of the unsourced information is true, but it was deleted because it was unsourced.

However, it is very difficult to find sources for many of these true claims, especially those in the Criticism section! For example, about NeoPets indiscriminately freezing accounts, do you think there are reliable sources stating that NeoPets indiscriminately freezes accounts? In my 4 and a half years at NeoPets, I have personally been frozen over 10 times, and usually without a legimate reason. I can self-verify that many top Neopians have been frozen. There is a list of the top scorers in a war - all elite Neopians. Many of the users in that list have been frozen. When I try to log in to their accounts to see why they were frozen (I don't need to know their password), I see NeoPets usually does not provide a reason. I could easily publish the results on my website to prove that "a large number of top Neopians have been frozen", and reference my site in Wikipedia. Wait, that would be original research and vanity. So self-verifying is unacceptable in this circumstances.

This rule means that the contributions experts may make are limited, and are likely to be regarded as original research. Someone with a limited knowledge on the subject can make better contributions on a subject through a few hours surfing for lots of "reliable sources", while the knowledge and expertise of experts contributing to the subject without sources might be regarded as original research.

This rule results in the removal of important and useful information from the encyclopedia. I am not suggesting you scrap it altogether, since it was formed to ensure accuracy of information. I am suggesting that it be revised to cover cases where important and useful information is difficult to verify, like articles on websites and TV shows. Perhaps there should be alternative ways of verifying or providing reliable sources.

A suggestion is the Panel of Experts. If we can find 5 experts on a particular subject, we could ask them to verify information in an article that is difficult to source (having 5 experts means it is likely to be notable). For example, if we can find 5 people who can verify that they are experienced NeoPets users (I could log in to NeoPets, go to my bank and type in the address bar "I am Hildanknight on Wikipedia" and take a screenshot and publish it to verify that I am an experienced NeoPets user), we can ask them to read unsourced allegiations and use their experience on NeoPets to check whether the information is true or false, as well as to contribute information. Similarly, if we can find 5 Wikipedians who have watched a TV show, we can ask them to contribute information on the plot.

In addition, screenshots could also be used as sources. I have made heavy use of screenshots in the Google Groups article.

Lastly, here's a question about an example posed in the rule page: what if the physicist tells me that Theory X is false through an instant message conversation, as opposed to a call? Can I take a screenshot and use it as a reliable source, provided the screenshot proves that the person who IMed me was the physicist himself?

I hope an experienced Wikipedian can help address my concerns, and modify the policy if neccesary. Thanks.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm responding to the {{helpme}}, which is only to be used on your own user talk page. Be patient and wait for a response to your query. And no you couldn't use that note from the physicist - if it's true then he will write it in a journal and you will get your source.--Commander Keane 13:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this TV show "A Child's Hope", if this really is or was a famous show then it must have been discussed in Singaporean newspapers or magazines around the time it aired or have websites dedicated to it. You should be able to provide references or links (doesn't have to be English-language websites). The dictionary definition of "famous" is, pretty much, something that attracts a fair bit of attention and interest. You should be able to point to someplace where people express that interest and pay that attention. The existence of (and basic information about) things that are "famous" really ought to be easily verifiable. If not, well, almost by definition it's not famous.

Regarding "Neopets sucks", "No it doesn't", "Yes it does", well maybe that's more of a blog topic than an encyclopedic subject.

Verifiability is a pretty ironclad requirement. It's the only way we can be sure that someone isn't just, you know, making shit up.

By the way, vandalizing Wikipedia:Verifiability is a really bad idea, and all the more so, doing it again. -- Curps 05:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

As Curps points out, if it can't be verified, we have no way of ensuring it is accurate or credible in any way. This is a fundamental policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Hildanknight, your suggestion that As part of the campaign Wikipedia:Verifalse started by Hildanknight, editors are hereby encouraged to fill Wikipedia with verifiable but false information from verifiable but false sources. is a violation of WP:POINT, and the kind of thing likely to get you blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents in articles should be verifiable. I have seen too many anonymous edits that cannot be verified through Google. For articles about years and dates, they can cause troubles. I have reverted so many edits when I have considered these edits non-verifiable, but in case of doubt, I put questionable contents in invisible marks rather than removing them, such as --Jusjih 13:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Verifalse was a joke, and I hope you got the point.

Can I use screenshots as proof of concept? For example, if the Hotmail article claims "Hotmail's full features are not available to non-IE browsers", could I take a screenshot of Hotmail in Opera, which shows some features lacking and the page looking weird? I made heavy use of images as proof of concept in my Google Groups article.

Another example: the orkut article states that "orkut is often down". Most orkut users will agree that orkut is often down. However, how am I to find a reliable source stating that "orkut is often down"? Such sources would probably be blogs or anti-orkut sites.

Another example is the NeoPets article. I can self-verify a claim that "a large number of top Neopians have been frozen". NeoPets has a list of the top scorers in a certain war. Almost all the top Neopians participated in the war, and almost all the top scorers are top Neopians. Many Neopians on the top scorers list have been frozen. As stated earlier, most of the Neopians in the list are top Neopians, and most of the top Neopians are in the list - so this means "a large number of top Neopians have been frozen". When I check their reason for being frozen, the NeoPets Team usually does not cite a reason. I can easily publish these findings on my web site, and use it to source the claim that "a large number of top Neopians have been frozen". What is right and wrong with doing this?

All information I insert in articles is true to the best of my knowledge. I usually self-verify information before saving the changes. For example, I watched Homerun while writing the Homerun article to ensure that the information in the plot section was accurate and in the right order. When writing the Google Groups article, I was surfing Google Groups to check that my information about the features was correct.

I am not saying that this rule is bad. I just think there should be more ways to verify information, such as proof-of-concept screenshots. What about the Panel of Experts? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sidebar:

Is this sidebar {{Associations/Wikipedia Bad Things}} appropriate in a policy page? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Using nowiki tags to hide unverified content

A question? Is nowiki tagged content visible on the HTML output? Or does ot get omitted from the output? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean things in comments, like . Based on extensive research involving putting a comment on my user page and viewing the source, they do not show up in the source. When you edit the page, you still see them. Friday (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I added to the page that this is an additional option to tagging or removing unsourced material. Feel free to revert if you disagree. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

RfC: Interpreting WP:V in the context of Mnemonics

Talk:Mnemonic#RfC:_How_should_WP:V.2C_WP:NOR.2C_and_WP:CITE_be_applied_to_unsourced_examples_of_first-letter_mnemonics.3F. The article contained about seventy-five unsourced examples of "first-letter mnemonics," probably representing a mix of well-known but uncited mnemonics, unpublished orally transmitted folk culture, and original creations. Should the WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:NOR policies be interpreted as allowing such material, on the basis that it is self-verifying (i.e. anyone can see by inspection that the initial letters of "Kinky People Can Often Find Good Sex match those Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species, and the source of the mnemonic is of no practical concern)? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in a few examples of mnemonics being used to illustrate an article, and I don't think there is a genuine conflict with WP:V here - we already apply our judgement sensibly and don't require references for obvious or well-known facts ("grass is green", or "Paris is in France"), so I think we can apply the same judgement to whether an example is "obviously ok".

While I do think examples of mnemonics should certainly be treated as allowed under WP:V, this is not the same as saying they should necessarily stay in the article - I agree that there are many more examples than needed in the article.

A particular problem with mnemonics is a lack of good sources; in some cases I think it is better to have an unsourced "example" than to remove the material altogether or support it with an unreliable source. Enchanter 02:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we just find some that are well sourced? For great justice. 02:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be ideal. At the moment, even those that are referenced don't generally have particularly useful sources. That is, the sources support a statement like "mnemonic x can be used to remember y", which is already obvious, but don't provide any significant evidence that the mnemonic is actually widely used, or who it is used by. I do think we need to be selective with references, and only include good quality ones that genuinely add to the verifiability of the article. In the case of menmonics, this might be a "history of mnemonics" or "survey of mnemonics"; sources like this are in practice quite rare. Enchanter 11:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What I've been doing is to try to find sources for mnemonics that I thought could be sourced. My feeling is that requiring a source is, if nothing else, a neutral and objective way to prune the list and weed out original creations (or minor variations, or original creations of minor variations). Being folklore, there's no urtext for most of them, but that doesn't mean that it's important for this article to show that Old Olympus' top could equally well be "towering" or "terraced" or "tremendous."

I actually don't think it should be very hard to find good referenced examples for a few of the "classics." That is to say, sources that give one of the examples and assert that it is "well-known." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Conflict on use of self-published sources?

It looks to me as if there is some ambiguity on the use of self-published blogs as sources. The subsection self-published sources suggests that in some limited cases, it is appropriate to use a blog as a secondary source, while the following subsection, self-published sources in articles about themselves seems to say that this is never appropriate. W:RS seems to take the latter position, but it's not 100% clear if "personal" websites means the same thing as "self-published" websites.

Is there a policy to clarify the distinctions between those three sections? Thanks, TheronJ 20:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I also think blogs should be excluded from reliability, as a rule. However, there may be exceptions, such as if the site is by an otherwise recognized source for a particular field, and the author himself is writing on that particular subject. Also if the facts from the blog are autobiographical. (Diligens 13:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

I semi-agree. In this article, we should not conflate the domain of verifiability, which is the publications themselves, with the domain of reliability, which is (I believe) 1. editorship and/or peer review, 2. corroboration (independent concurrence), and 3. authority (as in, expertise & credentials). The fact that a statement was made in a blog is verifiable, but the statement itself may or may not be reliable, depending on who made it and who validated it. The type of publication does not affect verifiability, but may (or may not) affect reliability. It could be a blog, the Asssociated Press, MAD Magazine, or JAMA. These are all verifiable sources, so they are eligible to be cited, but are not necessarily appropriate, depending on circumstances.

I don't think we disagree on these points, but I don't like the implication that a blog is inherently, absolutely unreliable by default. It should not be excluded from reliability any moreso than any other self-published source. I don't even think self-published sources should be held to different standards at all. Ascertaining the reliability of a source involves consideration of peer review, editorship, authority, and corroboration, etc., and we should be encouraging people to scrutinize every source according to the same criteria. A mainstream newspaper, at least nowadays, tends to make a clear distinction between editorials and factual reporting, so we can of course say a single-source, self-published work is likely to be less reliable than a newspaper …but less reliable does not equal unreliable.

More importantly, I don't think this article should be talking so much about reliability; it is supposed to be about the separate topic of verifiability.—mjb 02:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to restrict who can edit policies

Following banned user Zephram Stark's attempt to rewrite WP:SOCK using two sockpuppet accounts, there is a proposal to limit the editing of policy pages either to admins, or to editors with six months editing experience and 1,000 edits to articles. Please vote and comment at Wikipedia:Editing policy pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. It is the content that is decided upon by its own merits, not HOW it got there on the page. Also, such a proposal can lead easily to the abuse of an elitist bureaucracy having control of policy. (Diligens 13:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

Policy makers

After the debacle on this talk page a few months ago where certain editors got blocked by virtue of their interfering in WHEEL WARS, and other editors comments were sidelined by their contributions being deleted or otherwise hidden away by ADMINs, I think ADMINS are the LAST people to be making policy decisions! --Light current 01:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal regarding blogs

I propose that we specifically call out blogs as unreliable sources for verifiability purposes. There are too many articles on Wikipedia, particularly those dealing with political or highly controversial subjects, like Bush family conspiracy theory for example, that rely heavily on the political rantings and made-up theories of bloggists. Can we specifically call out blogs as unreliable because they fail the objective tests of mainstream journalism? Thank you for your consideration. Morton devonshire 16:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, Wiki policies currently describe two conflicting rules for blogs. (1) The WP:V subsection self-published sources states that blogs from recognized experts may be used as secondary sources, while (2) the WP:V subsectionself-published sources in articles about themselves and WP:RS each say that blogs are never appropriate as secondary sources. TheronJ 13:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I posted my thoughts about this above. I don't think it is appropriate to make sweeping judgments about the inherent reliability of certain types of self-published sources, or about self-published sources in general. I also feel it is getting too deep into the topic of reliability, which is not supposed to be the subject of this article. There's a whole other article about reliability. We should put more effort into emphasizing that reliability is as important as verifiability and encouraging the reader to see that article, rather than trying to paraphrase and invent new reliability policies here.

As for "reliability for verifiability purposes", it's not clear what you mean. The fact that statements are made in blogs (or in media outlets that use blogs as sources) is normally quite verifiable, regardless of the reliability of the sources. Whether such statements, when reliable enough to be cited, are properly cited (i.e., all sources of indirect/secondhand citations are mentioned) is a separate topic that should be (and is) addressed in Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you got it.—mjb 03:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy or Guideline? Difference

I noticed an inconsistency with the three policies here that, as it mentions, are not supposed to be interpreted in isolation of each other. Verifiability is a policy, yet it directly relies on reliable sources by definition. This is an inconsistency because the article on reliable sources is a guideline. If I understand the difference correctly, policies are unbending, whereas guidelines can bend as being merely being suggestions and therefore debateable. On the principle that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link this connection automatically tears down the "policy" of verifiability into a mere "guideline" because it directly depends on a guideline, the weaker link. Either the article on reliable sources needs to be upgraded to a "policy" or else this article on verifiability needs to be downgraded to a guideline. I think this inconsistency is the cause of much mayhem among editors right now. It would seem logical to me that all three should be considered policy, and that the article on reliable sources be altered and amended with more details and examples so that it can no longer be debateable. As of now, it is a quite primitive guideline. While people think about this, I am going to focus on fixing the article on what reliable sources are. (Diligens 13:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

Hi Diligens, the Verifiability policy doesn't rely on RS. The difference between policies and guidelines is that the former are mandatory; and you can be taken to the arbcom for violating any policies, and blocked by admins for violating some. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What I have written shows that I am painfully aware of this. You seem to miss the point I was making. Here is the Verifiability Policy:

This policy in a nutshell: Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

If Verifiability is in reference to RS, then Verifiability becomes a guideline, by default, because it depends on a guideline. Do you understand the analogous princple that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link? RS is going to have to be upgraded to policy if it is included in the defnition of verifiability. As it is now, it is like telling people RS is just a suggestion because it is a guidelinie, but that simultaneously RS is mandatory because it is part of mandatory verifiability. Do you see the contradiction? --Diligens 16:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather than giving me analogies, could you explain why you believe V is dependent upon RS? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Without the principled analogy, I have explained it in other words. If you don't understand the principle, my explanation doesn't need it. --Diligens 10:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Your error is in assuming WP:V becomes a guideline if it depends on one. RS may be a guideline because the wording and some details are not agreed upon. There's no substantial disagreement that WP:V requires reliable sources, therefore no real problem with WP:V. - Taxman ^Talk 17:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a fallacy of logic. If you admit "the wording and some details are not agreed upon" in the RS guideline, that makes the whole RS not agreed upon because you cannot say WHICH details or wording are not agreed upon. And if the whole RS is not agreed upon, it makes what Verifiability is not agreed upon because it substantially depends upon RS intrinsically, that is, it cannot exist without it. Until RS is upgraded to Policy, Verifiability remains a de facto guideline, something not agreed upon directly because reliable sources is not agreed upon. This is one reason so many disputes exist. It is largely the fault of the rules. --Diligens 10:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a fallacy of logic. The policy is that reliable sources are required. This means any text without references will be removed. Any text with references will be referred to the guidance at WP:RS, where it will be determined if the sources are reliable applying the guidance offered. If they are not deemed to be, the information can be removed. If they are deemed to be, it stays. No problem. Once a source is determined to not be reliable, it becomes subject to this policy. Hiding Talk 12:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
You're trying to be legalistic about something that doesn't need it. There are more important things to work on. Upgrade reliable sources to a policy, but don't waste people's time on non issue. - Taxman ^Talk 12:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. Guidelines are not strictly required (not mandatory as SlimV said), that is why they are considered guidelines and not policies. Now substitute the logic:

FACT: RELIABLE SOURCES IS A GUIDELINE

FACT: GUIDELINES ARE NOT REQUIRED

THEREFORE: RELIABLE SOURCES IS NOT REQUIRED

Now substitute this logic into your claim that, "The policy is that reliable sources are required."

and it comes out to be:

The policy is that [not required] reliable sources are required.

