Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 44

This page isn't about copyright, and the discussion above is getting a bit bogged down. If we're going to mention it, it should be very brief with a link to the relevant pages. The copyright issue apart, we should also make clear that quotations need some form of intext attribution so that people know who's being quoted. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Although may be desirable for stylistic reasons, quotations don't need in-text attribution, they do need an in-line citation. As this is a content policy page about verifiability and not a manual of style page, there is no need to emphasise that point. -- PBS (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not an MoS issue, and they do need attribution so that people know who is talking. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you have made two substantially different statements, "quotations need some form of intext attribution" and "they do need attribution so that people know who is talking". A footnote may, depending on placement, satisfy your second statement but not your first. Also, we still have the liberty to import articles wholesale from public domain or compatibly licensed sources, and to attribute them with a general statement near the end of the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Jc, I don't follow. I don't see a difference between my first and second points. If you don't attribute in text, you "end up with" this kind of "random quoting" for no obvious "reason," and without "making clear" who is being "quoted." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because a technique could be confusing does not mean it is always confusing. If there is only one quotation in a paragraph, and that quote is immediately followed by a footnote, there will be no confusion as to the source of the quote. Do not prohibit a writing technique in the policy just because it could be abused. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of abuse, but of poor writing. The reader will have to click on the footnote for the source, then click on the source to see if it's the source who's quoting someone else. And if it's not online they won't be able to find out that way. Sometimes it's not even clear whether someone is being quoted, or whether they're just scare quotes. The bottom line is that quotes need in-text attribution or they look silly. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see some situations, Jc3s5h, where it wasn't optimal to attribute inside the quote. I agree with your idea, that a technique shouldn't be prohibited just because it could be abused, but it's not apparent to me that there's every a reason to do what you're suggesting. In the case of a wholesale importation from another source, I assume the relevant quotation would not be the entire pasted text, but only the "quotations" therein, which would already have in-line attribution. In other words, we don't quote Britannica 1911, but we would reprint their inline attribution of others. What other situations are there? Ocaasi (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ocassi, policies should not demand "optimal" writing, they should just forbid writing that causes errors, confusion, or legal violations. For an example of a quote that does not name the speaker inline, just in a footnote, see the first quote in the lead of Second. I find that quote acceptable as is, although identifying the speaker wouldn't do any harm. In this case, there is an argument for leaving the name of the speaker vague, because although the speaker is technically the General Conference on Weights and Measures, virtually every government that has considered the matter has adopted the definition as a matter of law for most purposes. Not naming the speaker reflects the true situation: it is a pervasive definition that virtually everyone uses for most purposes. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

SV we have to give an in-line citation after a quote, and it is possible to have a perfectly valid quote that does not need in text attribution to be verifiable. I came across one yesterday in the article on the Siege of Drogheda

However, Cromwell lacked the technical training to systematically construct siege entrenchments and bombard a fortified place into surrender. "The Cromwellian siegework repertoire included only the first and/or last stages; that is assault, or failing that, blockade".^[8]

The quote is fully cited with a short citation ^{"Padraig Lenihan, Confederate Catholics at War, p175"} and a full source (isbn etc) listed in the References section.

"Be mindful of copyright: do not copy text from copyrighted sources" is too simple an explanation as I explained above because there are exceptions to that rule, for example limited copying placed in quotes and text from copyleft sources with compatible licences (such as other Wikipedia pages and Citizendium). -- PBS (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not an example of a valid quote, Philip; in fact it's exactly what should be avoided. It's inappropriate in part because we have no idea who's being quoted, and in part because there's no hint as to why there's a quote there. Someone has simply chosen to place quotation marks around a sentence that was written by someone else, apparently at random. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There are times when in-text attribution is needed for reasons of NPOV, but not for verifiability. SV you may not like the style, but the in-line citation after the quote satisfies verifiability in a way that an in-text attribution usually does not, or are you saying that the footnote does not give adequate information? An in-line citation is something that has been demanded for a number of years, this new requirement -- for in-text attribution -- does not improve verifiability and as Jc3s5h points out above is not always good style.

