# Why doesn’t Wikipedia require more cites? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 24, 2010, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesn-t-wikipedia-require-more-cites/526280 "2010-01-24T21:39:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Pray\_for\_peace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Pray\_for\_peace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pray_for_peace)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesn-t-wikipedia-require-more-cites/526280/21 "2010-01-26T22:15:18Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > 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. This is getting ridiculous. :rolleyes: (Wow, my first use of rolleyes.) If your point is that it’s too much work, your point is well taken. Wikipedia is a really good thing (as I have stated several times in this thread), but there is room for improvement. I’m not sure if you read the Wikipedia pages that I linked above, but the Wikipedia community itself has contemplated changing the citation policy. That is what I was asking about. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesn-t-wikipedia-require-more-cites/526280/22 "2010-01-26T22:28:53Z")
> [@Sidney Evgeni Jordan](#): > > :rolleyes: (Wow, my first use of rolleyes.) I feel honored. 😃 TBQH, I wasn’t sure why this was even being asked. It seemed patently obvious to me was that the reason Wikipedia didn’t require more cites is that it’s just not a reasonable standard for the medium. It’s like asking why your desk calculator can’t derive calculus equations or why your car can’t fly. ---
**Author:** ![Pray\_for\_peace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Pray\_for\_peace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pray_for_peace)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesn-t-wikipedia-require-more-cites/526280/23 "2010-01-26T22:45:39Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > I feel honored. 😃 > > TBQH, I wasn’t sure why this was even being asked. It seemed patently obvious to me was that the reason Wikipedia didn’t require more cites is that it’s just not a reasonable standard for the medium. It’s like asking why your desk calculator can’t derive calculus equations or why your car can’t fly. Ok, well, there is a debate within Wikipedia about what is a reasonable standard for the medium (see the links provided in the OP and in a later post). So I guess it’s not as obvious as you think. For example, if a user flags a particular sentence as “citation needed,” what should happen next? Should that sentence stay that way (with the flag) in the article forever, or should that sentence be removed after some defined period of time if no one comes up with a citation? There are arguments to be made on either side of this question. I am asking about the rationale for the editorial policy. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesn-t-wikipedia-require-more-cites/526280/24 "2010-01-26T22:54:39Z")
> [@Sidney Evgeni Jordan](#): > > Ok, well, there is a debate within Wikipedia about what is a reasonable standard for the medium (see the links provided in the OP and in a later post). So I guess it’s not as obvious as you think. There \*is \*a discussion as to how Wikipedia should be cited going forward, especially as it continues to evolve, yes. But none of that has any bearing on what the policy is **right now** , or why it is that way. And I still think it should be obvious to anyone that Wikipedia, right now, at this moment, doesn’t require a large number of citations because it can’t afford to. And it can’t require that new content being added have a large number of citations, or people would stop adding content. So, to circle back to my original point, the answer is, as always with Wikipedia: if you don’t like it, fix it yourself. No snark intended; just trying to be matter-of-fact. ---
**Author:** ![BrandonR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/779978/32.png) [@BrandonR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrandonR)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesn-t-wikipedia-require-more-cites/526280/25 "2010-01-26T22:56:33Z")
One reason is because a lot of articles are written/contributed to by experts in their respective fields… And it’s pretty difficult to go back and find citations for everything you know. Sure, it’d be nice if every single claim could be traceable back to a reputable source, but it’s just not really feasible. ---
**Author:** ![Pray\_for\_peace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Pray\_for\_peace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pray_for_peace)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesn-t-wikipedia-require-more-cites/526280/26 "2010-01-27T00:23:27Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > There \*is \*a discussion as to how Wikipedia should be cited going forward, especially as it continues to evolve, yes. But none of that has any bearing on what the policy is **right now** , or why it is that way. I disagree. I notice that you didn’t quote the specific example I provided, which is an example of a relevant citation issue that is pertinent\*\* right now\*\* - what should be done about sentences that have been flagged as “citation needed”? What are the standards for deletion of unreferenced materials? > [@](#): > > **And I still think it should be obvious to anyone that Wikipedia, right now, at this moment, doesn’t require a large number of citations because it can’t afford to. And it can’t require that new content being added have a large number of citations, or people would stop adding content.** > > So, to circle back to my original point, the answer is, as always with Wikipedia: if you don’t like it, fix it yourself. No snark intended; just trying to be matter-of-fact. Bolding added. Do you have a cite for the bolded part, or is this a common-sense answer? (this is a serious question, no snark) [As I quoted before](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Improving_referencing_efforts) > [@](#): > > At the Wikimania conference 2006, Jimmy Wales himself said he believed Wikipedia should focus more on the accuracy of our existing material instead of creating new material now that we’ve passed our 1.5 millionth article. As you probably know, Jimmy Wales is the co-founder of Wikipedia. There is a policy question here, and it does have an immediate component. This thread is in GQ, not Great Debates. If you don’t have some new information to add, or a new opinion, can we please just agree to disagree on this question? ---
**Author:** ![Silverstreak\_Wonder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silverstreak_Wonder)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesn-t-wikipedia-require-more-cites/526280/27 "2010-01-27T01:35:55Z")
Look at all the info on TV shows and plots and such, how could one get copies of all the scripts and such to have a “source” to cite? They couldn’t. No rule about cites is needed. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesn-t-wikipedia-require-more-cites/526280/28 "2010-01-27T06:55:53Z")
> [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#): > > Look at all the info on TV shows and plots and such, how could one get copies of all the scripts and such to have a “source” to cite? They couldn’t. No rule about cites is needed. With regards to plots, obviously, the text/episode/film itself is considered the “cite”. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesn-t-wikipedia-require-more-cites/526280/29 "2010-01-27T16:37:51Z")