Yes, this is a logical contradiction. Is one of my FACTS wrong? If not, why would the conclusion be wrong? It is necessary that Reliable Sources be upgraded to Policy after being properly amended. You cannot base something mandatory on something that is not mandatory. As it stands there is a blatant contradiction in reason and logic. Legalism cannot even survive in such a situation because you cannot do to opposing things at the same time.

--Diligens 13:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The flaw is in your logic, namely that Reliable sources, being guidelines, are therefore not required. Guidelines are not to be ignored, should not be stated as being not rquired, and therefore the rest of your argument fails. Guidelines offer guidance on how to reach a conclusion on something. Policy describes what to do with such a conclusion. Guidelines aren't bendable, they operate through consensus. Policy cannot be trumped through consensus. The policy is that (consensus defined with guidance offered which should be followed unless good reason exists) reliable sources are required. Hope that helps. Happy editing! Hiding Talk 13:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Diligens, you're arguably making what philosophers call a category mistake. Yes, reliable sources are required under WP:V, which is policy. But Wikipedia:Reliable sources, a guideline, is not required. What you see as an inconsistency is resolved when you realize that "reliable sources" are not the same thing as Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which might just as easily have been called something else e.g. Wikipedia:How to judge between a good and bad source. That is, the guideline is not equivalent to the thing the guideline is about. It's the latter that is required by policy, not the former. Ergo, no contradiction. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather, what "some" alleged philosophers call a "category mistake"; I don't recognize that man (who made that up some 50 years ago) as a philosopher. I am into tried and true Aristotle/Aquinas and the traditional terminology, of non sequitur, ignoratio elenchi, apples and oranges and red herrings, etc. Anyway, I think I know what you are saying. Though I don't think it completely solves a discrepancy. It appears to me that there is a problem of defining terms. What is a verified source in itself? That is not completely understood by all people. The policy is not clear. Is something only considered verifiable if it is reliable? or is verifiable' determined on its own before it is determined to be reliable? It appears to be the first because the policy, as stated in a nutshell, includes reliability in it definition. So, something is not considered verifiable UNLESS it is reliable. And if this is so, verifiability is dependent on being reliable. However, what is reliable is seriously disputed in many cases. It is logical to say therefore that verifiability is seriously disputed in many cases directly because of this. The guideline on reliable sources surely talks about HOW to judge what is reliable, but the result of a judgment decides WHAT is reliable. It should be plainly stated what is more according to the truth - It is policy that Verifiability should be ATTEMPTED. The attempt should be policy, not BEING verifiable, because being usually turns out to be later disputed as not being from a reliable source. The rules say that any editor can come along and delete anything that does not have verifiability, but since verifiability is based on what subjectively is determined as reliable or not, it means that editors can delete based on subjective and disputed reliability. That is anarchy. The Reliability page should be upgraded to Policy, and expanded to DETAIL, with verbose examples, what sources, and the parts of them, are SOLIDLY considered RELIABLE. This is a big problem with Wikipedia. For instance, the guideline currently says that court transcripts are reliable published sources, yet it fails to mention what information needs be given such a quote to allow the public to verify a court record with. It also fails to mention that court transcripts are filled with hearsay evidence right along side with actual testimony and that hearsay evidence is not reliable. The rules here are very primitive and the cause of much unnecessary arguing, bandwidth and drive space, not to mention time and money. --Diligens 15:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think SlimV is claiming it's the fallacy of 4 terms. In any event, I read this as WP:V policy says that reliable sources be used. Whether a source is or is not reliable is determined by consensus as reflected in the WP:RS guideline. It can be a policy to follow the law even while lawyers argue about what in particular the law requires. Just my opinion, Gimmetrow 16:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Gimmetrow I think I love you. That's what I meant to say, but put it badly. What I suggest is that we carry on as if that's what the wording means, and leave any logical, philosophical or semantical discussions for God, who, as we all know, has already disappeared in a puff of logic. :) Happy editing, one and all, and please don't take offence at my humourous tone, it is meant in good faith. I simply want to convey the point that we're worrying about nothing in this discussion. Hiding Talk 18:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Carry on as if that's what the wording means? In other words, pretend it's better worded? No, let's actually word it better. I've gone ahead and paraphrased Gimmetrow in a minor addition to the 'nutshell', which was rather awkward in that it didn't mention verifiability at all, as well as at the beginning of the section on reliable sources. Otherwise, I am mostly in agreement with Diligens, although regarding "attempting" vs "being" verifiable, yes the attempt is policy, but ultimately, so is being. Assertions that could not possibly have reliable sources cited at the time the assertions are made amount to speculation and do not belong on Wikipedia. There is of course some leeway for making an uncited, but plausible and non-libelous claim, and then adding a source for it later (within reasonable limits), and this is already addressed in the policy article.—mjb 21:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Self published - baby - bathwater

I can see what the aim of the self-publish limitation is, but some self published books are authoritative in their field, for example in the field of Anglo-Saxon pennies the vade mecum was printed and published by the leading collector, with the help of (I think) the Ipswich Numismatic club. Similarly "Report on Iron Mountain" et al, have been published by relativly mainstream publishers. Rich Farmbrough 15:51 23 May 2006 (UTC).

With self-published material, there is no one standing between the writer and the act of publication: no editorial oversight, no fact-checking, and so on. That's why the policy limits how it can be used. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if the subject matter is autobiographical, it is acceptable as a reliable source. Such as what a person believes and what are the facts of his own life. --Diligens 16:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

With some limitations. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Does the guideline or policy explain those limitations? --Diligens 10:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you commenting here on something you haven't read? :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you are too, otherwise you would have answered me with a Yes or No. --Diligens 13:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no throwing the baby out. Where such self published sources are recognised by other sources which meet the guidance at WP:RS, they are citable through that source. Hiding Talk 14:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The answer is yes, the policy does explain the limitations. See here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Are we talking about only about journals and accademic books here?--Dr.Worm 22:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:V#Self-published_sources says it well, I think. Dr Zak 22:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know unreferenced problem

There has been some (strange to my mind) resistance to having the Did you know on the main page only allow referenced facts. For reasons I expanded on in that talk page I think highlighting unreferenced facts and articles on the main page is not what we should be promoting and violates the verifiability anyway. Please go there and comment so we can move to ecouraging the type of referenced work we need. Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 18:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've left a comment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Membership in organizations based on org's website?

Regarding Talk:Scholars for 9/11 Truth: Is an organization's website considered to be a verifiable source for information about who belongs to that organization, or does members' membership have to be independently verified? I think under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources in articles about themselves it would be permissable, and would not need another source. If someone disputed their membership in the group, that would be another thing. Шизомби 19:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Technically, the relevant section of WP:V doesn't permit use of self-published sources that "involve claims about third parties" and states that "[s]elf-published sources may never be used as sources of information about another person or topic." I read that to say that the widely accepted wiki consensus means you can't use an organization's website as support for statements about who the members of that organization are. I tend to agree that you should be able to, however, and would be interested to see a discussion of whether it's possible to make a manageable change to WP:V.TheronJ 14:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call members of an organization third parties. Unless the organization has some reason to lie about who is a member, they would seem to be a better source regarding their membership than a source outside the group. Шизомби 18:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think for reputable non-controversial organizations you can sometimes use the organizaiton as a source. In a case like Scholars for 9/11 Truth I would want confirmation at least from the person themselves (which could be on their web site). I think there's a real danger of a political group claiming to have more support then it really has. Since some people would consider being a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth a negative thing, I think WP:LIVING obligates a high standard for sourcing it (even though, its likely all the people listed by them, are happy to be associated). I think a 3rd party source may be unecessary if both the organizaiton and the member agree the relationship exists. Although, I suggest, if you can't find the names of members in 3rd party sources then the members and/or the organization are probably not notable. --Rob 18:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I could see political or religious groups claiming people to be members who aren't. At the same time, I'm not sure when scrutiny is really called for. If a 9/11 conspiracy group claims a 9/11 conspiracist as a member, where's the controversy? If they claimed George Pataki or William Clay Ford, Jr. as members, then I would question it. Then again, if a group falsely claimed someone to be a member, I would expect that it would be easy to find a denial of membership by that person or their spokesperson. Шизомби 19:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Index of 'sources of dubious reliability' needed

The article states: sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. It's good theory, but how in practice are we supposed to determine that? Of course, often common sense comes in handy (tabloid vs. enyclopedia), but common sense can be a false friend too often to simply rely on it all the time. We could use an list of dubious sources, I think.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

We have to use common sense, Poitrus. A list of examples of dubious sources would be a good idea, but hard to compile, because either the publications listed will be obviously dubious, or else people will fight to keep them off the list. But feel free to start one if you'll willing to venture where angels fear to tread. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

A list of dubious sources is bean-huffing, I fear. We have already people shouting "It must be true, after all it was published in a refereed journal!". Once there is a list of dubious sources there will be cries of "It must be true, it isn't on the dubious list". Dr Zak 20:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL!! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what Wikipedia is all about - starting projects and perfecting them little by little. If you have, for instance, days upon days, upon years, upon decades of a particular publication, you start off listing statistical errors and listing the dates. Although the Wikipedia guideline tries to make newspapers look like they have a panel of people verifying what they print, this is not true. They are a private business, out to make money. They compete against other newspapers and are notorious for making haste in printing stories. They are not licensed by the state or government and we don't have to treat them as some sort of golden calf standard. Just like lawyers and politicians are notorious in their own sphere of work, and are the brunt of jokes, the newspapers are notorious for liberal slant, and mistakes. Read what Thomas Jefferson said about newspapers:

I read no newspaper now but Ritchie's, and in that chiefly the advertisements, for they contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.

Wikipedia should be listing as the top goal VERIFIABLE TRUTH. From there we should find rules of thumb and rules of precedence to guide us, with a constant regard for reason and logic. As it is now, using logic amounts to "original research", but that is not a proper attitude is seeking truth. And, the thing about "reliable sources" helps create a numbskull encyclopedia: one person finds a book that says one thing, and another finds a book that denies it, and then an article is written with so-called NPOV to reconcile the two that basically says to the reader, "I don't know what the truth is, here are the two sides and you can choose which truth you want to believe!". I foresee someone starting his own wikipedia on the Internet and getting rid of these counterproductive rules that are the cause of too much bickering, and cause articles to be too easily edited by later visiting editors. --Diligens 18:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I partially agree with you, but I'd stay away from 'truth' - it is too big of a concept for anybody to work with. The policy is sound as it is, preffering verifiability to truth, but it's the Wikipedia:Reliable sources support pillar which needs improvement. I was specifically thinking about reliability of sources printed in certain times, places and on certain subject: that you can't always equal two (verifiable) citation or sources. Just to give you a few examples, it seems that Western publications from the Cold Era are usually more reliable then Soviet publications, Nazi Germany publications are even less reliable, and quite a lot of 19th century 'historians' used a very POVed language which should be discouraged from our 21st century Wiki. Also, if a certain issue is politicaly (or otherwise) sensitive in a given country, and that country government is known to influence the academic publications, such sources should be given less weight then a source from a more neutral country. Of course my examples are general and should be backed by academic research on given countries historiography, freedom of press, government power over academics, etc. WikiBooks is trying to gather information on every book, including reviews and such, but this project is in its infancy and will not be very useful for at least a few years. Perhaps a new WikiProject is needed to address a less demanding task (a rule of thumb for reliablity of certain issues in given countries in given times), but perhaps this can be intergrated into an already exisitng project. I am currently reading various Wikipedia namespace pages related to that issue, but I am sure we don't have and index like that and that it would be rather useful.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've always wanted some kind of classification process, so we can decide whether Rawstory or MEMRI or whatever constitute reliable sources. I agree it would be a phenomenal cluster-somethingorother, but if we were going to do it, I would recommend some kind of nomination/debate/consensus process, like RfD.TheronJ 13:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. I was also thinking of collecting links to various academic reviews related to a given source. So who would be interested in joining such a (wiki?)project?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

'Verifiable truth'

Diligens should look here Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/truth to see earlier ideas similar to his. 8-|--Light current 15:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a moot point, though, in the face of the current editors' positions and unwillingness to indulge the topic. Are you one of the "trolls" warned about at the top of the talk page?

Anyway, what I am guessing is the problem is there are a lot of conspiracy theorists and holders of unpopular ideas who are very upset that other editors won't let them keep unsourced information or information from unreliable sources in an article. Their argument of course relies on the truthfulness of what they're trying to put in the article - "how can you justify not putting in what's true?" - and the counterargument is that "because I not only believe it's false, I also can't find a reliable source to convince me otherwise". It's unfair to the would-be truth-teller, sure, especially if there is a legitimate bias at work. If the policy were taken to its logical conclusion (given that no citable source has ultimate reliability), Wikipedia would be little more than Lexis-Nexis, regurgitating only whatever journalism previously sold copy, undermining its value by being counted on to reinforce widely held "truths" borne largely of momentum in the publishing industry. In the short term, though, the policy requires that people really think about what assertions they're making, and staves off the more immediate threat of Wikipedia's value being undermined by erring too far on the side of every point of view being worthy of consideration. So... *shrug* I think you just have to take consolation in the fact that the policy is currently used mainly to prevent WP from being taken over by crackpots, even if some percentage of them are actually wise men. If the day comes when every article is subjected to an audit and "unverifiable"/unpopular content is deleted en masse, then this "truth" business might be a topic to discuss at length. In the meantime, your page is a philosophical exercise that I fear will go nowhere, given the current editorial climate…—mjb 11:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Books and page numbers

I think if a book is used cited and used as a source then the page number in the book should be given. Without this it would be very time consuming to verify if the source is correct and also easy to make a mistake. I had assumed that this would be clearly documented in Verifiability or one of the support guidelines. It may be there, but it is not at all clear to me. I can only find page numbers mentioned in WP:CITE#Harvard referencing as an option, but in the more general section Complete citations in a "References" section, it is mentioned in passing that "This can raise serious problems for citations, because different editions may be paginated differently" but it does not explicity mention that page numbers should be give in an example. It is left to Wikipedia:Footnotes#Example to show what I mean.

Is it specified in any of the guidlines (other than the FN example)?
Does anyone disagree that for a full citation taken from a book, that there ought to be a page number given?
If you agree, where should this be explicitly mentioned in the Verifiability policy and accompanying guidelines?

--Philip Baird Shearer 16:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This is tricky. Page numbers refer to a physical book, not to the organization of the information in it. After all we use page numbers for articles to find the article in question. I would prefer chapter numbers for consistency and convenience of the reader. Dr Zak 17:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Although chapter numbers are useful Chapters can be very long and although better than just the book as a source, it could still mean lots to read. Further there is no guarantee that from one edition to the next that chapter numbers will be any more consistent than the page numbers. Generally I think page numbers give reasonable granularity and they do not often change much from edition to edition and if the specific edition is given in the References, then that should be sufficient. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The best way is if the book exists in Google Print. In that case we can link the ref directly to the page online. Eventually all books will be in GP, I hope. Articles are a bit trickier as Google Scholar has no scans and just directs user to various databases, many of them non-free. Here's hoping for a change in copyright law that will make our life easier. For now I recommend using books in Google Print as often as possible, they are the best combination of reliablity and verifiability we have at this time and place.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

References without page numbers are almost useless because editors who are unfamiliar with the book will have to do a lot of reading to verify the reference. Verification is further complicated if an editor inserts a summary of material discussed over many pages. It is thus for a good reason that WP:CITE requires editors to provide the exact edition of the book, including year and publisher; if all this information is given in a reference, verifying it should not be a big deal. Pecher ^Talk 13:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What I meant to say is that chapter numbers are useful in case a book got re-paginated when a new edition was issued. Amen, brother, what you say about edition, year and publisher. Dr Zak 01:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Race

There's an ongoing discussion between myself and an anonymous IP at Talk:Paris Bennett right now. (S)he removed "Category:African-American Singers" from the page, saying it needed a source. I reverted it, saying "Don't be stupid." (S)He changed it back, saying "Don't be racist." His/Her position is that since Paris Bennett might (a) have a genetic defect, (b) be "very tanned", (c) have had surgery to look that way (etc., etc., etc.,), we need a source that she is, in fact, African-American. Does this fall under the "obvious" category (grass is green, London is in England, people who look black are generally black), or do we need a source on the ethnicity of every person on Wikipedia? I compared it to trying to find a source for gender. Do we have any proof that she's a woman? How do we know she isn't a robot? Should we assume all of these things until proven otherwise? The Disco King 13:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have reason to believe the challenge is not legitimately motivated, then ignore it. If it is a topic that is really important, others (with less of an agenda) will challenge it properly. I believe the answer to "How important is it to verify this?" trumps "How much effort should we put into providing ways for people to actually verify this?". In your case it's not much of a risk that you'd need to do that, but other types of personal identity are a little bit touchier - there are a lot of Wikipedians out there who are eager to slap the words "gay" or "Jewish" onto biographical articles, for example, and in those situations, challenges and the need to cite sources, as well as weighing the importance of making those claims at all, become much more of an issue.—mjb 12:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Self-published sources

Further to my comment above, I made a small edit to self-published sources in articles about themselves to render it consistent with self-published sources. Does anyone have any thoughts? Thanks, TheronJ 22:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks reasonable. I made another edit to make it clear that professionals shouldn't stray from their speciality. Dr Zak 22:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"The burden of evidence"

The article states "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." If one editor places a referenced information in an article, but reference is hard to obtain, is it reasonable to expect the editor to post the original passage the information was taken from.