Further the current sentence requesting in-text attribution as part of verifiability causes problems with incorporating text from copyright compatible sources such as Wikipedia and Citizendium. As you have pointed out above trying to incorporate all of this is complicated, but it would be better to remove the current sentence without a replacement than leave it as it is. -- PBS (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Since in-text attribution is a thorny issue, it's worth repeating that this is not about requiring it anywhere except for quotations. The notion of a quotation is inherently tied to its unique author. The above example seems like a particularly inapt edge case, because it refers to a commonly used scientific standard where there's little need for quotation or in-line attribution, since most everybody uses the same standard. Either, it could be prefaced by, 'Several international bodies use the definition...' or it's just not a unique quotation--more a definition, which is not much about its author, just about common terminology. Ocaasi (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Ocassi that "commonly used scientific standard where there's little need for quotation" first because the definition has been carefully crafted to state the exact conditions under which the measurement should be carried out; paraphrasing introduces a serious risk of a change in meaning. Second, the particular passage is adopted as binding law in many English speaking countries, and anyone who follows court cases understands how even a single word in a law has the potential to be at the center of a legal dispute. Thirdly, articles are plagued by drive-by editors and vandals who either overestimate their ability to rephrase important definitions, or deliberately introduce subtle vandalism. A quotation allows editors who are not specialists in the subject matter, but who are cleaning up after the troublesome editor, to just look at the source to repair the damage. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would expect we use the verbatim definition, too. I just think that's a bad example of a quotation, since the author is incidental to the accepted standard, which is shared by basically all serious scientific bodies. If it weren't a common standard, we would use in-text attribution, but since it is a common standard, it's just a scientific definition. So it's fine without in-text attribution, or it could easily be defined 'By the scientific community' or 'By major scientific bodies'. In any event, the author is incidental, so we're just citing any relevant source for the definition though many different sources could support it. Maybe that's not persuasive, but I don't think this case is a clear counterexample. It's also in the passive voice, 'has been defined to be', but we don't say by whom.69.142.154.10 (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Sorry, that was me...Ocaasi 16:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This page is a policy, not a style guide. A statement that in-text attribution is usually better style, easier to read, etc., belongs in a style guide. A statement that quotes must be attributed in-line should not appear in a policy if any significant number of counter-examples can be found. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Philip (or anyone else), can you give an example of a professional writer in any other publication randomly quoting people without making clear who said it, or why they're quoting that person? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all. It would be unprofessional. My mantra: "When in doubt, atribute." -- Brangifer (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

SV, it was mentioned above ("Although may be desirable for stylistic reasons..." and "SlimVirgin, you have made two substantially different statements ...", you are asking a style question not a verification question. The in-line citation is all that is needed for attribution, in-text attribution is not sufficient. In-text attribution is only needed if one is closely paraphrasing (without quoting) a source to make it clear that the words are not those of a Wikipedia editor. Personally I would prefer that those words were quoted, but as you pointed out in a different section (on the issue of plagiarism) that should not be made compulsory. However for the reasons given above, by a number of editors, the current wording I quoted at the start of this section, is not suitable for this policy as it is both inappropriate for quotes and it is clearly wrong for text included from sources that are copyleft compatible. -- PBS (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've only ever seen this—the sudden appearance of quotation marks with no explanation or attribution—in three places: on boards outside grocers' shops (Lovely carrots "nice and fresh", 40p per lb); in letters from one of my aging relatives, who adds quotation marks at random, and given that she's been doing it all her life I don't have the heart at this late stage to ask her why; and on Wikipedia.

It's not just a style issue, because it raises verifiability issues. If I write this with an inline citation ...

Police are "combing the area" for forensic evidence where the body was discovered.^[1]

... the reader can't tell whether I'm quoting Smith or someone Smith has quoted, or whether I've added quotation marks as scare quotes, or—like my relative—for reasons no one can fathom. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin, can you have this discussion elsewhere or at some other time? We were trying to work out wording for a note about respecting copyright before you hijacked this thread with irrelevances about in-line attribution. Fences&Windows 03:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've created a new sub-thread, which is now only about in-text attribution. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not a question about verifiability because the in-text attribution does not allow a reader to verify anything, it is the citation that is needed to verify that the quote is correct. Whether in-text attribution is needed is a style question. For example suppose the footnote you gave said (Smith, John. "Body discovered," The Times, January 6, 2011, quoting a police statement issued by ... .) then it is fully attributed but not in-text. -- PBS (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Philip, it's silly to want poor writing in the text, but then ask people to add attribution to the footnote. Better just to have the attribution where it belongs. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The current wording is clearly wrong for text included from sources that are copyleft compatible with Wikipedia. -- PBS (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's true. If they're copyleft compatible, then they don't need quotation for copyright reasons. But that doesn't mean that we can "quote" them without in-line attribution. It's ok to plagiarize from a copyleft source, but if we are going to "quote" it, then we still need to say who the author of the quote is. Ocaasi (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi the current wording is "do not copy text from copyrighted sources, ..., without in-text attribution." it is not about quotes it is about copying text, and it states at text copied from any copyright source, (including text copied from other Wikipdia pages) has to have in-text attribution. -- PBS (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Our job as editors is to make sure the reader can access accurate information, and as easily as is possible. With out inline attribution on quoted content confusion is possible as some of the comments above suggest. In both my fields quoted sections with out attribution would not be considered acceptable nor would I accept that kind of writing from a student. This becomes even more critical on articles where there are many sources and possibly quotes that can be attributed to multiple speakers. Why not make it clear and easy for the reader? Why not follow a standard that has been used for a long time and is useful in academia? We don't have to reinvent the wheel. If something works, and is useful to us, why not use it.(olive (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC))