> [@Sidney Evgeni Jordan](#): > > Bolding added. Do you have a cite for the bolded part, or is this a common-sense answer? Common sense, based on my experience of Wikipedia. (I don’t think it’s possible to have a cite for this.) They’re [already seeing](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125893981183759969.html) a significant drop-off in editors. Creating further barriers to contribution (in the form of more strict requirements for citations) can only drive that number down. Look how negatively you reacted to my suggestion that you add in cites–now multiply that by every person who uses Wikipedia. _That’s_ why I think it’s not feasible. > [@](#): > > can we please just agree to disagree on this question? Most certainly. ---
**Author:** ![Pray\_for\_peace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Pray\_for\_peace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pray_for_peace)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesn-t-wikipedia-require-more-cites/526280/30 "2010-01-27T18:34:10Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Common sense, based on my experience of Wikipedia. (I don’t think it’s possible to have a cite for this.) They’re [already seeing](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125893981183759969.html) a significant drop-off in editors. Creating further barriers to contribution (in the form of more strict requirements for citations) can only drive that number down. > > Look how negatively you reacted to my suggestion that you add in cites–now multiply that by every person who uses Wikipedia. _That’s_ why I think it’s not feasible. > > Most certainly. Your suggestion for me to add cites where possible is a good one, but it’s really only a partial answer to the question in my OP of what **policy Wikipedia should have regarding cites**. Again, you’ve ignored my points about what policy Wikipedia has adopted regarding sentences that are flagged as “citation needed,” and under what circumstances unreferenced material should be deleted. I do appreciate your clarification of your answers. ---
**Author:** ![srzss05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@srzss05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/srzss05)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesn-t-wikipedia-require-more-cites/526280/31 "2010-01-27T19:01:54Z")
> [@Sidney Evgeni Jordan](#): > > Your suggestion for me to add cites where possible is a good one, but it’s really only a partial answer to the question in my OP of what **policy Wikipedia should have regarding cites**. Again, you’ve ignored my points about what policy Wikipedia has adopted regarding sentences that are flagged as “citation needed,” and under what circumstances unreferenced material should be deleted. I do appreciate your clarification of your answers. If you are asking what policy wikipedia **should** have, and why, then I think you are asking in the wrong place. ---
**Author:** ![Pray\_for\_peace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Pray\_for\_peace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pray_for_peace)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesn-t-wikipedia-require-more-cites/526280/32 "2010-01-27T20:00:38Z")
As far as I can tell, the current default is that material that is flagged as “citation needed” is left in the article (with the tag) and is usually not deleted. If I understand correctly, articles with no reference at all are also not deleted for lack a reference. Why has this policy been adopted? Someone who is an administrator or editor or is otherwise active in the Wikipedia community could answer this question based on factual knowledge of who makes this type of decision and what factors were most important to the decision. For example, is there a bias/default inherent in an open source community that trusting other users’ work is essential? Does the concept of trust trump the proposal to delete a sentence marked “citation needed” if no citation is provided after a defined period of time has elapsed? The co-founder of Wikipedia has said that the community should focus on improving accuracy of existing articles rather than adding new ones, and elsewhere Wikipedia states that more references are needed, but it seems the actual deletion policy is in conflict with these statements. Why is that? ---
**Author:** ![srzss05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@srzss05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/srzss05)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesn-t-wikipedia-require-more-cites/526280/33 "2010-01-27T20:40:29Z")
You say “editor” above as if it means something. Everyone who uses wikipedia is an “editor”. As far as the rest of your questions are concerned, articles get marked as “citation needed”, or statements are deleted, or they eventually get referenced at the whims of the individual “editors” . There is no “set” amount of time for any of this. Articles are deleted on a consensual basis, usually after a vote. This has already been stated above by various others, and I am not really sure what kind of answer you are looking for. ---
**Author:** ![Pray\_for\_peace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Pray\_for\_peace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pray_for_peace)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesn-t-wikipedia-require-more-cites/526280/34 "2010-01-27T23:16:03Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > 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. > [@Markxxx](#): > > 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. > [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](#): > > 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. > [@srzss05](#): > > You say “editor” above as if it means something. Everyone who uses wikipedia is an “editor”. > > As far as the rest of your questions are concerned, articles get marked as “citation needed”, or statements are deleted, or they eventually get referenced at the whims of the individual “editors” . There is no “set” amount of time for any of this. Articles are deleted on a consensual basis, usually after a vote. > > This has already been stated above by various others, and I am not really sure what kind of answer you are looking for. Actually, ignorance has now (finally) been fought. I thought that there were three different categories - administrators, editors, and writers/contributors (everyone else). In the few articles for which I reviewed the edit history, it appeared that there was one user who weighed in on or corrected each change. I thought that this person was the “editor” (a moderator with some authority over changes in that particular article) and that edit wars happened between “editors” and contributors who wished to make changes. The concept of “editorial policy” now means something totally different to me. I now understand that even if I do add cites, they may not stay there (for a variety of reasons, as mentioned by \*\*Earl Snake-Hips Tucker **and Markxxx), and \*\* Keeve** has pointed me in the right direction regarding addition of citation needed flags. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesn-t-wikipedia-require-more-cites/526280.md?page=1)