Whatever the answer, I think this section mighe be made more clear.--Dr.Worm 22:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What is publication?

Following a debate at the talk on [Socialist Party of Great Britain] article, a question arose over what constitutes publication. the article in question deals with a subject where most sources are going to be gry literature at best - and some sources are matter that is available to the public via contacting the organisation - i.e. as sole publisher. So, do reports within organisations that are available to the public count as published? And do internal documents of organisations count towards the verifiability requirement (they are official and vetted but not strictly third party, unless you count members as being theird parties to corporate bodies)?--Red Deathy 10:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the RS content a summary of WP:RS, or policy?

As I mentioned (perhaps not phrased very well) in other comments, this policy article is getting a bit deep into explaining the topic of reliability of sources. I've grouped all of that discussion under a single section heading (it was misfiled under "burden of evidence") and added an introduction to say what relationship reliability has to verifiability on Wikipedia, and to state that the reliability criteria given here are (at the very least) summarizing the WP:RS guidelines.

However, some of the material here is going beyond just summarizing the WP:RS guidelines for the benefit of understanding verifiability; it's actually elevating those guidelines to policy status (which may be deliberate), and perhaps also subverting the guideline consensus process. For example, the recently added implication that all blogs are inherently unreliable seems to have been added here out of momentum, not consensus over on WP:RS. If there is consensus that some WP:RS guidelines are to be canonized as policy with respect to verifiability, then it should be clearly stated in this policy that that is what is going on. If that's not what's going on, then I feel this section needs to be trimmed down a bit so that it's clearly a summary, and more emphasis placed on referring the reader to WP:RS, which in turn would need to rely less on WP:V.—mjb 21:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Some (most?) of Section 3 "Reliability of sources" has probably a more suitable home in WP:RS IMO. We'll have to re-align what WP:V and WP:RS say about self-published material, too, currently WP:V has the more lenient view. Dr Zak 22:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's more or less what I'm thinking. Relating RS guidelines to verifiability is deliberate and necessary, but if specific guidelines are going to be mentioned, they should be a summarized, representative sample of the more solid guidelines from WP:RS, no?—mjb 22:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls

Naming no names here, but please do not support any trolling that may be occuring. I, for one, have not been participating in much of the previous discussion for this reason. Thanks for your time! JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A thought: Tacitus' recommendation

nos consensum auctorum secuturi, quae diversa prodiderint sub nominibus ipsorum trademus.		Proposing as I do to follow the consentient testimony of historians, I shall give the differences in their narratives under the writers' names.
Tacitus, Annals XIII, 20 – Church/Brodribb translation

Definition of term

Has anybody looked at the actual definition of verifiability lately? You may find it means something different fromn the WP defn! 8-|--Light current 01:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. The link you reference is (as of this writing) a redirect to Formal verification, which is a specific term of art, and not the normal English meaning of the word. The WP usage is also a term of art specific to the project, but even so is nearly identical with normal English usage. A claim is verifiable if an interested reader can verify that the claim appears in one or more sources that are cited in the bibliography and/or notes of the article. Sounds very close to the normal meaning to me. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

- I thought about this some more, and realized that the article on formal verification is apropos after all, and that what we are talking about is indeed analogous to formal verification. Validation would be trying to determine whether an article (or portion thereof) is true. Wikipedia does not attempt to validate. Verification is determining whether the article has been written to specification: an NPOV rendition of what can be found in reliable secondary sources. We attempt verification by looking up the claims in the sources cited. A verifiable article allows this. Non-verifiable articles are prohibited as a matter of practicality: absent citations, the process will not work. So, now I am even more at a loss what Light current's point is. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions

Verification to me means the establishment of TRUTH! (Latin - veritas = truth?) Verifiability therfore means the ability of something to be established as truth.

Verifiable:

able to be verified.

Verify:

to confirm, or test, the truth or accuracy of
to cause the truth (of something) to be percieved
(law) to affirm at the end of a pleading , the truth of (matters alleged in the pleading
(law) to substantiate by proofs

REf Longman Modern English dictionary, Longman 1976

my bolding.

There seems to be no doubt that verifiabilty involves truth from these defintions. Therefore the policy as it stands (Verifiability NOT truth) is nonsense! Thats all Im saying 8-)--Light current 02:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate here, that dictionary could be outdated or just plain full of crap, or could be omitting some definitions, such as the one used here in Wikipedia. Yet, since it's heavily edited, perhaps peer-reviewed by nature, widely cited, and published by a reputable company, I am pretty confident that it's a reliable source of information about definitions of "verify" and "verifiable". Or at least, I am confident that, to the extent that it makes specific claims about those topics, it is a reliable source, and therefore whatever paraphrases of those claims are made in Wikipedia are "verifiable" by WP:V criteria. The distinction is that WP supposedly eschews pretension of being an authority, itself, and rather claims to be "true" only to the extent of "we have it on good authority" / "it comes from a reliable source". The dates that claims are made, both in WP and in cited sources, make a difference, too; what is true today may not be true tomorrow, or may be found to have been untrue all along, and WP must still be able to report on it responsibly in the meantime. Personally, I think it could be argued that WP:V is a half-arsed form of testing and ascertaining a level of "truth", but I suspect that that particular philosophical argument is a dead horse around here.

Having said that, I do feel that if verifiability has a common definition and connotations in the real world that render the Wikipedia definition rather counterintuitive, then we have a responsibility to address that point in the policy article.—mjb 02:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes but the phrase 'Verifiability not truth' is, by the above definition, patent nonsense and should not be used in any policy statement. If we cant get the main catchphrase right, what hope do we have of everyone understanding the details of the policy? The verifiability 'policy' is in such a hell of a mess right now and needs rebuilding from the ground up with ALL users involved in discussions.

A good place to start would be to choose the right words. 'Verifiability' is not one of them (unless you mean affirming the truth).

I suggest two new words:

Referencablity (or 'referability') and
Truth

Of course WP is not interested in the truth at the moment -- I think it should be. --Light current 03:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Light current, "truth" has so many applicable definitions. A datum is previously published to the public. Then it is included into a Wikipedia article. It has to be "previously published to the public", it has to be "verifiable" (a person must be able to pick up that exact publication on that exact page and read those exact words, if quoted), and the published source must be "reputable", that is, of good quality. Truth is usually published in this manner, but sometimes lies are published in the same manner. So, certainly, you have a point. But NPOV tells us that "widely published" is our foundation and that, generally, we can expect "widely published" (by good quality publishers) to be the foundation of Wikipedia articles. Terryeo 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Your understanding of the term 'verifiable' is false. Look it up in a dictionary. Are we interested at all in truth, or are we prepared to include any old crap as long as someone has published it before? That is one on the fundamental questions that no one wants to answer! 8-(--Light current 23:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Are these edits contentious?

Since in my recent edits some content was rearranged, the diff looks a bit more drastic than it actually is. User:Francis Schonken reverted them, explaining "found no real discussion about this on talk". I'm a bit mystified by this, as I clearly did raise the issues or chime in on the already-raised issues here. I suspect that either the diff looked too drastic or the discussion points on the talk page were too buried, so I will list the exact changes here, along with their rationale:

As I mentioned above, the entire article dwells quite heavily on reliability and citation of sources without adequately relating those to verifiability. In particular, the 'policy in a nutshell' fails to mention verifiability at all. I came here to refresh my memory on what the verifiability policy was because I was about to beat someone over the head with it, and was surprised to find no clear reason given why the article seems to be rehashing WP:RS. I consulted this talk page and found some explanations buried in the discussions along with the ludicrous sentiment that "we should just carry on as if it's worded (the way we mean)" (see comments by Block, Gimmetrow). I'm satisfied with the explanations, but not with the fact that they're buried on the soon-to-be-archived talk page rather than reflected in the article. The reason reliability is the focus of the article should be made clear by explicitly relating reliability of sources to verifiability. Also, something I didn't mention is that it also implies that citing sources is sufficient to ward off challenges. To address both issues, I changed Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed to Any material that is unsourced or obtained from unreliable sources is not considered verifiable, and may be challenged and removed. Is this really that contentious?
- Just want to clarify that I didn't say the "carry on" phrase quoted above, and don't necessarily agree with it. Gimmetrow 03:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, the "Sources" and "Burden of evidence" sections seemed to be sloppily arranged. "Sources" began with a summary of a few of the major guidelines from WP:RS, and a reference to WP:RS for details. This was followed with "Burden of evidence" as a subsection, referring to WP:CITE for details. After that came "Sources of dubious reliability" and then "Self-published sources" and then the very awkwardly worded "Self-published sources in articles about themselves" subsections, all of which further expound upon the topic of the intro paragraph, leading one to wonder why this continuation of thought had been interrupted by the "Burden of evidence" section, and also in parts seeming to exceed the realm of summarizing, instead getting into material that should be (but isn't, really) covered in WP:RS (such as the blanket characterization of all blogs as inherently unreliable). However, I knew better than to make any substantive changes to address the latter two issues without prior discussion, so I raised the topic above, under the "Is the RS content…" heading. I do, however, feel confident that the strange arrangement of topics could be addressed with a bold edit, which I undertook:
- I made a formatting change to the intro paragraph/summary of WP:RS to make the items drawn from WP:RS be a bulleted list rather than prose. This helps better offset it from the material that follows, and makes it easier to keep it in sync with WP:RS.
- I added an introductory sentence to lead into the list. It explicitly relates 'verifiability' to 'reliability'. It reads as follows: An essential component of the verifiability policy is the reliability of sources; information from an unreliable source is unreliable, itself, and is thus unverifiable. Whether a source is or is not reliable is determined by consensus as reflected in the Wikipedia reliable sources guideline, which is partially summarized by the following. The latter sentence is almost verbatim from the Block/Gimmetrow consensus above.
- I moved the "Burden of evidence" section, which is about citing reliable sources, out to its own section, thereby allowing the rest of the "Sources" section, which is about reliability of cited sources, to flow nicely and be consistent in topic.
- I retitled "Sources" to "Reliability of sources"
- I added "for example, a Wikipedia article about a notable person may reference that person's self-published material" to the "Self-published sources in articles about themselves", which I otherwise am hesitant to touch. The fact that this section is confusing is mentioned in discussions above.

As I said, I left the more severe issue — the fact that WP:V contains material that should be hammered out in WP:RS — as a topic for future debate; my edits only dealt with making it clear to the reader that WP verifiability is defined in terms of reliability, and cleaning up the organization (but not the content) of the "Sources" section.—mjb 02:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My major problem with the series of updates is that it promotes the idea of reliable sources to a point it gives the impression that wikipedia:reliable sources would (already) be a policy. Well, it isn't, and there are several reasons for that. Of course WP:V is very related to WP:RS. But the qualification of that relation was OK the way it was. So I revert to that version. --Francis Schonken 08:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What qualification of that relation? The relation was not explicitly stated anywhere at all. I made no attempt to change the degree to which the idea of reliable sources was promoted, and I didn't change the relationship, I merely stated what it already was (but which took digging through the Talk page to figure out). You're shooting the messenger.

The policy was titled "verifiability" yet there was no mention of the term "verifiability" in the 'nutshell', where it belongs more than anywhere. Instead, the policy avoids stating what it means and just launches straight into a discussion of reliability, and seems to rehash/overlap WP:RS. You should be asking yourself "how could he come away with the impression that it's rehashing WP:RS" or "how could he read this policy and think RS is policy, not guideline" — gahh, how could one not?

Similarly, when you say "and there are several reasons for that", you seem to imply that I should be aware of what those are. Are you not listening? They're not mentioned.

The reader should be told outright, not left to infer, what the connection is, and how RS is still just guidelines, not policy. Being explicit is especially important since WP's definition of verifiability is not typical. We must make it clear to them why the "verifiability policy" appears to have nothing to do with verifying the truthfulness of anything and everything to do with adhering to WP:RS and WP:CITE. Yet when I did this, based on info taken from what appeared to be consensus here, it was information that you did not want to hear, and you blindly reverted it twice.

(venting) The pride, heavy-handedness, and deafness with which this policy's cabal of core editors dismisses debate is disturbing. Trolls, people who don't want to cite sources, and perpetual motion machine enthusiasts aside, the volume of people coming here to discuss unclear concepts and suggest changes to the way the policy is expressed in order to make its intent more clear, let alone make changes to the policy itself (which I was not attempting to do), should be sending you all a message that the policy is not that well written. There are articles I thought I crafted very well, but when someone comes along and adds or rewrites something that strikes me as perhaps substantive but unnecessary or reflecting a failure to understand something that I thought was obvious, I usually don't just revert the edit and move on; rather I try to figure out how they could've read the article and come away with the impression that they needed to make that edit. Then I make changes to the article, accordingly. If they happen argue with me on the talk page, I'll state my case and let the discussion go on as long as it has to. I'm getting the distinct impression that around here, such patience is a rarity, and every newcomer who doesn't think every nuance of the policy is clear is considered an ignorant fool by default. (done venting)—mjb 10:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply to mjb's comment on my talk page:

This page (wikipedia talk:verifiability) is better suited for discussing this than user talk pages I suppose;
This page (wikipedia talk:verifiability) is also the page that is probably best used to see whether there's consensus regarding proposed changes to the WP:V policy page, and/or to try to find such consensus. Currently there's no consensus that warrants a change in that sense to the WP:V policy page;
WP:V currently has
For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources
under the WP:V#Sources header. So the link to WP:RS is clearly there (and is mentioned also in some other places of the WP:V policy page). Also such link "qualifies" the relation: the other page gives more detail, without asserting that that "detail" qualifies "reliable" in absolute terms. In my opinion such links of WP:V to WP:RS should neither be more stressed, nor less stressed, nor otherwise reformulated than it is done currently. None of the above appeared convincing enough to me to start supporting the proposed changes.

In other words, your reading of the present content of WP:V seems missing some of the content of that page. Not the right foot to get started on if wanting to modify that content, I suppose.

Note that the modification procedure for policies (and guidelines for that matter) is somewhat different than for articles in main namespace. The basics regarding the modification/updating of policy are included in wikipedia:how to create policy. So, for instance, if you think the "policy-in-a-nutshell" formulation unclear or otherwise inappropriate, simplest is to propose a new formulation on this talk page and see whether it meets community consensus. If you think the change was self-evident, and implemented it, then it stops being self-evident if someone disagrees and reverts (like, for instance, I did). Then discuss on talk. Just a tip: if discussing on talk, try to "convince" other wikipedians. Loose accusations about cabals and the like are usually not the most "convincing" arguments.