Exactly, and it's not just in academia. Professional writers don't add quotation marks without making clear in some way who is being quoted. It's puzzling to see anyone argue that our content policies should encourage poor writing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It can be made clear thorough an in-line citation (which has long been mandated by this policy), it does not have to be done with an in-text attribution. -- PBS (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think it's okay for Wikipedia to encourage unprofessional writing of that kind? And if you're going to argue that it's not unprofessional, you'll have to show us some examples of professional writers doing it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

To leave out mention of in-text does not affect verification, and this is verification policy not a style guide (so the issue of whether it is "unprofessional writing" is IMHO not pertinent to verification) . As I have written repeatedly, if it is to be included then it has to be qualified for the way we handle incorporation of copyleft text and other specific sources such as those from US government, and that is a complication that does not need to be in this policy. -- PBS (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The bare bones of it that a policy should and does state what is forbidden or mandated. There is and needs to be a a distinction between that and something which is goal (e.g. quality writing) where forbidding or mandating is not appropriate. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding, "It can be made clear through an in-line citation", I have a counter example.  This problematic sentence starts out "Finally, some experts state that..."  The sentence has multiple in-line citations, multiple single-word quotes, and additional material.  The effect IMO is that the quotes are in Wikipedia's voice.  In-line attributions would greatly change (and IMO improve) the sentence.  RB  66.217.118.123 (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to rake up "reliability of master's dissertations" again, but I am going through guidelines that affect how I contribute to WP, and the issue concerns me from another angle. This comment is meant to be self contained.

In Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Section 2.1, (titled "Scholarship"), the final sentence of the 3rd bulleted item states: "Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence."

Should the word "reliable" (together with its morphological variants) in this, and equivalent contexts, be replaced by "Wikipedia reliable" or "WK:reliable" or some other denotation that shows its specialized usage?

Readers with experience of supervising and examining master's dissertations, and presenting these in discussions of priority, could consider the statement denigratory to their professional integrity.

Also, the usage just quoted conflicts with the definitions of "reliable" in the Oxford English Dictionary and the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, and with the usage of the word in the approximately 25 places where it occurs in Reliability of Wikipedia.

I just ran some searches relating to master's dissertations.

The web site for the MIT Master of Science in Management Studies mentions four exemplary master's dissertations with email addresses of faculty advisors. It seems that the Sloane School is proud of its master's dissertations.

A Google Scholar search on "Masters dissertation" brought up 222,000 hits. I have looked at a few. Some relate to unpublished dissertations which have been cited in scholarly journals. Other hits relate to studies of the use of master's dissertations as sources of information that are not available elsewhere.

The National Library of Medicine Manual of Style devotes an entire chapter to the style of citation to be used for master's and doctoral dissertations. Presumably this shows the perception of a need to cite master's dissertations by the U.S. agency responsible for the dissemination of biomedical information.

The claim that master's degrees are seldom terminal for people conducting serious research ignores accepted professional career paths of many people who conduct serious research in M.S., M.Sc., M.A, M.B.A, M.P.H, M.F.A. and many other master's degree programs.

The suggestion that reliability is conferred by significant scholarly impact raises difficulties, without a definition of "significant". Also, there have been many occurrences in research when the significance of a paper in a peer reviewed journal was not recognized for several years. And the scholarly impact of most peer reviewed articles, measured by the number of citations in later articles, is zero (this can be seen in Web of Science and Scopus searches).

The fact that a dissertation has been cited shows its perceived interest content, not its reliability (the citing paper might even consider the dissertation erroneous).

