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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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?
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”.
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 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.
If you are asking what policy wikipedia should have, and why, then I think you are asking in the wrong place.
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?
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.