On the other hand, the fact that the "policy-in-a-nutshell" formula doesn't use the word "verifiability" or "verify" once, is a convincing argument (to me at least). Only, I'd draw another conclusion than you do. Instead of going still more heavy-handed on the "reliable (sources)" in that template, I'd for instance propose something in the vein of replacing the template's first sentence ("Information on Wikipedia must be reliable") by something that better reflects the first paragraph of the policy text, for instance: "Wikipedia should only include information that is verifiable with reference to reliable external sources." --Francis Schonken 11:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

(Just addressing one of your points here; no time for the rest till later) - For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources is essentially Template:Main, and indicates to any semiregular user of Wikipedia that the section is an overview/summary of a topic that is more comprehensively and (given that it's a guideline) more authoritatively defined elsewhere. Yet the section does not stop at summarizing WP:RS and referring the reader elsewhere, it actually gets into quite a bit of detail (a mistake often made in regular articles) and I believe accidentally sets forth as policy certain RS criteria -- this accidental elevation in status arising due to their presence on the policy page without explicit clarification, and due to the absence of certain ones from the RS page (which says "see WP:V for details" basically). It seems nonsensical that you and others would assert here that that's not the intended interpretation, yet simultaneously shun my stating the intended interpretation (that they're not policy but are guidelines defined in WP:RS) on the policy page itself. I also actually see no reason to mention details of WP:RS whatsoever: If the nuances of RS, such as the relative reliability of different types of self-published sources, are truly guidelines in the WP sense of the word, then they should be relegated entirely to WP:RS, and not be restated and risk being accidentally elevated in status on WP:V.

Also, on your talk page, I was not asking to move the discussion there; I was just supplementing my public response with a semi-private one. After I wrote it, I ended up coming back here and making similar updates to my public response, so they ended up looking very similar. Sorry for the confusion.—mjb 12:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply to TheronJ's comments on my talk page, regarding the self-published sources: sorry, I reverted something as part of the whole. Anyway, my basic assumption is that the details about self-published (and on-line) sources should be in the WP:RS guideline, while it's practically impossible to sort that out in detail on "policy" level. So I've been bold (let's see how long this stands...) and:

Moved the "Self-published sources in articles about themselves" to the WP:RS guideline *including* the additional clarification by you which I removed together with my reverts regarding the statute of WP:RS. Note that I *kept* the other paragraph about self-published sources on the WP:V policy page;
I extended the title of that section (self-published and on-line are not synonyms in all cases, the section is on both)
I included a deep link to the (also renamed) section of WP:RS that treats online/self-published sources.

Hope this helps. --Francis Schonken 12:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

* I have reinserted the large part you excised. There is a place in WP:RS which seems to quote WP:V (here). This exact quoted text no longer exists, however it was the text that developed into the list that was removed (back here). WP:RS needs some editing accordingly. Gimmetrow 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I still have an interest in the topics I've raised in this thread, and I don't feel that my concerns have been adequately addressed, but I also don't currently have time to follow up on them or further argue my case. Feel free to archive this thread when the time comes, but please don't construe the lack of followup to indicate consensus; I predict the issues will come up again, and they don't deserve to be dismissed as a dead topic when they do. Thanks.—mjb 23:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about NPOV, NOR, Verifiability etc. on Talk:Fedora Core

I have been asked to mention this discussion here. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

By your own admission, you made the statement Many of the administration tools in Fedora Core are written in Python - an object oriented language that makes programs easy to maintain, but like most "scripting" languages is slow to execute. in order "to hint at the fact that [Python-based rpm update tool] Yum simply crawls compared to other update tools".

The swipe at all of Python was of course too broad (although as a huge fan of Python, maybe I'm not the best person to comment), and the only way to get away with saying it's "slow" is to make an actual comparison, as fully qualified as it needs to be (slow compared to what, under what conditions), which you almost have to draw from and credit to some external source in order to comply with WP:NOR. Even if you use the "some say…" weasel-wording, it can't be you who's saying it.

I'm not the keeper of the verifiability policy (a point which is obvious from my diatribes above) but in this case I think you first need to better ascertain what it is exactly that you want to assert (e.g., that certain versions of yum under certain conditions are slower than some other tools and/or user expectations), and why it's important to include this claim in the Fedora Core article (which also affects how you phrase the claim), perhaps making your case on Talk:Fedora Core since your motivation is already suspect. Assuming it's really important to include, it shouldn't be too hard to find sources. :Look: http://www.google.com/search?q=python+yum+slow — lots of FC users and even developers are self-publishing claims about yum and FC's update system being slow. Weigh the reliability of these: there are lots of complaints about symptoms (slow updates when using yum) and there is speculation as to the cause (yum's fault, FC's fault, Python's fault), some perhaps misinformed, but some coming from positions of relative authority. If these are the best sources you can come up with, and if there is consensus, which you might test by just posting them, that these sources are reliable enough to support that particular claim in the context of the FC article, then adjust the claim's phrasing to qualify it appropriately; don't just say "yum is slow" and attribute it to random idiots on the Internet. It should be more along the lines of "One of the update management tools bundled with Fedora Core, yum, drew criticism among FC users in 2005-2006. Relative slowness compared to other update management systems and Linux distributions was reported, and users speculated that the problems were attributable to issues with either yum, Fedora Core, Python, or some combination thereof. As of June 2006, it was not clear whether yum or FC developers were investigating the issue, or whether the symptoms were even affecting all yum users, just those on FC, or some subset thereof."

The fact that the sources are self-published does diminish their reliability for any claim, given that edited and peer-reviewed sources may be available, but I personally am against the blanket characterization of such sources as being universally disqualified for all claims. For the claim "yum is slow" those sources are arguably not reliable enough. But for the more heavily qualified claim, they're more reliable, and your concern is more just "how important is it to put it into the article?". When considering importance and how to phrase the claim, try to anticipate the slowness being fixed tomorrow or being found to not be yum's fault or Python's fault but rather perhaps caused by misconfigured systems and user error. The claim you make should be just as verifiable then as it is now. Does this help?—mjb 20:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Terms

I think the term 'verifiability' (which means the property of being able to confirm the truth) should be replaced by the word 'referability' which means you can find a published source (reference). Comments?--Light current 20:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand "verifiability" as a reference to the possibility of the material in question being verfied by other editors by checking the source. It is the property being able to confirm the accuracy of an edit compared with the source; I don't think the word has anything to do with truth. Pecher ^Talk 20:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it does have to do with truth!

Dictionary definitions

Verifiable:

able to be verified.

Verify:

to confirm, or test, the truth or accuracy of
to cause the truth (of something) to be percieved
(law) to affirm at the end of a pleading , the truth of (matters alleged in the pleading
(law) to substantiate by proofs

REF: Longman Modern English Dictionary, Longman 1976 my bolding. --Light current 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I interpret "verifiability" in light of the first bullet point: to confirm, or test, the truth or accuracy. Verifiability should be about the ability of other editors to confirm the accuracy of an edit, i.e. whether the edit matches the source cited. Pecher ^Talk 21:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes but the way the policy is written implies that finding a reference is what is meant by the word 'verifying'. THe word doesnt mean that as I have demonstrated above. Therfore the word in the policy should be changed. 8-| --Light current 21:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the "truth" being confirmed? In NPOV style, many statements look like "A says B happened" (reference C). The truth that A says that is verified by checking source C. If there is no debate about B, then the article will likely say "B happened" because any reliable source should confirm that. Gimmetrow 21:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What Im saying is that in the WP:V policy, the term 'verifiable' is not the right word to use when we mean being able to find any old reference. 'Verifying' actually means 'establishing the actual truth of a statement or assertion' as in my above dic defs.--Light current 22:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you quit trying to create controversy where there isn't one. The policy exactly fits the definition "able to be verified". That's what references are for, both that other editors can verify the material if desired and the reader can too. That's what references are for. - Taxman ^Talk 02:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Im afraid your just not getting my drift! The fact that you can find a reference to something doesnt mean that you have ascertained its truth. THe reference could have been written by any idiot! 'Verifying' means ascertaining of confirming the truth of a statement. I would have thought that that was self evident.8-(--Light current 02:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There are two elements contained in any information. One element is the information itself. A second element which is idependent of the actual information is the source of the information. "Verifiability" is constraining itself to the source of the information. That is, the element which you say should be called "referability" or perhaps it should be called "referencability?" Whatever word is used, it is the ability to hold the referred book (or other publication) in hand, compare it to the article, and observe that both are identical. No matter what the information itself is, the idea which "verifiability" is attempting to communicate, is the exact duplication which a reader of an article can observe. The reader can then study further if they wish to. Terryeo 05:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And I'm afraid that you're missing the point. The only test of truth available to Wikipedia is that there is a consensus (or near-consensus) among those who possess access to the evidence, the training to evaluate it, and have spend the necessary time to do so. That's it. A few special (and relatively unimportant) cases aside, that is the best tool we have. And, assuming the Republic of Letters is doing its job, it is the most powerful tool that has ever existed. It will err, but it will err less often than the biasses and largely amateur analyses of random Wikipedians. We are here to report on what the experts believe: in most cases, that will be Truth, or at least the best approximation of it available. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments actually! All Im saying is that the slogan Verifiablility not Truth is gibberish. Because verifiability means ascertaining the truth!. Look at the dic defs i put up! To make proper sense in English, the slogan should read: Referencability not truth 8-|--Light current 03:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's because the dictionary definition plays loose with the word truth like most people do. Still nothing to see here and you've demonstrated no problem and nothing valuable about making a change. Please stop. - Taxman ^Talk 03:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OK thats what you think. I was replying to User:Robert A West actually. I wonder what others may say. BTW do you always butt in and try to silence people with whom you disagree? 8-((--Light current 03:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The way the policy is written is the way everybody understands verifiability, and as you can see from the above discussion, your idea finds little support. Pecher ^Talk 08:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Taxman and Pecher. I think that your efforts are misguided.

You state that you approve of the policy, just not the wording, so you are making a semantic point.
To justify a change in wording, you must first show that the current phrasing causes harm: that it is widely misunderstood or fuels many flame wars or something of the sort. I see no evidence of this.
Your proposed alternative is semantically horrible. The transitive verb "reference" means "Make a reference to," hence the coined word "referencability" would have to mean, "Able to be referenced in other works."

You have failed to convince -- you ought to consider that your opinion may not be the truth on this point and move on to something more useful, like championing the policy as intended. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I dont agree with the policy statement but your derived definition of 'referencability' is exactly what I had in mind! However, 'able to be referenced in other works' does not necessarily guarantee the truth of a statement - does it?

Anyway, I was just pointing out that the policy statement is not self consistent. If you, and other admins, cant see that, I cant help you any more! 8-( Theres no need to get worked up and hyper defensive about this - anyone else would think you were paranoid. Im sure you, like all other admins, are not 8-|--Light current 01:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not an admin. (Should there be an abbreviation for that? IANAA?) I just care about the project. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I didnt say you were! (paranoia?) i care about the project too to the extent of putting a hell of a lot of time into it! [9]--Light current 01:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Not paranoia, the ability to read English. "You, and other admins ..." "You, like all other admins ..." Robert A.West (Talk) 02:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats your intrepretation only! The phrasing is deliberatly ambiguous--Light current 02:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think that phrasing even slightly ambiguous, then your knowledge of English is defective, and you should not be raising semantic issues or trying to rephrase policy until you have learned better. Consider the phrase, "John Doe, like other child molesters..." No one would think that ambiguous for a second. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland

There is nothing wrong with my knowledge of English. Its your lack of view! I didnt know whether you were an admin or not, so the phrasing was appropriate. Anyway who are you to tell me about my use of English when you dont even know what 'verifiable' means? Humpty Dumpty?--Light current 02:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't take offense. Given your points as raised and defended, I have two choices. The WP:AGF option is that you are well-meaning, but have several wrong ideas about Standard English. I regret having to be blunt, but I saw no reasonable choice. Your semantic games are neither well-done nor constructive. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No offence taken! Actually its neither of your assumptions! But perhaps my use of the English language is more developed than yours! Since we are in Humpty Dumpty land, I consider what I wrote to be fair!

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

ie I define my own language! BTW I am well meaning: its just that people dont appreciate my subtleties. Pls see my user page to find out more about me 8-)--Light current 00:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy wording

I would like to propose that we replace the word 'verifiable' by 'referencable' and the word 'verifiability' by 'referencability'. I would be pleased to hear peoples comments on this proposal.--Light current 01:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems to me to restrict the meaning of verifiable to a form of positivism. Also, I think the word would be referenceable, but I can't verify it. :) Gimmetrow 02:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes 'verification' means establishing the truth of something 8-)--Light current 02:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability is the right word. Strictly speaking, what is being verified is that the article faithfully reports what its sources say and that the sources are considered reliable. If one insists on mathematical terminology where it does not belong, a Wikipedia article is a meta-claim: a claim about claims, not a claim about the truth. We leave those to professional scholars. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes but there are two stages involved here! We ought to split up the 2 stages into 'referencability' and 'probable truth'--Light current 01:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This type of repetitive unhelpful argumentation is exactly the type of thing that brought about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière. Light current has a remarkably similar pattern of argumentation. Light current appears to enjoy painting that as silencing, but it's more about stopping behavior that grinds useful discussion to a halt. - Taxman ^Talk 13:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So that makes at least two of us doesnt it User:Taxman? It is repression of free speech and opinion that you are attempting! Do I detect a threat here? You must be PARANOID as well! All readers should refer to my user page (--Light current ) for the likely outcome of this skirmish!--Light current 00:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You're way off on all of that. And oh, you mean the taking out of context and misrepresentation on your user page? Yes I saw that. There aren't many people that can't see through that, but I suppose you could find some. With that I'm done here, there's an encyclopedia to write. - Taxman ^Talk 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Good(bye?)!--Light current 01:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Self-published sources

A sentence in the section "Self-published sources in articles about themselves" says: "Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information about another person or topic." Looks like this sentence contradicts the section above, which says that self-published material by experts in the relevant field are sometimes acceptable. Due to this contradiction, I'd propose to remove the sentence that self-published sources are never acceptable; "sometimes" is just fine. Pecher ^Talk

You're right, this was pointed out above My apologies if the deletion I reverted was supposed to fix that issue. Gimmetrow 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm removing this sentence. Pecher ^Talk 21:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking through the history pages. This point was addressed and fixed on May 30, but the fix was lost on May 31 when the page was reverted to an earlier version. I intend to reinsert the corrected sentence, which said "Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information about another person or topic, subject to the limited exceptions discussed above." Gimmetrow 21:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Policy

WIkipedia needs a better way to stop page vandalism. Why not restrict changes so that changes to pages must be suggested and then approved by at least two other members? This might make it slightly harder to change pages, but it would cut down on incidences of somebody editing a page just for the sake of putting up something stupid that they think is funny. Yes, a dedicated vandalist could get around it with sockpuppet accounts, but just by making it harder we will stop most casual vandalism. 24.91.251.108 22:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This idea might have merit for vandalism-prone articles, but would be a major burden for new pages, which tend to have many improvements made early in the life of the article. Also, in the case of arcane artices, it might be difficult to recruit a second editor to endorse a change. Gerry Ashton 02:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

A Useful (I hope) Question

I have run into a situation on Army of the United States where the citations provided are to publications of the United States that are for internal use only and hence not available to the general public without justification. (Apparently the documents are perfectly huge.) This IMO makes the whole article unverifiable, but the editor in question keeps insisting that I can just call a certain phone number ask to speak with Customer Service. AGF that this is a valid number, I imagine that I would be told where to go very quickly.

While it is obvious to me that these types of sources violate policy, finding a clear citation to that point eludes me. The other editor keeps pointing out that the sources *are* published, while I keep pointing out that they are not generally available, which is what I take publication to mean.