Hope I have not repeated myself too much. But I am concerned about outside scepticism of WP, and the wording I have questioned does seem vulnerable.

Michael P. Barnett (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Michael. You've hit the big one right on the head, but fixing it (without doing damage) is complex. "RS" in Wikipedia basically only has two metrics, the primary/.secondary/tertiary one, and the other is review by someone (e.g. editor of the publisher). The biggest missing components are expertise on the topic in question (e.g. Britney Spears's mom would have expertise on what Britney's favorite color is, but not on general relativity) and objectivity. So a source meeting WP:RS can be very unreliable, and a very reliable source can fail wp:rs. So, as you point out, current wp:reliability is very different than real world reliability. Giving it a different name would temporarily help, if only to point out the problem But if you starting making up categorical rules for each of these, you'd create a wiki-lawyering monster. The other missing component is that the strength of the required sourcing is not related to how questionable or challenged the statement is.

My idea (which I mentioned as a 2 year goal of getting incorporated here) is defining the strength of a citing as the sum total of the 2 current criteria plus expertise and objectivity on the item citing it. And saying that the strength of the required citing varies with how controversial or challenged the statement is. This leaves implementation details to consensus, but with a much better framework to work from than the current one where only 2 of the 4 criteria are used, and each is seperately applied categorically. North8000 (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael, what if we wikilinked reliable to WP:RS, would address your concerns. BTW, the examples from the MIT Sloan page appear to me to just be examples of how one can structure the program for the degree, see this. And I'm not too worried about the definition of significant, since, as with most of what we do here, what gets counted as what is subject to discussion and consensus.--Nuujinn (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added a brief section about "personal communication" at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Personal_communication. There's a lot of examples of newbies using "personal communications" with authorities and contacts (which I started to clean up), but I couldn't see that we had an explicit statement against doing this - we don't allow it as nobody can check the source. It's a form of original research, so I would understand if it were best explained in that policy - or it could be mentioned in both. p.s. Could WP:OTRS in theory verify personal communications? Fences&Windows 23:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

IP addresses can't edit the Project Page, or I'd do this myself.  The word "conservations" s.b. "conversations".  FYI, RB  66.217.118.34 (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely a good elaboration of policy. One thing I might add, however, would be a note clarifying whether it's OK to cite an otherwise reliable source for information which itself cites a personal communication for that information. For instance, Wikipedia article A says "John Smith was born in 1949", citing book B, which indicates that John Smith was born in 1949 and contains a footnote citation referencing a personal communication. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the new section makes that fairly clear by stating that personal communications are cited in scholary works. The verifiability policy only applies to Wikipedia editors; authors of reliable sources need not pay any attention to it. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this as needed. The whole of the rest of the policy makes clear that we need published sources, and as it was written it implied that personal communication even when published was not allowed, which of course it is. Fences and windows, do you have diffs of new editors relying on personal exchanges with people? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Follow the "a lot of examples" link I gave, and browse through. There's many examples, and this search will only pick up those using the phrase "personal communication", there will be others using other wording. As "personal communication" is a convention elsewhere and editors do make this mistake, it is worth clarifying this point. Fences&Windows 03:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Examples: Amore Bekker#cite note-name31-8, George R. Fischer#cite note-3. Fences&Windows 03:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with F&W here... I think this is a good addition to the policy. Blueboar (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. It's at best pointless, because the rest of the policy makes clear that sources must be published, and the part about posting it on talk pages encourages editors to post other people's e-mails, which is not a good idea. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The two most recent editors make it evident that the personal communications section is easy to misinterpret, as evidenced by Blueboar's misinterpretation. The current policy, which is not explicitly written but is implicit from the policy, has these points:

• Reliable sources are free to receive personal communications from anyone, especially other scholars, and to make use of those personal communications in their work. Because these sources are reliable, they can be trusted to verify that the communication really came from the stated source and evaluate the correctness and importance of the personal communication.
• Wikipedia editors are free to cite reliable sources which make use of personal communications received by the reliable source.
• Wikipedia editors are not permitted to cite personal communications that the WP editor claims to have received from anyone, including experts, because we cannot trust Wikipedia editors to not fabricate the personal communications. If the information isn't published, we can't use it, and sending a personal communication to a WP editor does not constitute publication.
• Personal communications a WP editor sends to him/herself are no different from the WP editor just making stuff up: not useable.
• Personal communications between WP editors are not published and not useable
• If a reliable source has made use of personal communications from a WP editor, it may still be cited in WP because it is a reliable source. Jc3s5h (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Could we compromise on a footnote that says something like "E-mail messages or other types of personal communication sent to a Wikipedia editor are not published and therefore cannot be used to verify article content."? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to that, though it seems pointless. Every single part of the policy is telling editors sources have to be published. I can't see a reason, 10 years into the existence of the project, to start listing all the kinds of unpublished sources we're not allowed to use. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems pointless to object to including this section. More examples of unpublished sources will clarify policy. QuackGuru (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We could add:

• It is a convention for other authors to refer to their personal correspondence, but Wikipedians aren't allowed to because it can't be verified by other editors (mind you, nor can the personal correspondence of reliable sources, so that's a bit of a non sequitur, but please ignore this fallacious point).
• It's a convention for other authors to interview their sources and include the results, but Wikipedians aren't allowed to because it can't be verified by other editors (mind you ... see above).
• It's a convention for other authors to refer to their unpublished manuscripts, but Wikipedians aren't allowed to because it can't be verified by other editors (see above, etc).
• It's a convention for other authors to include their original research, but Wikipedians aren't ... etc etc.

And so on, all the way down the list of differences.

Or ... we could write that all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The latter seems the most sensible approach. Addition of specific examples of unpublished sources is instruction creep, and excess specificity in some areas of a policy will unbalance it, and lead to false conclusions about other examples or areas of policy that are not similarly specified. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of our policy, why is this here? Dougweller (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The words of Tanakasthename in the section heading are a credible complaint. Summarizing the issues and history:

• A. One sentence was subject of critical scrutiny at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Selected works and Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard#Selected works. Questions were raised which seemed to be an unsuitable match-up with those venues.
• B. The disputed sentence-template cited the WorldCat Identities overview summary of "works" and "publications" and "languages" and "library holdings" which had been derived from the evolving OCLC catalog. The statistical analysis was published online with the imprimatur of OCLC/WorldCat.
• C. Tanakasthename presented a conclusory argument, i.e., "that WorldCat is a network of library catalogs, a reliable source of information on the holdings of libraries worldwide, but NOT a reliable source of comprehensive information on writers' bodies of written works .... The data contained on WorldCat Identities is certainly not a pertinent source for the kind of statistical summary of an author's oeuvre ... inserted into the Selected Works section of Ichimatsu Tanaka and elsewhere. Presumably, a non-expert turns to Wikipedia for reliable and verifiable information. The "data" that has been added to these pages based on unanalyzed search results from WorldCat Identifies, while technically "verifiable," is also verifiably misconstrued ...."
• D. This thread was created in response to the phrase "technically 'verifiable'".
• E. The very high quality of Tanakasthename edits at Ichimatsu Tanaka has informed the unconventional attention which was given to this complaint.
• F. North8000 summarized core issues succinctly here:

  "Tanakasthename is claiming that it fails a standard which is not a Wikipedia standard" and "Tanakasthename has not even raised a a WP-relevant challenge, much less supported such a challenge." (bold and italics added for emphasis)

• G. The very specific nature of this talk page venue plus North8000's good judgment did encourage Tanakasthename to present a 7-point analysis here which helped clarify the complaint.
• H. IMO, without North8000's significant contribution, the impasse would have persisted and we would have continued talking past each other.

Tanakasthename's response to North8000 demonstrates that this venue has served a constructive function. --Tenmei (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The text mentions the NYT as an example of a reputable source, maintaining "...Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...." Please inform me when they've coughed up Walter Duranty's Pulitzer won by lying for Stalin. No less than the government of the Ukraine is still rather incensed over the matter. I also assume that not all of the 17,000 Google matches for "new york times lied" are hits upon the text of conservative commentators.Mike18xx (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a page for discussing our policy, you want WP:RSN. --Dougweller (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there is a template to use in cases where citations are given for a statement and one or more sources cited do not appear to support the statement? Is the {{Failed verification}} what should be used? Is there an overall tag to alert readers when this problem seems to be repeated in several places within an article? After noting up the problem on the article's talk, one solution would be to go through and replace misused citations with {{fact}} tags. In articles with a rocky history of edit warring or ownership issues, simply blanking might be provocative. I'm wondering what others have done where verification of sources turns up synthesis going beyond what a reference says in support, misquotes of the source, etc. • Astynax ^talk 23:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the failed verification template would be appropriate, but you say, a note on the talk page of the article in question to clarify what your concerns is a good idea. You could use the disputed template for the article as a whole, but I think the individual tags make more sense. Also, there's no rush, you could announce that you are reviewing the citations and bring them up one at a time on the talk page, and not use templates at all. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! • Astynax ^talk 21:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Related to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sourcing_required_in_lists_linking_to_other_articles. In this discussion it was explained that the current WP:V and other policies require that each data piece has external source accessible from the same article where the data piece is located.

