Why doesn’t Wikipedia adopt a stricter standard for citing sources, at least for newly written articles or any new additions to existing articles? For older articles, is there a policy that editors must or should delete statements that are flagged as unreferenced if they remain unreferenced after some given period of time? I am guessing these are Wikipedia community decisions (?), but I am wondering if someone can explain how this works.
Their description seems to give their reasoning. It’s better to get the ball rolling and figure that anything which is contested can be cited or removed. If it’s fairly well accepted, finding some primer and citing it for each and every sentence isn’t particularly useful.
What can the editors of Wikipedia do, threaten to arrest the writers who don’t provide cites? If they were to eliminate articles without sufficient cites or to remove the sections of the articles without sufficient cites, they would destroy much of Wikipedia. All they can do is to flag the sections without sufficient cites and hope that the original writers or some other writers will eventually fix the articles. The editors really are trying to improve the articles. That’s the point of the starred articles, which are those that the editors consider to be the best written articles in Wikipedia.
I agree that the editors at Wikipedia are trying to improve the articles. But I cited (:D) to a Wikipedia page stating that Wikipedia wants to improve the referencing of its articles.
I’m not proposing that every sentence in every article needs to be cited, or that entire Wikipedia articles should be deleted willy nilly. I think it’s fair to ask whether and how individual sentences or sections of articles can be challenged and removed (later on, after some defined period of time) if no one finds a cite to support them.
I think this sums it up. To take your reasoning to its extreme conclusion, Wikipedia could just require that every one of its articles be written and checked by experts. But then it wouldn’t be Wikipedia. I think the fact that it’s so wildly successful and surprisingly accurate (a study a few years ago showed that on major scientific topics, Wikipedia had only slightly more major errors than the British Encyclopedia) proves their approach broadly works.
I think it also serves as a way for people to say “wait a minute that sounds ‘off’, I think someone ought to check it.”
I like the Wikipedia, but I got tired of edit wars and Wiki Nazis so rather than try to fix something, even if I know it to be right, I’ll flag it as “citation needed.”
That way someone can fix it, or at least knows not to take that statement as gospel without first looking into it more.
Wikipedia is one of the great children of the internet, along with google, facebook, and youtube.
The sources may not always be reliable for academic papers, but sometimes it is; more importantly, wikipedia provides value to the world as the (unofficial?) go-to source for settling bets with friends.
Wikipedia’s source rules work against some cites, as well. For example, I could ‘improve’ the articles for the Towns of Adams and Rodman, New York, by noting the thriving cheese cottage industry (as opposed to ‘cottage cheese industry’, I guess :D) in the area in the late 19th and early 20th century. But so far as I know, aside from one article on the last surviving ‘cheese factory’ (actually an outbuilding at a streamside farm) in Whitesville, there are no citeable references. The information is accurate,but the only possible documentation would be “personal communication from [my grandmother], ca. 1955.”
Hey, I know Wikipedia is valuable! I’m not saying it isn’t valuable.
I don’t want to use it for academic papers (get real, there are plenty of professionally edited and fact/cite-checked materials for that). I just wish it contained a few more cites. That is all.
Heh, I also got sick of editing, and one of things that ground my gears was people just coming along and sticking {{fact}}s, pointless banners, and other non-content into any article they could find, and wanting to edit-war about them too.
Basically, every article is considered a work in progress. That’s the whole point of the wiki format after all. It’s better to have some information that is likely true but has not yet been sourced then to delete it and wait for someone to write an entire paragraph that is perfect and painstakingly sourced. Also, it’s more efficient to let users do what they are good at. One person may have a good working knowledge of a subject, another good writing skills, and a third wonderful research skills. It’s better to let them work in tandem to eventually get a great article than delete each person’s efforts as imperfect before the next gets there.
There’s nothing wrong with having uncited information, as long as it’s acknowledged as such.
Nothing to contribute to the OP, but just a gripe:
I’ve been on the losing end of an edit war regarding the DOB of a celebrity. My sources: the actor’s death certificate and census records. My opponent: a thirty-year-old book that used the DOB given by the studio.
Personally, I think my info is more reliable, but it falls short of wiki’s rules on “verifiability.” And some really Orwellian phrasing in wiki says that their goal is “Verifiability, not truth.”
Thus. . . my sources, while probably true, are not “verifiable,” because they’re not just a click away.
If I had to choose, I would pick your dates as more reliable, but in a wiki type environment the best solution is probably to list both dates and sources.
The point of the “verifiability, not truth” rule is so that people can’t just write down any dang thing they like, and then say “It’s true because I know it’s true”. Same with “No original research”. You can’t just say that you know Bob Smith, and Bob Smith is definitely a Martian because you took a sample of his blood and it’s Martian blood. It might be true, but your bare word is not enough to establish that it is true. Readers have to have some way to verify the statement, and that means a citation from somebody else that isn’t you.
That said, online citations aren’t better citations than hard copy documents. But they have the advantage that someone can check the citation with one click. And so they are privileged in an on-line encyclopedia, even though they shouldn’t be.
Well, if you’d go through and ensure that every article was cited to your satisfaction, you’d be able to make the argument that the new standard had been set, and probably get them to change the editorial policy accordingly, such that all future articles would be held to the same level of citation.
Ignorance fought, I guess.