Is this made clear somewhere? Does it need to be? Or is this a special case that is unlikely to be repeated? Robert A.West (Talk) 15:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Published means Published to the public. There would be some military documents which would not be published to the public. For example, war orders or secret documents. There would be others which have been published to the public. A published information usually has a author, a publisher, a publication date, and often an ISBN. If a piece of information is "for internal use only" then it probably isn't "published to to the public". Without doubt every large company creates "for internal use only" information which it distributes to employees. A document which is "for internal use only" does not meet Wikipedia's threshold of having been "published to the public". Terryeo 05:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the specific situation seems to have finally resolved itself amicably, with additional sources being provided. Nevertheless, I find the case interesting. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless an editor can in principle get a hold of the source, the fact is not verifiable. Can I go somewhere, a reading room etc and get access to it to read it? If the answer is no because I'm not an Army employee of the right class etc, then it doesn't sound like a valid source to me. The example we usually use to show that it doesn't have to be easy to get a source to be verifiable is a limited edition book where the only public access is at a library reading room in Ireland for ex and you have to look at it only there only for certain limited hours. That is considered a valid source, because anyone (key difference) could in principle go there and see it. But that example is about at the limits of what does count as a valid source. If only a few people can get access to the source it's not verifiable. Seems like a good question to me. - Taxman ^Talk 21:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now you have me thinking, so here's some more, yet again. Re-reading your post, it seems to be that anyone could get it if they provided justification (or were willing to pay the printing costs which is standard for govt sources). If that's the case then that would tend towards being a verifiable source. But if there is a significant reason that it is not designed for public consumption (such as they're not willing to stand by it) other than size, then that would mean it passes the able to get a hold of requirement, but not the reliability part. So more detail would be needed. - Taxman ^Talk 22:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If, in principle, most of our editors could get ahold of the source if they were determined, it's acceptable but not ideal from an accessibility standpoint. (This is no different from citing, say, an out-of-print book, which may be difficult to obtain, or something written in an obscure language.) If a member of the general public (not, e.g., only members of the military, although only Americans would probably be large enough to be okay) could view the documents by going to their nearest military base, or could obtain copies by paying a small sum (say under $50), then it's good enough for a source. If they'd have to pay a large sum of money (say over $1000), file a FOIA suit, or the like, it's probably not accessible enough. This is something of a fuzzy case, I'm afraid. More accessible sources should always be obtained if possible.

Since this seems to involve a US government work that is presumably non-classified, by the way, it might have been a good idea to ask the user to scan the relevant pages and put them up on Wikisource. That would have solved things. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agree more accessible sources that are still reliable should be preferred. But I wouldn't necessarily agree scanning it would be good enough. That's easy to forge. It would work initially under assume good faith, but not if contradicted by other sources, bad editing track record, etc. - Taxman ^Talk 17:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Per the other editor's description, the documents originally cited are a couple of thousand pages long, and are distributed at discretion of a bureaucrat, I don't know the details, but he said that no request had been approved in a long time. He recommended calling up the agency and asking Customer Service to verify the information in the article. My response is that makes Customer Service, not the document, the actual source.

Moreover, the information seems not to be localized within the documents -- he spoke of reviewing hundreds of personnel records to get the information in the article. While meritorious, I felt that this sounded a lot like OR, but that is a different policy. I am thankful that he came up with a couple of books that can be ordered from the GPO. It avoided a potentially nasty argument. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like the document in question has ever been published to the public. It sounds like it has been distributed to individuals at the discresion of an office. Therefore it has not been "published" and doesn't meet Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion. Terryeo 05:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

So, to return to the question, rather than the example, how public, how accessible, does a source need to be? Where is this discussed? Robert A.West (Talk) 22:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

I dont really understand why a page of 89 k in length should not be partly archived. I thought the WP policy was not to have pages greater than 32k in length. Is this still the policy? Could someone explain the policy to me?--Light current 00:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The page is currently 42k, which is fine. The recommendation of 32k is for articles, and was based on old versions of web browsers, I think mainly IE, that used to have difficulty with anything over that. It's now used just as a suggestion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Last time I looked at this page, it was 89k. So it seems you have not reversed all my archinving. THanks! But I really think that the size limitation warning should be reviewed --- some poeple take it literally-- some ignore it. It would be good to have maybe even a guideline about page length (if one does not already exist) that we could refer users to.--Light current 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How to solve the verification....

State in circular "(" brackets or curly "{" brackets () {} verification pending, then do fact checking if you are able; one can not just asume on a wim, that something is wrong, innaccurate or a lie; oddly enough I have even seen faults in news about me, misquotes and so on, misquotes that weren't even corrected in future issues after mentioned. However, fact checkers exist, but even the correction or deletion needs a source.

--G-Spot 17:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

proposed re-statement

Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Could be changed to:

Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Previously published to the public statements, facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may be included in articles if they have been published to the public by reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Does this make the meaning a little more clear? Terryeo 05:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No, not really. It needlessly repeats the word "published". "Published" implies something is made available to the "public" already, and is therefore, redundant. The original wording uses the word "only" which is critical. --Rob 06:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. My suggestion does repeat the word quite a bit. If "only" remains, don't you think it would be better to move it so it reads, ..and arguments may be included in articles only if ... because as "only" is placed now it could be understood to mean, "only facts, viewpoints, theories and arguments may be included in articles". I am submitting that "Previously published to the public" is a smoother way to say that than ". . have already been published . ." Terryeo 06:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Definition of terms

Could someone please define the term 'verifiable' as it applies to WP. I am a little confused!

Does it mean just 'checking that the fact/statement has been published in a reputable journal'. THis is the sense I get from the page as it stands. Am I right to assume this?--Light current 02:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it means published by a reliable source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Just taking the word, "verifiable" by itself, it means that others can, without undue effort, verify that the article faithfully reproduces material from reliable sources. The second sentence of the policy defines it clearly. "We only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." Robert A.West (Talk) 19:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also add that sources need not be journals. Books published by reputable presses certainly qualify. Books published by advocacy groups are less so, and self-published books less still. Ultimately, there is no substitute for good judgment.

Thinking back to Light Current's previous comments, if the policies had been written by a logician, perhaps there would be an overarching content-policy page, something like this.

Content policy: Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Articles must accurately describe the consensus of scholars, where one exists, and fairly represent any points of controversy, both as to the claims of the each side and the scholarly support for each. To this end, there are three requirements:
1. An article must not be original research, which includes novel interpretations of existing research. See WP:NOR.
2. An article must not advocate any position, but must accurately describe whether a position is held by a majority or minority of scholars, and should avoid giving undue weight to fringe positions. When an article does this, we say that it is written from a Neutral Point of View. See WP:NPOV.
3. Wikipedians must be able to verify that these requirements have been met, both now and in the future. To this end, articles must cite reliable sources that have been published and remain available with reasonable, but not extreme, effort. When an article does this, we say it is Verifiable. See WP:V.

Thus, in a strict sense, most of this policy is not a definition of Verifiability, but a discussion of what must and must not be done to achieve it. That is how real-world rules tend to be written. It's kind of like the laws against murder -- they never say murder is bad, they just prescribe penalties for doing it. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That's because IRL we have other things to tell us that murder is bad and why (e.g. Bible). Here on Wikipedia, we only have our policies, so we have to make do. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I like your summary of the policies, by the way, Robert. Very clear, and succinct yet comprehensive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. As for moral authority about what is Wiki-good or Wiki-bad, we have Jimbo. :-) Robert A.West (Talk) 20:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that there is a willingness to clarify things in discussions here, but the status quo seems to be leave such cosmetic reformulations of the policy confined to this talk page, regardless of how "clear, succinct, yet comprehensive" (and arguably superior to what's on the policy page) they are. If we can agree that an explanation given here makes people better connect with the policy, then why is there so little apparent momentum or willingness to push the refined explanations back out to into the policy article itself? Or to even further refine them to a point where making such an change to the policy article wouldn't be quickly reverted. The fact that someone can read the policy and not understand it, then come here and get an explanation that people agree is helpful, should really be sending the message to you that the policy article needs work. Do you feel Robert's explanation could go into the article right now?—mjb 12:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Taking Slim's answer initially:

Well OK, now we know that 'verifiability' just means 'referencability' (to a respected publication or other respected sources). But it does not mean necessarily that we believe the published info to be true! Am I right on this?

On a cursory reading I think I like Robert's 'overarching policy statement' but I just want to confirm that when Robert says:

Wikipedians must be able to verify that these requirements have been met

he is referring to his first two statements. If this is the case, I agree and here the term 'verifiability' is being used in its proper sense of 'establishing the truth of something'.

The overarching statement that Robert has written conveniently falls into 3 bits describing

WP:POV
WP:NOR

and

WP:V.

and is therefore not really necessary as a separate policy document. (although it might have been a starting point if we were starting again!) Also, to be very honest about this, until very recently, I understood the word 'verifiable' to maen the same as the policy implies. But then I looked it up in a paper dictionary and found that it didnt. Hence my questions/comments --Light current 01:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just responding to this part: Well OK, now we know that 'verifiability' just means 'referencability' (to a respected publication or other respected sources). But it does not mean necessarily that we believe the published info to be true! Am I right on this?

On the one hand, the guiding principle of avoiding making any potentially libelous statements—libelous being, by definition, untrue and reputation-damaging—and the criteria for weighing the reliability of source both imply that there is indeed some consideration being given, albeit indirectly, to the 'truthiness' of claims (I mean, it's no coincidence that types of sources that tend to be accepted as purveyors of 'truth' are favored over others). But on the other, Wikipedia need not and does not take a stand on the 'truth' of its claims, whatsoever, largely because (at least in theory) it doesn't make claims, itself, it merely refers to the (important, notable) claims of others. So yes, you're right, sort of.

You may be assuming too much about what truth is. As you continue seeking better ways to understand and explain the policy, consider toying with the phrases 'acceptable' / 'acceptability' / 'acceptable as…' / 'acceptable for…' in place of words like 'know', 'respected', 'believe', 'true', 'factual', etc. Also, the articles on truth, fact, belief, science, research, and the philosophy of knowledge may be of some interest, and may convince you that the WP:V policy is wise to steer clear of implying anything about the 'truth' of its claims.—mjb 12:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, the guiding principle of avoiding making any potentially libelous statements—libelous being, by definition, untrue and reputation-damaging—and the criteria.... Ascetaining the probable truth of any reference we quote is a separate (and much more difficult) process to undertake. But as I have said before, there should be TWO horns to this policy:

Can you find a published reference? (I define this as 'referencability' for want of a better term)
Is that reference likely to be correct in what it says? (This could be called verifiability I suppose, but a better term might be 'probable truth' based on common sense and backup from other primary sources.

There is no more to this argument other than the above tow questions.

--Light current 20:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out to Light Current some time ago, the word "referencability" would mean, "The state or quality of being able to be cited as a reference." I am reasonably certain that is not the concept he really wants. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No it is exactly the concept that I was searching for. This fulfils part one of the requirement (ie can you find a published ref) 8-)--Light current 08:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the wrong word. Something is referencable if it has a sufficiently fixed text so that others can use it as a reference. Strictly, no Wikipedia article can ever be referencable (absent a version number) since the text changes without notice, but most works of fiction are referencable. It is the wrong word. Robert A.West (Talk) 10:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Im not talking about using WP as a reference. You seem to have misread my intentions 8-|--Light current 14:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have not misread your intentions, your chosen word doesn't fit your intentions. Robert A.West (Talk) 08:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This policy is non-negotiable

For those who have missed this: The WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V policies are now officially non-negotiable. This took effect on 7 February 2006 when this edit to WP:NPOV went through without significant discussion or opposition. According to Francis Schonken, "a basic problem is that too many people tried to *negotiate* the content of the policy page. Better keep it clear: there's no such procedure as changing wikipedia's NPOV policy by negotiation. As said, there's no separation between the NPOV policy and the way it is formulated on the NPOV policy page, or, if there would be, that separation would be different per person, so that's not a workable distinction."[10]

It is probably too early to tell whether or not the change is an improvement and will stand the test of time (assuming it can be reverted subject to consensus which seems self-contradictory). However, it does not seem too far-fetched to suppose it can (and should) be used as implied by Francis: to cut off attempts to negotiate the content of policy pages as redundant and, indeed, disruptive. AvB ÷ talk 14:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I interpreted that passage, in combination with the fact that the policy pages are editable by all users, to mean that the policy could be changed, but the policy applies to all articles, and it is not negotiable whether the policy should apply to a particular article.Gerry Ashton 17:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

there's no separation between the NPOV policy and the way it is formulated on the NPOV policy page, or, if there would be, that separation would be different per person. Wow, I have to use this excuse next time someone disagrees with the way I've phrased something. It amounts to "there's no separation between what I meant and what I wrote, and whoever thinks I meant something different may not change how it is written, even if I'm the one who came up with the clearer explanation while trying to explain it to them, because any discussion or rephrasing is redundant." We'll see how well that flies. If that is an incorrect interpretation by me, then I guess it's too bad.—mjb 17:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Once any policy is stable, then like the American Constitution, it could be frozen. However, there is no chance of freezing a bubbling cauldron - nor should we try until it has cooled all the way down!--Light current 20:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think that the American Constitution is frozen, then you really need to study the subject more. That document is replete with undefined terms, and operative definitions of things like "due process" are being worked out all the time. In the meantime, there are always a few who attempt to play semantic games intended to warp interpretation or to question the validity of various amendments. A few have an idiosyncratic view of natural right. Some of these people are theoreticians with an agenda, but little practical experience in writing laws. Others just want to evade inconvenient laws (like taxes). Still others have less pleasant objectives in mind.

I think the situations are not disssimilar. Robert A.West (Talk) 10:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Once any policy is stable, then it could be frozen. The definition of stability is, of course, arbitrary--Light current 22:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this article does not cite verifiable sources itself

All I can find is a reference to Jimbo Wales and what he supposedly said on some mailing list somewhere (which itself is a bad source, and uncheckable besides). Thus, since WP itself has been admitted to be a non-RS (see the WP:RS article) and since this also is a WP article, and since it contains no references which even meet its own standards, I propose it be deleted until it is cleaned up.

Many of us here are continually frustrated by WP standards which are set out as in stone on WP ITSELF, when in fact the whole point of ALL of these standards (WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS) is that WP itself is not a good enough place to put primary information (such as what Jimbo does or doesn't want). That's a glaring paradox. I've done what I can to gently nudge it out into the open, including tagging this article in the standard way (of course, it was promptly reverted). It's time WP rose to its own rules. Anything less is hypocrisy. I don't want to read what somebody else thinks Jimbo Whales said, somewhere. I want a reliable, verifiable SOURCE for what his policies are. And I want that by HIS OWN standards. That's not too much to ask. In fact, it's the very core of what we're all here for.Sbharris 19:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sbharris writes, in reference to [[WP:V} "since this is a WP article". However, the policy itself contains the statement

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. [Emphasis added]

Thus the verifiability policy does not apply to itself, at least not technically.

Ahem, both the articles WP:V and WP:RS are Wikis in the main namespace.Sbharris 20:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I checked in Help:Namespace and discovered that while WP:V and WP:RS are technically in the main namespace, they are redirects to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources which are in the Wikipedia: namespace, not the main namespace. Gerry Ashton

Thank you; it appears you are correct. I was fooled by the redirects. So three points: first, because they redirect they walk and quack like ducks. Second, I have no idea who wrote that the policies should apply to articles in the main namespace n-0, but I suspect that the purpose was to loosen RS and V requirements for Talk: and User: pages and such. I doubt it was intended to apply to formal articles with clearly public informational content, as these are (which is why they redirect as main Wikis). Lastly, the problem that I don't know who wrote this part of the policy is the very problem we're talking about. There is no citation. It is not a verifiable WP policy. I have no way to check it. It just sits there.