This is OK in most cases, but for summarizing articles (like these in the discussion) this will make them filled with external sources copied from the articles they summarize.

I propose that the following rule is added:

• In summarizing articles data pieces that are backed by external sources at appropriately wikilinked articles do not need to have these sources copied into the summarizing article itself. Users may challenge the way the wikilinks are arranged (e.g. question whether the remotely-sourced data pieces have appropriate wikilinks), but shall not required that sources are duplicated in the summarizing article. Summarizing articles are to be considered as 'secondary location' of the data pieces. Data pieces that are not backed by external sources at the wikilinked articles are subject to the regular sourcing requirements (e.g. since they are not backed by sources the summarizing article becomes their 'primary location' and they have to comply with regular sourcing requirements).

Of course the above is a rough draft - if there is consensus for such change it would have to be defined appropriately. Alinor (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This comes up a lot... and I strongly oppose Alinor's take on this. I strongly oppose the idea that lists and other summary articles do not need sources. Every article needs sources. Information should be sourced where ever found... and if it is found in multiple articles, it should be sourced in multiple articles. There is no reason not to source it... It does not take much effort to cut and paste a source from one article to another. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This proposal falls in that "summarizing article" is not defined.  The definition of "summarizing article" seems to be "those articles that use Wikipedia as a source", which could be any Wikipedia article.  An underlying point that is not addressed is that Wikipedia is not integrated such that changes to an underlying article would be reflected in the "summarizing article".  As a practical matter, in agreement with Blueboar's comment, I don't see what is to be gained by improving these deficiencies in the proposal.  RB  66.217.117.191 (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Here is a good example of a "summarising article" that doesn't have any sources. Why not go through it adding {{fact}} tags to any material likely to be challenged?—S Marshall T/C 19:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Assuming your question is serious, because lists are essentially navigational aids. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Precisely. That list is essentially a table of contents, or index, of dinosaur articles. It's made up of content that's referenced elsewhere.—S Marshall T/C 23:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• And I guess that leaves summary style articles, and we do require sources for those. Are there any other types? I'm not seeing anything broken here. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A list is really a set of statements. In this case that each one of those is a dinosaur....."Paris is the capital of France" type statements." Maybe a bit of extra sourcing leniency like leads of article. The other columns of info are also statements about which period each was from and a rough idea of it's diet. If I doubted one, I assume I could ask for sourcing. Or a mis-fit could ask for sourcing just because they can. An it's unspoken that the criteria are objective. I.E> there's not "best football players of all time" list. North8000 (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This is cutting corners, so to speak. A reader should not have to go searching for where we've referenced a particular claim, especially if the absence (or remote placement) of that particular reference is simply for the ease of editors. Verifiability is a cornerstone of Wikipedia, and where and when it applies is quite clear: "all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception".

When it comes to lists, WP:LISTS distinguishes quite clearly between the various types of lists. If it is an index of articles, simply providing navigational aid, or categorisation of information, then no references need to be included. But when a claim or any other material that can be challenged is introduced, then it becomes a stand-alone list, which should not depend on other articles for verifiability. It should have its own set of references, "in the form of inline citations" (not a link to another Wikipedia article).

If we start introducing lenient policies and exceptions, we begin to set an example of laziness for new editors. Nightw 04:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I want to address some of the points raised above:

• The definition of "summarizing article" seems to be "those articles that use Wikipedia as a source". No - such would be WP:CIRCULAR violation. I propose to define "summarizing article" as an article that use EXTERNAL SOURCES present in another wikilinked article.
• Every article needs sources. Yes - my proposals is that we establish a class of "secondary location/summarizing articles" whose data pieces are backed by external sources presented at the "primary location" of these data pieces - the wikilinked articles.
• It does not take much effort to cut and paste a source from one article to another. Generally yes, but there are cases such as this that caused this proposal - where we have to deal with a very big quantity of copy-pasting and duplication.
• Verifiability ... "all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception". Yes - same as bullet2 above. The issue is whether we should have an exception for the location of the external sources in case of "summarizing article".
• WP:LISTS - But when a claim or any other material that can be challenged is introduced - "in the form of inline citations". That's what I propose to change - in case of summarizing article a properly arranged wikilink should be enough and no inline citations should be required. The challenge should apply only to the way of wikilinking (e.g. if it's clear to the reader what data piece is coming from what wikilinked article) - whether it's properly arranged or not.
• Synchronizing. Of course, as with any content in Wikipedia - when somebody comes upon a data piece that is not backed by external source (for example because the wikilinked article got changed) this 'suspicious' data piece get tagged/deleted as usual (maybe with some new tag such as 'no external source at wikilink'). Alinor (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being dense, but I still do not understand what problem you are trying to fix. Can you provide some diffs of problems where the policy change you are proposing would have an effect? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The related discussions are here and here and were started because of tagging/deleting of data pieces at a group of summarizing articles about rockets (Small, Medium, Mid-Heavy, Heavy, Super-Heavy). I discovered data pieces that are backed by external sources at the wikilinked articles about the specific rockets, but nevertheless these data pieces got tagged/deleted. It seems that current policies, including WP:LISTS allow that to happen, because "any material challenged" should have external source in the same article - and external sources in wikilinked article are not taken into account. Alinor (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

IMHO (per a proposal I've been promoting over time) the rule should be changed to require NightW to raise a good faith question (in addition to the citing question) regarding any tagged/deleted statements/listing in order to carry the discussion to skip "R" or carry the discussion to "D" in BRD regarding their deletion / tagging. At first glance, this case looks a good poster child for that proposed change. Then IF/once that happens, then I would agree with Night W, including the arguments that they made. IMHO the sourcing requirement can't be made fuzzy, like where people would need to look in a different article to find the cites,or to see if somethign is cited. North8000 (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the sourcing requirements need to remain strict. Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch_systems is clearly more than a list or simple summary, and I agree sources should be provided when asked for. Again, I fail to see what the fuss is about--if the sources are readily available in another article, duplicating them is not a heavy burden, and ensures that if that other article is deleted for whatever reason, the table article is still in good shape. I can see some readability issues with all of the citations, but that seems to me to be an MOS issue. I will also observe that if an editor knows that a source for some information in article A exists in article B, they should provide that source to article A and not just tag it as needing a citation--we recently emphasized that on the cn template talk page. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion (and, by the way, I've not been involved with this debate prior to the noticeboard discussion), tagging an unsourced statement is harmless— it is a simple reminder from our peers that said statement should be attributed to a reliable source. In this case, the "tagger" was a long-time member of WikiProject Citation cleanup, but that's beside the point. We should not require editors who are simply identifying that a citation is missing to go looking for sources before tagging it with {{cn}}. That would defeat the purpose of those tags. Later, should a user wish to delete the same statement (still unsourced), that's a different matter, although the burden should always remain entirely with the editor who adds the information. Anything else fosters laziness—e.g., "Oh, someone else will have to look for references before it gets deleted anyway"—and won't work. An editor is ten times more likely to reference information that he wants to see kept than information he wants removed. Nightw 13:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree that tagging is harmless, but many do not. Also, please note we do not require editors to search for sources--my point is that if any editor already knows where a source is for an item in an article is, they should source the item, not tag it as needing a source. In other words, if one can fix the problem, one should fix it. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, if the authoring editors do their work properly to begin with, and include citations when they add material, there will be no need for others to add tags. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Nightw 14:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Overall I agree, although not categorically with "tagging is (always) harmless. Bit topic, and ,much of it is off this topic. North8000 (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, the "Heavy" article is not so big issue (because the number of such rockets is small), but N2e tags in all of these articles - and the smaller rocket types have many more lines - and thus the sources to copy become too much. And I don't see a reason to do this since all these sources are already in the articles about the individual rockets.

"tagging is harmless" - even if it is I can't agree that "deletion is harmless" (in this case N2e has deleted some data pieces).