Now if you look at these policy and guideline page histories, you don't exactly find that they were writen by Wales and the WP board of directors, then set in stone. Instead, they've grown organically, by little bits here and there. Somebody has said that WP policies are non-negociable, but that is wrong. If I reverted to last year's version of any of them, people would throw a fit. But the differences weren't written by anybody in authority. They've been negociated between editors over time.Sbharris 00:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I happen to feel the spirit of the policy should apply, but of course information contained in some places in the Wikipedia web site may potentially be more reliable than external sources, since Wikipedia serves as a primary source about itself.Gerry Ashton 20:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think Wikipedia serves as a primary source about itself? If there was some policity article by Jimbo Wales which was locked and signed, that would be true. Otherwise, it simply isn't. Sbharris 20:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Not all primary sources are reliable. A policy statement on WP is a primary source; it just isn't a terribly reliable source.Gerry Ashton 20:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong, again by the standards of the article you defend: Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability

Wikipedia is a teriatry source, and one that does not meet the criterial of being a reliable source (as it admits itself in WP:RS-- read it). That goes for WP articles on WP policy also. Exactly because WP has failed to PUBLISH its own policies in venues other than Wikis, the supposed V and RS "policies" which we argue over here are themselves neither realiable or verifiable. Somebody thinks I'm practising sophistry to point this out (they confused solipsism with sophistry, but nevermind), but actually I'm not. This is root of the problem of a lot of argumentation on these RS and V pages. Nobody can show, in a verifiable way, or can know, in a reliable way, what the real and authoritative policies of WP are. If you doubt, just try to change something on the WP:V or WP:RS pages. You'll find yourself being reverted by somebody who's been editing WP for 6 months and ever even MET Jimbo Wales. But who think's he's somehow keeper of the True Word.Sbharris 20:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Jimbo reference, Jimbo is notable, the things he says about Wikipedia are important, and the quote that was cited is found in what appears to be an official archive of a mailing list to which someone purporting to be "Jimmy Wales" frequently posts. The context provided by the archive as a whole may not be as reliable as the Washington Post getting 3 independent sources to confirm that the post isn't a forgery, but come on, common sense must prevail. What is interesting though is that Wales titled the thread so as to condemn the publication of false information about people, and he reiterates the point in identical terms later in the thread. So, apparently Wales does not share the WP:V view that Wikipedia has no responsibility to truth.—mjb 22:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. And the reference, slim as it was, only covers a very little bit of what Wiki WP:V policy article does. Wales has said a lot more in print about NPOV than about V.Sbharris 00:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Where does anyone get the idea that WP:V says that Wikipedia has no responsibility to truth? It is defining a practical method -- really the only practical method if we are to remain an open project -- for determining what the truth is. Robert A.West (Talk) 08:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

WP not into truth (yet)

Where do we get the idea from?? Well, how about the bit that says:

As counterintuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability (meaning referenceability), not truth.

Bracketed words are mine. In other words, as long as you can find a ref, that'll do!- It doesnt matter who wrote the article/book/paper/blog referred to and it doesnt matter if what (s)he wrote is sheer poppycock! As long as you have that ref you can put it in WP!.--Light current 10:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to make referencability mean something that it does not mean by the ordinary rules of English construction. It makes most sense meaning, "The state or quality that allows it to be cited as a reference." It conceivably could be made to mean, "The state or quality that allows (presumably absent) references to be added." It cannot mean, "Containing references that can be checked," because that ignores the suffix. It certainly would be an ambiguous and confusing word to replace "verifiability" with. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You are quoting out of context -- not a good practice if you are concerned with the truth. Let's look at the whole paragraph:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.

[emphasis mine, but the emphasized text is a link]

The key is that sources must be reliable for the sort of information being cited. This pretty much eliminates the sort of nonsense that you are discussing. We must also never forget WP:NPOV, which requires that all sides of a controversy be presented in proportion to their support among serious, qualified people. The policies do not exist in isolation from one another, as stated in each policy.Robert A.West (Talk) 12:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy pages are not articles

Obviously a policy document is not an article. A policy document only needs to refer to other policy documents. Does SBH think that Jimbo should have written the policy documents himself at the start of the project? No one can foresee the problems that may occur at the start and therfore any policy Jimbo might have written would be well out of date by now. Policies will continually evolve as they are doing here. One of the problems on WP:V is that incorrect terminology has been used from the start and rather than the poliy converging to something stable, it is going round in (ever increasing?) circles. Lack of precise terminology I feel has caused a great deal of confusion and unneccessary waste of time. Until we have the foundations of the policy properly worded, we will not make progress.--Light current 15:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Who says so? That's the crux of this discussion. WHO SAYS SO? A Wiki article? But I can go through the history of the article and find out where the statement was added, and I can look at the user page of that person. Will they be Wales or a director? Wanna bet? No doubt, but then Jimbo and whoever he has in authority should have re-written, then, shouldn't they? Rather than leave it to a bunch of private editors. Now, I actually have no problem with the idea of policy by concensus (which is what the latter idea implies). However, I really don't like to see policy by concensus proceed, and THEN be used as a bludgeon: "Oh, this is POLICY. And it's NON-NEGOCIABLE." Well, either Jimbo and the board wrote it, or else it has been the product of long negociation among lay editors. Can't have it both ways.

If they're going to "evolve," let us not call them "policies". That's my first suggestion. And let's not refer to them as "non-negotiable." Rather, all of them should be termed guidelines, evolving over time under approximate current editorial consensus (absent Word from On High, which in most cases we have not got). The language we use should reflext reality. Sbharris 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You may well have valid points to raise, but, to avoid upsetting other editors (especially admins) I would just ask you politely to phrase your suggestions in a slightly less conforntational tone in your posts. Thanks!--Light current 22:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It is rather obvious to everyone (except you it seems) that the policy pages are not articles. If you wish to set yor mind at rest over this, why not email Jimbo and politely ask him whether he thinks they are or not? You could also ask at the same time why he did not set out the policies in detail before embarking on this insane project! 8-)--Light current 23:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)----

I'm always amused to have somebody explain to me on behalf of EVERYBODY else what is obvious to them all. Please let others speak for themselves in this matter. To me, it appears that these are Wiki articles about Wiki policy, and thus they are both Wikis, and Wiki policy. Their placement is different (although they also redirect to the mainspace) but otherwise they are treated more or less like all other Wiki articles, open to changes by anybody. They are a collective product of many users, who collectively set policy and guidelines for WP. The confusion comes in the fact that "policy" and "guidelines" are somewhat more relaxed here on WP than in other places in the world, so the whole question doesn't matter as much as I thought it did after doing some more research. Perhaps a word other than "policy" is needed. In WP:RULES we are told that a policy is merely a guideline which people pay more attention to. There is also WP:IAR which is helpful for people who get too uptight about these matters.

As to your suggestion, I've done the next best thing and made these suggestions on Jimbo's talk page. If he thinks it's worth his time, he'll say something there.Sbharris 01:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed obvious to everyone but you. Articles are articles. The policy pages in question apply to articles. Policy pages are not articles. This is like someone being baffled at the idea that the "about the author" and other stuff in the back of a book is not a part of the book's literary narrative... but they're all just pages in the book! Sheesh. --W.marsh 01:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote from RULES page:

How are policies started? Much of Wikipedia policy dates from before 2002. Policy change now comes from three sources:

A proposed policy being adopted by consensus. (See Wikipedia:How to create policy)
A slow evolution of convention and common practice eventually codified as a policy.
Jimbo Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load.

Maybe this answers SBHs questions? 8-|--Light current 01:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I previously recommended the above section to people who insisted that all of WP's policy is "internally" generated (whatever that means). Fact is, some of it comes from outside editor concensus, some of it is by fiat from Wales and the Board. It would nice to have verifiable sources and references for which is which, since opperationally, they are different. Sbharris 01:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well to be honest, I think we can tell what comes from where, cant we?

Jimbo's (and the Board's) edicts via his emails,
consensus changes via the edit histories.

Do you need any more 'verifiablity' than that? If so, what else would you suggest? I dont understand your term 'outside editor'. Any user is an editor: they are all the same! --Light current 01:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Great. Where are Jimbo's emails archived, please? Would it be too much to ask the policy articles reference them?

Ah, concensus changes via the edit histories! Do tell me where the Talk: archives for policy pages, are, please.

Anymore than WHAT? If you go looking for the stuff you mention, you'll find you can't find it anymore than I can. So yes, I need more verifiability than nothing. Sbharris 21:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk archives for this page are at top of page on RHS (picture of filing cabinet drawer). Click on the word 'archives' (surprisingly!). I dont know wher Jimbos emails are kept. They will be here somewher tho'. I think where appropriate, the policy articles should reference them! I think its all here - you just have to know where to look!--Light current 22:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And the mailing lists are archived: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo - click on the name of the list you want, then click on the link to the archives. The archives can be searched using gmane, with a URL like: http://search.gmane.org/?query=npov&group=gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english (where query=what you want to search for and group=the gmane name of the group (which can be found with a URL of the form http://gmane.org/find.php?list=wikien-l (where list=the list name))) Lots of policy discussion goes on on wikien-l, and wikipedia-l and foundation-l also contain good bits. If you would like to go through the mailing lists and pull out various posts related to the formation of various policy, I don't think anyone would object - I certainly wouldn't. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore - (nearly) every edit made to the policy talk pages is still sitting there, in the page history (click on the "history" tab). I have gone looking for the "stuff you mention" and I've found it. Only yesterday I researched a minor editing dispute from back in 2003, and successfully identifed the specific revisions involved. The data is there.

One thing we are missing, is archives of discussions on IRC. While we try to avoid discussing policy on IRC, it sometimes happens, which is why I think it would be great to have a #wikipedia-logged channel where discussions we do want to save for posterity can be had. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR

If anyone is going to follow this 'advice' please note the following:

Invoking the principle of "Ignore all rules" on its own will not convince anyone that you were right, so you will need to persuade the rest of the community that your actions improved the encyclopedia. A skilled application of this policy should ideally fly under the radar, and not be noticed at all. My bolding --Light current 01:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And how do YOU know how many of my activities here have flown under the radar? It's just that I seem to have trodden on the toes of a sacred cow here, just as if I'd suddenly decided to take up the cause of (say) fetal rights or the medical dangers of circumcision (to pick two topics which twist the knobs of different groups). I can write about the Old West and the properties of gallium all I like, and nobody really cares. Pick a topic that some group cares about however, and suddenly WP gets very legalistic.Sbharris 01:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont. But if they have, they're probably OK. You are correct that policy is a very hot topic and one has to tread carefully to avoid getting ones fingers (or should that be toes) burned. Softly, softly, catchee monkee!--Light current 01:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

A more sensible heading

Hey, who are you calling plebian!!!! ;-P TheronJ 04:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said in the WP:RS talk page, WP:V and WP:RS are self-published materials in articles about themselves. I wouldn't think twice about citing to AOL's online pages to establish AOL's privacy policy, or to Disney.com to establish Disney's line-jumping policy, so why shouldn't I do the same with the Wiki policy pages?TheronJ 17:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The documents you are discussing are primary sources. They require no references because they are the fundamental documents comprising the policy itself. Wikipedia:Verifiability is also a primary document and needs no references. If one wanted to write a secondary source (say, for Wired magazine) about the policy, one would use various primary sources: the policy document, the email archives of discussions that brought about the policy in the first place, archives of past discussions, interviews with Wikipedians about the polices, and a survey of how they work in practice, among others. Once that secondary source has been published, a verifiable, tertiary article could be written about the policy. This policy is not that article, it is the policy. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to take a good look at the history pages of WP:V. It's the product of many hundreds of changes by dozens of ordinary mortals, none of them (so far as I can tell) with more authority than you or me. But the current product of this is taken in Talmudic fashion to be some kind of venerated text. I suggest you get over your reactionary worship of whatever you happen to read under a particular header, and take a closer look at how this policy page got to the way it is. Wikipedia:Verifiability wasn't written by Jimbo Wales. It was just written by a bunch of guys, and it has a fancy header. A year from now, it will be a different article, and still have the fancy header. And the differences will still be the product of a bunch of guys, none of whom is on the board of directors of WP, thinking up new stuff. Sorry if that shocks you. If would be so much more fun to bedevil others with POLICY if you didn't know where it came from. My purpose here is to make its origina a little more transparent. Sbharris 18:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy is policy as stated in its current form and represents current understanding and community consensus. Your use of a "bunch of guys" is innacurate because there are gals as well :) . Policy does not change easily as you imply and is not enforced or defined by Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia fundation. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No offence to gals, but these days you're considered one of the guys. And you are included in Dear Sirs, too, don't you know. As to your other comment I don't know too many people who give Jimbo NO credit in making policy. As you see above, he and the board do make SOME. We'd like to have verifiable references for WHICH. Too much to ask? Why? Sbharris 01:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem rather breathless, and your response above seems to attribute attitudes to me (inter alia) that I do not share and have not expressed. And, I am not sure what it is that you really want. What has you so irritated?

That you write something then say you didn't. You say "Policy does not change easily as you imply and is not enforced or defined by Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia fundation." That is just plain wrong. It is unfactual. Not ALL policy does, but SOME policy does. Some very important policy originates from Jimbo and the foundation and is enforced by them. Not all of it is in WP:OFFICE. There's a lot of enforcement muscle and reasoning behind WP:OFFICE that you quite obviously don't see (unless you'd like to claim this article is comprehensive, self explanitory, and historical?).

From my POV, the three content policies are part of what defines Wikipedia. To the extent that they were changed in substance, Wikipedia would cease to be a worthwhile and/or workable project.

Indeed charter WP:5P mentions NPOV as one foundation, backed up by V and RS where possible (nowhere is mentioned, BTW-- sometimes common sense or a simple logical inference isn't possible to support with V and RS, as WP defines them). It may be that much of Wiki policy itself isn't possible to subject to V and RS either, since it certainly can't be subjected to NOR. Indeed it IS all OR. And POV also. However, some of it could be subjected to V and RS standards, and I'd like to see it done.

If anyone wants to advocate a position that they believe to be true, but that differs from the scholarly consensus, there is Wikinfo, not to mention The Fray or MySpace. If someone wants to dispassionately relate the truth as defined by scholarly consensus, the existing policy structure supports that.

"Scholarly concensus" is of course a myth, but I do agree that Wikis policies actually handle scholarly conflicts quite well. I have no beef there.

As for which policies emanate from the foundation level, read the header of WP:OFFICE. That policy is immutable, fixed, explicitly done at the foundation level and SFAIK unique among content-related policies. This policy is not immutable in that sense, but it is part of what defines Wikipedia. It forms the basis for over a million articles: substantive changes have to be viewed as potentially affecting all of them. Even refactoring would be tricky, because thousands of editors would have to be re-educated. Why? What change do you have in mind that is so vital? Robert A.West (Talk) 08:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

First, WP:OFFICE is not a policy-- it's just a brief description of the final results of a bunch of temporary frantic ad-hoc administrative actions taken by Jimbo or his designated fire-putter-outer. What do you want me to read WP:OFFICE for?? It's a small example of foundation-related policies. "SFAIK," you say? Wales changed policy in Dec 2005 so that creaters of articles must register first-- that wasn't a requirement before then [11]. Another example: appeals of permablocks can be made to Jimbo, much like Ceasar. If I was willing to do more research I could go on giving examples, but the point is that this research is hard to do, because there's no RS and V of it in WP policy Wikis. Which is exactly my beef. That allows you to come here and say "SFAIK", because you did a cursory search and didn't find anything. Well, say I, so what?Sbharris 17:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

<puzzled look> What have I written that I have denied? The one quotation you attribute to me was written by User:jossi. My reason for mentioning WP:OFFICE is that it is the only content-related policy that I have seen in my two years here that says, explicitly, that it was promulgated by the Foundation and cannot be changed by consensus. It says it is a policy, and it looks like one to me: don't fiddle with OFFICE edits. The requirement of registration to create articles, or having Jimbo as the final court of appeals, is not a content-related policy, and is not really relevant to this page, which is about content.

I am not a member of the Wikimedia board, nor am I a dues-paying member of the Foundation. While I do not share your concerns (who other than the President should handle intractable disputes among admins?), I suggest that your concerns are really for the Board (i.e. Meta), not this page. It's their bat, ball and backyard. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the quote attribution mixup. If you are right that these concerns are for the board, is that a suggestion that this is a content-related matter which the board should fix? Not good for your argument, but it's possible. (And I have a note Jimbo's talk page, to see if that does any good). Some content policies (NPOV) originated with Jimbo and are not subject to concensus change, but derivatives of it can be changed by concensus. So far as I know, the idea that V and RS don't apply to themselves, is not written in stone, and is subject to concensus change. If not in the talk pages of the policies themselves, where would that be? Here is the only place the policy is written down on the first place! And with considerably research (though I'm not sure of this, not having done it) I think perhaps you could even figure out which editor promulgated it first, and committed it to the WP:V Wiki. But it sure would be a lot easier if there was just a little reference tag so we know where the dang thing CAME from. In so many respects, WP policies and guidelines operate like a bunch of changable mythology (information creep), and the lack of ANY V and RS standards in policy articles are a major reason for this.Sbharris 19:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope you won't mind if I re-indent. I disagree that V and RS can (let alone should) apply to project/policy pages. There isn't really anything to cite, any more than there is in the Bylaws of the Foundation, or a Bill passed by Congress. WP:V is not an explanation of a policy that exists in another document, it is the authoritative statement of the policy. (OK, vandalism and clueless edits excepted.) The Jimbo quote looks to me like an explanation of the policy -- deploring a particular species of shortcut -- not a change from what the policy was previously.

If people weren't dicks, we could make do with the policy in a nutshell and close this talk page.

Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Is there really anything to disagree with there? As I understand the history, WP:NOR started out to fight crank theories, WP:NPOV to handle contentious issues and WP:V to fight urban legends and editors who think they know more than they do. However they started, I think that the three together define a good approach, and one of which I approve. Of course, it would be better if people tried to implement them in both spirit and letter. Sometimes they are used as hammers. Sometimes they have to be. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Often they are not needed. But when there is a content dispute, they are usually very effective at determining what should go and what should stay. Usually a lot of facts get to stay and a lot of opinions get to go. Stephen B Streater 20:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Below comments originally split my post -- moved here to enable others to follow the discussion. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of potentially citable stuff. For one thing, if the Talk pages and concensus discussions which led to any given policy were saved (which it appears they are not) and referenced, it would be far easier for people who want to make additions or changes or whatever, to any specific policy. They could save a lot of time and just start where the discussion left off (and by the way, you're wrong about bills passed by congress-- debate records ARE preserved, and used by courts later to try to discover intent). See my discussion below in the Protection from Evil section for a specific example.

Second, insofar as edicts from the WP board, there's nothing to prevent Jimbo and the board from publishing their edicts in some verifiable place other than Wiki, which can then be cited by others. As it is, your saying that "there really isn't anything to cite," is perfectly true, but somewhat damning. It's not because it's intrinsically impossible. Creating a minimal record will do the board good. Nothing points up the intrinsic bundensomeness of a rule to a rulemaker, so much as having to follow it themselves. The Laziness trap is a bad one for Owners Sbharris 21:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy discussions are on the archives, where they belong, just as the debates are in the Congressional Record, where they belong. The bills don't cite the debates, and the policies should not cite the archives. And, when judges feel obliged to refer to the debates to interpret a law, they can be quite acerbic that Congress did not do a better job. A policy is not a history of the policy.

No portion of WP:V claims to have been imposed by the board. I have yet to see a consensus reached on a change to WP:V and that change be rejected. Can you show me such a case? If not, this whole discussion is irrelevant to this page. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection from evil

Yeah!. Do you think editing of policy pages should be restricted to those who have been here a year or more with at least 10k edits?--Light current 21:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Is that a rhetorical question? WP policy is that editors should be on equal footing from the get-go, and everything should be done to promote that, and discourage breakdown in the "oldhand" and "newbie" groups.Sbharris 22:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No I was asking your view because of your comment about editors with 6 m experience can revert anyone else on the policy pages as on any other pages. On the question of policies that are all-important, care must be taken to include only the more experienced views in their formulation and amendment. THe reasons for this are rather obvious. The policy pages must be regarded as different from other pages and be afforded some sort of protection against insurgents. Newbies can still comment on the talk page (as we are doing). Anyway I believe some sort of vote has already happened on this subject. I dont know the outcome. --Light current 23:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Tone of argument

Sbharris, I do not understand your arguments and the reason for your "tone of voice". I don;t know if you are aware of it, but you sound upset about something and it is not easy understanding you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hypocrisy tends to upset me. The reasons given for the verifiability policy and reliable sources policy of WP, apply equally well to explaining in the Wikis which policies emanate from Jimbo and the Board, and which don't. Otherwise, nobody knows. I hope I've expressed myself clearly. Sbharris 01:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that policy pages need to follow WP:RS and WP:V? Really? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying it would nice if they did, for the reasons they themselves give that the policies exist in the first place. I gave an example which is in V almost verbatim from the one in RS, which has to to do with self-published sources. It states that these may be okay from a expert in a field writing about his own field of expertise, OR from a professional journalist. Say what? Professional journalists are experts in journalism-- that's it. In an occasional case they may be an expert on a topic they personally unearthed (Woodward and Bernstein on Watergate), rather than merely summarized (which is most of what they do). So this is inappropriate. Where did this policy COME from? Was it discussed in TALK? When? How was concensus reached? I can't find the archives. So far as I'm concerned, the whole matter is unsourced, and now unverifiable. See the problem? And it's bad policy.

So you say, why don't you change it? Because I got reverted. So you say, why not open up a new Talk section for debate and concensus? I can, but because the records are gone, it's going to waste time by going over something somebody probably already did. And you know what? The result won't be saved or referenced either, so when somebody in the future wants to know the provenance of this policy, THEY won't be able to find out EITHER. I say that's inefficient and silly. It could in theory be fixed up. Sbharris 21:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What edit, when? The only edit I found from you in the past three months is [12], which is your tagging of the article. The history doesn't get purged. When was this?

The edit was 11 June, and it was to the corresponding section of WP:RS which reads the same as WP:V. It was reverted in 2 hours.

Your edit can be seen here. I'm not sure what you are seeking to add, or what you fear the problem with the guidance is. Hiding Talk 12:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, if RS is truly inconsistent with V, then my presumption would be that RS should be changed. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, they're both consistent with each other. The problem is that they mirror a single bad policy (just as an example). I only tried to fix the one in RS, which was the first I ran across. However, I emphasize that my problem is less with the policy per se, than the way it came into being, which seems to be ex nihilo. But trying to change it meets resistances, as though everybody knew it was "authoritative." Sbharris 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I should imagine we allow self published sources when written by a professional journalist not because they are an expert in a field but because they are an expert on writing about things, therefore it could be expected that they have followed their journalistic training.

Very bad logic indeed, and wrong in practice. As a connoiseur of journalistic snafus in my own field of expertise, I have a hundred examples, but let it rest. Suffice to say that the advice WP:RS gives about staying away from journalists as sources in technical matters is sound, as I have repeatedly "admitted" and emphasized. But it somewhat contradicts what it later gives as guidelines on self-publishing (which are mirrored as policy on V).

The snafus are in part unimportant. WP:V forms a part with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. The idea is that we don't document the truth, we document the opinions of others and let the reader judge. A professional journalist self publishing something about a field in which he is well versed may be a useful thing to cite, although I think the guidance is still that if it is that useful it will be cited in a reliable source anyway. Hiding Talk 12:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Your other point seems to reduce to the fact that the policy of Wikipedia has been written by wikipedians and you somehow think that's unfair. Hiding Talk 22:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you got that out of what I said. It's perfectly fine with me if some or all WP policy is written by Wikipedians. I just want them to take responsibility for it, and I'd like to see a record of it, in case I want to want to make an argument to change it. I have a claim by somebody else that all this IS recorded-- I'm just such a naif that I can't find it. That may be the case. I'm right now waiting for his demo. The 2004 WP:V Talk Page archives and WP:V article version histories, for example.Sbharris 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Changes are mostly all recorded. What do you want to know? Hiding Talk 12:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I can find stuff!

If you look in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/archive1 you will find 7 posts posted in 2004. Is this what you are looking for? Maybe some stuff was deleted by unscrupulous editors- but you can check the page history for that!. Is this any help to you!--Light current 00:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's helpful in illustrating the point that this information is not readily available, and that's not only because I'm a dolt at looking for it. You seem to be having problems also. Much more of this history is available than what's in archive1 (for example see 2003 entries in [13], but it's tricky to find. See my own talk page where another editor with unusually good search skills managed it, and showed me the tricks. But it's just not obvious to the uninitiated. Which is why it needs to be simply referenced in the articles themselves. Sbharris 00:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I agree that certain things may be difficult to find, but I wouldnt agree that they are being purposely hidden by people (well not usually).--Light current 00:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Exit Interviews Re: WP:Verifiability

JA: I will be developing this topic later today. Jon Awbrey 13:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Jon Awbrey

Light Current's Proposed Change

I reverted Light Current's change because best usage avoids trying to make "reference" a verb: There is always a better choice. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the wording now. I hope you find it acceptable! 8-|--Light current 22:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Better, but I still don't think it is an improvement over the original. I'll leave it be in the intests of comity, but I would like to discuss. We have at least three options:

"This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources."
"This means that we only publish material that can be referred to reliable, published sources."
"This means that we only publish material that can be fact-checked by referring to reliable, published sources."
"This means that we only publish material that can be traced back to reliable, published sources."

Version #1 is the original phrasing, which emphasizes that we are talking about a process of formal verification, which, for non-controversial assertions, also constitutes verification in the ordinary sense of establishing truth. Version #2 is Light Current's version, but is, I think, an unnatural phrasing. One normally refers the reader, not the fact. Moreover, the process of verification is de-emphasized, which is I think dangerous. Version #3 meets, I think, your objection that "verifiability" is not defined, by defining it explicitly -- fact-checking done by referring to reliable, published sources. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The original version sounds somehow much like Wikipedia jargon. How about

"This means that we only publish material that can be traced back to reliable, published sources." Dr Zak 22:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Added as #4 above.Robert A.West (Talk) 22:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Idiom requires that #1 be "by reference to", I think. With that qualifier, I prefer it; and #3 next to it. #4 is too weak to be policy: the cranks will claim that their favorite web site mentions published works, and so is verification. Septentrionalis 22:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

First reaction: we cannot use that word 'verifiable' if we are just talking about finding something published because what is published is sometimes untrue! And we all know that the term 'verifiable' means being able to be established as the truth.--Light current 23:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither I, nor Karl Popper, nor the OED know that. Light current is permitting etymology to carry him beyond its legitimate bounds. Septentrionalis 23:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at the dic defs further up the page!--Light current 23:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Even they mention both truth and accuracy, which are not quite the same thing. The OED adds "proving authenticity", which is closer to what is intended here. Septentrionalis 23:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"Um, traced back to"? Doesn't that contradict the idea that we don't source a website which sources a book if we haven't verified that what they state is what the book says? How about "This means that we only publish material directly sourced from publications deemed reliable."?

Which publications in your view are reliable? Whatever you say, I could disagree with you 8-)--Light current 23:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This is why WP:V is not our only policy. Wikipedia is a gamble that a consensus (in our sense) will agree often enough on sources that are actually reliable. Septentrionalis 23:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with that sentiment! 8-)--Light current 23:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That, of course, brings us to the epistemological question of what it means to establish something as the truth. In the practical world, it usually means that someone checked it with a source believed to be reliable. There are very few truths that are established beyond the possibility of being reconsidered, and very few that we know as truths purely from our own experience. The process of verification by reference to reliable sources is a pragmatic and appropriate one. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the more sensible and comprehensible wording. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur, the proposed change do not make sense. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Back to the main argument

OK Robert of the alternatives you have listed above, the one I like (and one that hasnt been objected to yet!) is :

This means that we only publish material that can be referred to reliable, published sources.

Does anyone have any problem with me putting that on the page> --Light current 14:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Im intending to replace the existing wording with the following:

This means that we only publish material that can be referred to reliable, published sources.

Does any one have any objections. Speak now, or forever...etc!--Light current 22:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I vote no. It reads a little awkwardly. It sounds like you are saying you are referring material to sources, like "hey material, go consult with those sources," like the way a general practitioner might "refer" someone to a specialist.—mjb 22:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

How about:

"This means that we only publish material that can be referenced to reliable, published sources."

Or could you suggest a modified wording?--Light current 22:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I vote no. I am surprised that Light Current failed to note my objection, above, to version #2, which is substantially the point raised by Mjb. As for using "reference" as a verb, I have already objected on both stylistic and substantive grounds. The substantive objection it is an ill-defined term and ambiguous term in this context. It could be interpreted as "a reference exists, even if unstated," which invites material without citations, or it could mean material that is obliquely referred to in reliable, published sources, among other interpretations.

We want to be able to verify that (1) the material appears in the sources cited and (2)the sources are published and reliable. There are plenty of synonyms for verify in this context: check, confirm, authenticate. Why not use one of them? Robert A.West (Talk) 00:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

How about:

"This means that we only publish material that can be found in reliable, published sources."

Or could you suggest a modified wording?--Light current 00:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I already have: #3 above. I'll offer another:

"By verification, we mean checking the material by referring to reliable, published sources that can be readily identified by practically any reader. This nearly always means that the source has been cited in the article. We only publish material that can be verified in this fashion."

This phrasing has three advantages, IMO.

It defines "verifiability" explicitly and clearly.
It explicitly limits the scope of common knowledge to things that everyone knows where to look up. If it can be found in any desk dictionary, there really is no problem with verification. Beyond that, cite.
It explicitly ties the need to cite to the need for readers to identify where to look up the material. Not that this is in much doubt, but it can't hurt.

Respectfully offered for comment. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The word 'verification' cannot be allowed when referring to references becuase of its dic def that mentions truth. This is not Humpty Dumpty land (although sometimes it seems like it!)--Light current 01:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You do Wikipedia no favors by playing the Tortoise. Verify has a range of meanings, into several of which this policy's usage neatly fits, per Septentrionalis's comment above. Elevating one meaning above others is a cheap semantic game and unhelpful. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

#3 shouldn't satisfy LC because it uses the word "fact" in "fact-checking", which implies truth-testing just as much as "verification". The alternative Robert suggests above is also not that great. First, just as a matter of style, there's no "we" in an encyclopedia. Second, "checking" removes the "fact-", which is good, but then leaves it open to exactly what, about the material, is being checked.—mjb 01:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The word, "we" already occurs in the policy. "This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." Of course, Light Current has again changed this to, "can be found in" without consensus. I am opposed, but prefer to leave the revert to someone else this time. LC's phrasing weakens the policy, by moving the emphasis from whether another editor can actually check the source. That is the reason to cite. For all I know, that is the purpose of the change: to weaken the policy and allow certain edits that would now be prohibited. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I notice no one else has offered an alternative dic def of 'verify' or 'verifaiable' or 'verifiability'. Why is that I wonder?--Light current 01:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You should re-read Septentrionalis's comments above. He gives other meanings from the OED. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Another suggestion

In trying to bend over backwards to please Roberts view (tho I dont know why I should) I suggest a modified version of his proposal Ie:

This means that we only publish material that can be checked by referring to reliable, published sources

You wlli notice I have removed the word 'fact' becasue this assumes that what is printed in the ref is fact. We cannot know that when quoting any ref!. However, because we are stating relible sources, the materila is more likely to be true than not! How does this sound?--Light current 17:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

When is it not possible to cite souces?

The policy-in-a-nutshell says that, "Articles should cite these sources whenever possible." When is citation not possible? Is this intended to allude to some substrate of knowledge that so basic as to require no source, or to avoid stupid arguments over solid inferences? (If John is older than James, and James older than Mary, then John is older than Mary and the article may say so.) What useful purpose is served by the qualification? Robert A.West (Talk) 22:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It may not be possible if what you are putting in is plain common sense, or logic that will not have a reference. Or when you are inserting is plainly and obviously correct (like your example above) but you cant find a ref. (Who says that John is older than Mary? Whers your ref?) --Light current 22:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

But, in my example above, I need a reference that John is older than James, and one that James is older than Mary. As for common sense, that is what told people that heavy objects fall faster than similarly-shaped lighter ones. Any textbook on cognitive psychology is replete with examples of how common sense is often wrong. Even the inference that John is older than Mary rests a logical rule (transitivity) that can be misused: if John is not the same age as James, and James is not the same age as Mary, one could naively conclude that John cannot be the same age as Mary. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont think you can deduce that from the inequalities!--Light current 23:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That is Mr.West's point: both cases require an axiom of transitivity, which happens to be true for "older than", and false for "not the same age as". (Largely true, at least; consider the Pirates of Penzance) Septentrionalis 23:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A minor skirmish

~~Are you trying to help or just shit stirring?~~--Light current 23:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Septentrionalis I thought you were referring to the verifiability problem not to Roberts example.

Apologies!--Light current 00:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Accepted. (But that's why longer responses are good; the misunderstanding would have been clear.) Septentrionalis 00:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

~~Your comments are too short to be clear; so I am trying to answer the best understanding I can reach of their meaning. Septentrionalis 23:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)~~

~~My comments are concise and succinct. Please put a sapce between posts. Thanks! 8-|--Light current 23:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Why the accusation of shit-stirring? I gave a textbook example of the sort of naive assumption that is, lamentably, all too common. You seemed to somehow think I approved of the fallacy. Septentrionalis tried to clarify. If you meant something else, then please explain, since at least two people have misunderstood you. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
~~I was not accusing- I was asking a question. Thats why I put a question mark at the end! 8-)--Light current 00:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~That's disingenuous: questions like that are not neutral. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Civility, please, both of you. Also, please refrain from making substantive changes to policy without consensus, or any changes that are objected to without wide agreement. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Im always civil. So only admins can make changes to policy pages?--Light current 00:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)~~
The template says it all: "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Nothing about admins, just consensus. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Alternative phrasings of policy~~
Robert, since you have told me what is wrong with all the alternative phrasings I have suggested or inserted (only to have them reverted of course) and since we know that in the sense of this page to 'verify' maens only to find a reference or two, why dont you come up with a word that means:
~~'a reference exists for this statement- but the reference may not tell the truth and may be unreliable'~~
~~8-( --Light current 13:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~What part of "reliable" do you not understand? Robert A.West (Talk) 00:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Im sorry, I dont understand that question 8-|--Light current 00:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Common_knowledge, if anyone disputes your statement, you need a source. TheronJ 00:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Im sorry, I dont understand that statement 8-| --Light current 00:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I am also sorry that you don't understand that statement -- it means that you do not understand this policy. Wikipedia requires reliable sources, not just any old source. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
No it is you who does not understand the present policy!. The first requirement is to find a reference. This takes precendence over the truth or accuracy of that reference (Verifiability NOT truth). Read the policy page again with both eyes open! What it says to me is that any old ref will do! BTW do you really think you are qualified to talk about policy with a paltry 1800 edits? Get some more under your belt before telling others how many beans make 5!--Light current 00:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Experience of editors editing policy pages~~
Well, for one thing I don't inflate my edit count by re-indenting other user's comments without their consent. But you still ignore the word, reliable. It is there. Your ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
In all fairness, regardless of whether it is used to pad one's edit count, reindenting comments is common and does not require consent. Sometimes threads are very hard to follow otherwise.—mjb 05:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Quote from another planet in another dimension:~~

I do not have any interest in my edit count as such. I notice tho' that this seems to be an increasingly favorite form of attack from editors with low (usually very low) edit counts and some vandals.--Light current 18:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

~~You are still a novice! Leave it to the experienced editors theres a good chap! Goodbye!!--Light current 01:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~And the word, reliable still sits there: a fact you continue to ignore. Ad hominem attacks don't change that fact either. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~A little lamb, having found its voice, bleats continuously. It doesnt know why, but it just carries on!--Light current 02:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)~~
*mirror*. If Robert's original question has been sufficiently answered, end this thread. If not, please get back on topic. Thanks.—mjb 05:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it has scarcely been discussed. For those who have forgotten it in all this incivility, it was: The policy-in-a-nutshell says that, "Articles should cite these sources whenever possible." When is citation not possible? Septentrionalis 16:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
~~This thread ends here. --Light current 17:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)~~

~~To Light current (talk · contribs)~~
Can you please stop changing the lead? It is starting to feel as disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
What about the latest changes? Isn't someone going to acuuse them of disruption?--Light current 18:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
~~More Admin bullying?~~
Aha! Why are you getting involved in the argument? Is this the start of more admin bullying with future threats of blocking? Why dont you just leave it? Please refer to my user page for the likely outcome of this skirmish!--Light current 01:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
This has absolutely nothing to do with being an admin or not. Repeatedly changing the policy lead without consensus is disruptive and a waste of time. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And BTW, you can be blocked for WP:3RR. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Im well aware of the 3RR. Im nowhere near breaching it! I am trying to improve the policy wording from something that actually contradicts itself to something that actually says what you and others WANT it to say! Unfortunaely I seem to be battling agianst some users who do not understand the meaning of some words and are not prepared to abide by a dictionary definition or offer other dictionary definitions (with references). In short, I feel some users are just being obstinate because they are scared of upsetting the apple cart!--Light current 16:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
~~YYSW. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)~~
THis acronym/abbreviation is not on the list. What does it mean?--Light current 19:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Aha. It seems to mean a grudging agreement being expanded as : 'Yeay yeah, sure, whatever'--Light current 19:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Not grudging, sarcastic, and therefore not agreement. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Would you care to explain that?--Light current 20:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Latest edits~~
~~What does 'verifiably published' mean? THis is even worse than the original wording!--Light current 18:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Would, "Verifiably has been published," be better, according to your lights? Robert A.West (Talk) 19:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Not really no! With the way the policy is written ATM, the action of establishing the truth or reliability of a refernce has to be separated from the action of quoting the reference.
If WP wants 'true' refs, then we cant have the statement: Verifiability NOT truth can we? Because verifiability implies truth does it not? If so, the statement is self contradictary. Therefore one of the words must go: either 'verifiability' or 'Not truth'. You cant have both and have it make sense in English!
However, ATM, its seems that WP wants references ABOVE truth which is what the policy is trying to say (unsucessfuly). But if it wants both, (as I believe it should) it should say:

~~We require accurate and reliable (implying true) published references~~

~~This could be split if necc:~~
We require published references AND,

The references quoted must be reliable (implying true)
~~BTW what have my lights got to do with anything?--Light current 20:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Light current, perhaps it's best if you don't make any edits at all to the page, and instead just suggest them on the Talk: page, as your continual suggested changes to policy are clearly not meeting with any agreement. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
~~LC, you've been through this before. The policy doesn't say anything about truth. We use reliable sources and hope they're not talking nonsense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Reply to Jayjg~~
Well Jayjg, if you were to look at this very talk page, you would find that I have been making numerous suggestions to counter the objections of one or more editors to previous wordings. I would disagree that my suggested changes are not meeting with ANY agreement. Robert A West and I do seem to be talking in the same ball park as far as I can tell and I have some ideas in common with few other editors. Its just that we are having trouble understanding each other! My suggestions dont seem to be having much sucess as other editors dont seem to understand the English language.
However, whilst I and the othe editors of similar opinions are trying to work things out, other editors are rearranging the deck chairs while the ship is sinking and there is no admonishment of their actions.
Thats why I find these warnings to me (usually by admins) so hypocritical. ie other editors can play about to thier hearts content with the page, but when I try to improve things, Im accused of disruption, trolling, causing trouble etc etc. This gives me a feeling of persecution by Admins as has happened to me before. If admins are going to apply rules, they should be applied fairly to EVERYONE!!! But better still, why dont you just leave things to us non admins- we can sort it as we do with every other page on WP. 8-((--Light current 20:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Light current, the issue here is that changing the policies so that they mean something quite different from their intent is not really "improving" things, but rather, "making them worse". In addition, you seem to understand and use English in a way that differs from the norms of most native speakers of the language, which compounds the problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I passed my English exam at school and have been using it for very many years now and I speak perfect pedantic English. It is my native language. It is other people here who cannot understand the language and its nuances - like you apparently! I don't honestly think you actually know what the policy says ATM. If you do, could you actually spell it out for me? in words of one syllable. I bet you cant!--Light current 21:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Reply to Slim~~

~~LC, you've been through this before. The policy doesn't say anything about truth. We use reliable sources and hope they're not talking nonsense. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)~~

~~Slim. Sorree!! Whats this then?~~

~~The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.~~

~~Please get your facts right before spouting forth! Thanks! --Light current 20:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~That's what I meant. "Truth" is not required. "Verifiability" is. They are not the same thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)~~
So the policy DOES say things about truth even tho' its in a negative connotation. You said it didnt!
Yeah OK thats what you say, but unfortunately, a number of other editors do not share that view! Also according to the dictionary 'verifiable' means 'able to establish the truth' So the statement in the policy is nonsense- yes? --Light current 21:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Robert's opinion~~
What follows is my opinion, offered FWIW, about why it is good to talk about verification rather than truth.
Verification, in ordinary English usage, does not mean establishing truth to a metaphysical certainty. It never has, it does not now, and it is not likely to in our joint lifetime. Look at the first definition in Merriam-Webster:
~~To establish as legally true by oath.~~
Many false things are sworn to daily.
Look at the definition used in Formal verification:
to certify that a thing satisfies specifications, irrespective of whether those specifications meet requirements. (The latter process is called validation.) This is very close to how Wikipedia uses the term, which may not be a coincidence. In this sense, the specification is that articles must contain information from reliable sources.
What our users would like and need (the actual requirement in systems-lingo) is that the information should be true, for cases where that term has meaning. From a systems-engineering vantagepoint, we verify, we do not validate.
Reliable sources tend to contain true information: there is no guarantee that any particular piece of information is true. Truth is hard to measure: is the density of gold to three decimal places less true than the density to five? Is the Copenhagen interpretation more or less true than the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics? What can be measured is how faithful our articles are to sources, and how widely those sources are regarded as reliable. Reliability of source serves as an imperfect, but practical proxy for truth.
Does that at least make sense as a position? Robert A.West (Talk) 20:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and in case you weren't joking about the question, "lights" can mean one's particular perspective and understanding. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
~~I see! I thought it may have been something else! Like making fun of my user name! 8-|--Light current 21:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Robert, would you mind if I altered your post so that your (very important) points stand out more clearly?. I promise I will not alter your text or meaning etc!--Light current 21:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Thank you for asking. No problem. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Trolling accusations again~~
~~LC, please. This is starting to look like trolling. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Aha! I was waiting for that! Please refer to my user page for the likely outcome of this! Everyone who stands up for what they believe in is a troll? Is that correct?--Light current 21:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. But you seem to have misunderstood (or are trying to change) the policy, and no one agrees with you. You've also done this before, and the fact that you were waiting for an allegation of trolling indicates that you know what you're doing. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Not so! I am actually trying to clarify the policy so that it means what you think it means but which it doesnt at the moment. In other words Im trying to help!!!~~
But this course of action has happened before. I'm predicting the future based on the seemingly pre programmed reactions of admins who have run out of arguments! When they cant find a vaid counter argument, admins accuse users of trolling, vandalism, disruption etc. Isn't it about time you either came up with valid objections, or kept out of these discussions altogether? Why are you actually so concerned about editors discussions on this page. Is it ADMIN PARANOIA? Anyone would think you are scared of something. What is that something? Please tell us all, then we can try to aviod mentioning it. After all you can revert anyones changes, so why worry? 8-((--Light current 21:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Grammar~~
I've restored the first two sentences, except that I returned the second one to "with reference to" instead of "by reference to." I believe it's correct to say "by referring to," but it should be "with reference to." However, it's a small point, so if people disagree, I won't revert. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Well, you're correct, so I don't see why people would revert it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Looking at actual usage it should be "by", but I'm not a native speaker. Random Google hits for "with reference to"

"An essay on slavery and abolitionism, with reference to the duty of American females"

"Assessing the Iranian Nuclear Threat with Reference to Pakistan's Experience"

Random Google hits for "by reference to"
"Characterizing stoners by reference to stoned people"

"The common law rule that incorporation by reference to specific law incorporates only the provisions referred to at the time of adoption"

"with reference to <example>" refers to special examples being produced ("under besonderer Berücksichtigung" in German Academicese); "by reference to <method>" means a general method. Dr Zak 20:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Judging what's correct grammatically can't be done by number of Google hits, Dr. Zak. Do you have a source for your last point? I've never seen it before. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)~~
This isn't counting Giggle hits, this is examining usage - entirely within the pale as this isn't writing an encyclopedia article but polishing up a policy page. Besides, English grammar is descriptive anyway. The OED actually concurs: "3b. in or with reference to, with respect or regard to". "by reference" OTOH appears in a couple of snippets under the heading "4. An allusion or directing of attention to some thing or person." Dr Zak 21:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I know we're not writing an encycopedia article, but it would be good not to have a mistake in the second sentence, and "by reference to" jars with me. Grammar is prescriptive as well as descriptive, and the point about checking usage on Google is that we don't know how good the grammar is of the people we're checking. In or with reference to is fine, so I agree with the OED. I also agree that "by reference to" can be used. But to write "it is verifiable by reference to X" (passive voice) is to get mixed up between "by referring to" and "with reference to," in my view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
~~The examples that OED has for "in reference to" don't quite mean what we want our guideline to mean. Just look up what the OED says, maybe you will agree! Dr Zak 21:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Since the passage in question is the first normal paragraph in the policy, it should be the best possible summary of the entire article for the benefit of those who don't read (or re-read) the entire policy. If it were to say "This means that we only publish material that contains citations to reliable, published sources" this wording would clarifiy that it is not sufficient for an editor to rely on reliable, published sources; the editor is also required to include citations to the sources. Gerry Ashton 20:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
People aren't required to produce citations for every single edit, but every edit must be verifiable with reference to a reliable source i.e. they must be able to produce a reference if challenged. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, editors need not produce citations for every single edit, such as clarifying information already in the article, or including additional concepts from a source that is already cited. On the other hand, a good article contains sufficent citations to support all the information in the article with no need ask further citations. I would emphasize that it is the article as a whole that must contain sufficient citations, not each individual edit. Gerry Ashton 21:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Yes, I agree. But it's been difficult to find good wording to describe that, because it boils down to common sense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~We need a policy for common sense or the kooks will OVERWHELM WIKIPEEDIAA!!1! Dr Zak 21:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)~~

WP:VERIFY shortcut

Multiple sources

Proposed improvements

*remark*

Self-published sources in articles about themselves

WP:VERIFY shortcut

Multiple sources

Proposed improvements

*remark*

Self-published sources in articles about themselves

Fictional Characters

Suggested adjustment to policy

Press Releases and Unverifiable Claims

Etiquette question

Verifiable statement vs non-verifiable statements

Attempt to bypass WP:V and WP:NOR

This policy is incomplete and should probably be withdrawn until reformulated

WP:ARCHIVES

Self-published sources in articles about themselves

Explicitly say Wikipedia articles cannot serve as references for other articles

Flaw

RS

Third party sourcing as a notability definition

Top-of-Page Notice

Do articles require third party sources?

A bad source is much better than no source

This rule sometimes does more harm than good.

Sidebar:

Using nowiki tags to hide unverified content

RfC: Interpreting WP:V in the context of Mnemonics

Conflict on use of self-published sources?

Proposal to restrict who can edit policies

Policy makers

Proposal regarding blogs

Policy or Guideline? Difference

Self published - baby - bathwater

Wikipedia talk:Did you know unreferenced problem

Membership in organizations based on org's website?

Index of 'sources of dubious reliability' needed

'Verifiable truth'

Books and page numbers

Race

Self-published sources

"The burden of evidence"

What is publication?

Is the RS content a summary of WP:RS, or policy?

Please do not feed the trolls

A thought: Tacitus' recommendation

Definition of term

Dictionary definitions

Are these edits contentious?

Discussion about NPOV, NOR, Verifiability etc. on Talk:Fedora Core

Terms

Dictionary definitions

Alice in Wonderland

Policy wording

Self-published sources

Suggested Policy

A Useful (I hope) Question

Archiving

How to solve the verification....

proposed re-statement

Definition of terms

This policy is non-negotiable

Excuse me, but this article does not cite verifiable sources itself

WP not into truth (yet)

Policy pages are not articles

WP:IAR

A more sensible heading

Protection from evil

Tone of argument

I can find stuff!

Exit Interviews Re: WP:Verifiability

User:Jon Awbrey

Light Current's Proposed Change

Back to the main argument

Another suggestion

When is it not possible to cite souces?

A minor skirmish

Alternative phrasings of policy

remark

remark