If we are to establish a rule for summarizing articles, then it can be along the lines of "challenged material should be tagged, but not deleted if it is backed by external sources at properly wikilinked articles". Alinor (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That's one of the issues that I didn't get into. Let's say that somebody tag bombs a bunch of "Paris is the capital of France" items for no other reason than a pissing war with the editor, or to feel morally superior to be judging rather than doing, or in a POV effort. And then there is no defending editor, or the editor has been tag-bombed beyond their available Wikipedia time to source, or they got disgusted and left. Then the tagger comes back a little later and deletes it all saying it was tagged and nobody cited it. So, tagging often equates to deleting. Of course, some folks would say "good", but IMHO it's not always good. North8000 (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, similar thing happened in the case I pointed above. While I don't know why N2e is doing this tagging/deleting (e.g. there is no obvious POV or something like that) - I have given him examples of data pieces tagged and deleted that are backed by external sources at the wikilinked articles. I have said that multiple times. But months passed and he didn't restore the deleted data piece, didn't remove the tag from the other data piece, didn't copy the sources from the wikilinked articles, didn't question the reliability of these sources or whatever - he just ignored them. And he repeatedly refused my pleas to "first check, then delete" - hiding behind WP:BURDEN and other similar policies (that obviously allow such behavior). That's what I find strange and disturbing in the particular case.

That's why I made the proposal here. I think the 14:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC) proposal is a good way to both preserve WP:V and protect summarizing articles from excessive "content challenging" and "deletionist activities". Alinor (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Per Blueboar and Nuujinn, policy is not broken here, and what Wikipedia needs is for people to adhere to WP:V, not invent excuses not do so so. Believe me, Wikipedia doesn't have an "over-citation" issue; rather, it has the exact opposite problem. Everything in articles must be supported by inline citations; if there's a behavioral issue, deal with it on the appropriate board, not by messing up content policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that reducing it to an overview that has one axis (WP being under vs. over cited overall) is not useful in discussions about refinement of the policy. It could actually work in reverse. For example, a policy being often mis-used to remove "Paris is the the capital of France" statements for pissing war or POV war purposes weakens it's creditability and people's respect of it.North8000 (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, Your new definition of "summarizing article" as, "an article that use EXTERNAL SOURCES present in another wikilinked article" is a definition that applies to any wikilinked article.  We don't know when the wikilink is a reference and when it is a helpful wikilink.  It also allows for wikilinks to wikilinks.  I see not a policy issue here, but a data structure issue, that being duplicated data.  Duplicate data is by definition a maintenance issue.  RB  66.217.118.70 (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

One reason (among many others) why every article (list, ...) needs it own sources and shouldn't rely on linked articles for the sources is that when you create e.g. a Wikibook, you can include the list without the linked articles, which would mean that in the wikibook, you would have no means of providing or checking the sources (or to put it otherwise, you would force a creator of a wikibook to include all the linked articles in hiw wikibook if he wanted to include the list, which is often not what we want). Fram (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, so what about a rule such as "in summarizing articles challenged material should be tagged with 'citation needed', but not deleted if it is backed by external sources at properly wikilinked articles"? Alinor (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Instead of 'citation needed' some new tag such as 'bring over the citation' or 'citation copy needed' can be used. Alinor (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm probably being dense, but I don't see the point. Either the source is known or it is not. If the source is known, it should be added. If I don't know a source, I might tag with citation needed, or I might delete material. If you know a source after I tag or delete, you untag or restore with a source. A 'citation copy needed' strikes me as inherently bad because if I use it, I'm basically saying "I know where a source is, but I'm too lazy to do anything about it." I know some feel the same way about cn in general, but at least with cn there's no assertion that I know where a source is already. In the particular case of the rocket articles, I think the way I would handle it is to use the talk page to discuss a plan for reasonable sourcing. We will not finish WP today, so working together to collect appropriate sources on a workable timeline seems a good option. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That would foster a scheme of laziness. Why would an editor then bother in adding citations, if he/she knows that the right source is located in another article? Just another "leave it for someone else" ploy. We want policies that encourage editors to properly source information, not the opposite. The fear of having one's edit deleted is motivation for most; that'll go out the window with what you're asking for. Nightw 15:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe we are supposed to assume good faith, not create a climate of fear. The goal of the cn tag is to help get a citation in place, and I think using it as a club to force another editor's hand is not what we want to do. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

?? I'm not talking about the cn tag. I'm talking about the predisposition of an editor, before he has even made an edit, to add (or not add) a citation when deciding to make an edit. I'm talking about having policies which encourage editors to properly source their edits. I'd say that a lot of editors (particularly new ones) include citations when editing simply to see that particular edit stick, rather than see it deleted for lack of sourcing. Alinor's proposal would remove that motivation... If the editor knows that his claim is sourced in another article, he realises that someone else will have to do the sourcing work before it can be deleted anyway. So why bother? Nightw 17:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"I know where a source is, but I'm too lazy to do anything about it." - yes, in this case that seems to be N2e position - he tags/deletes, I gave him examples of sources, he ignores these for months. I intentionally haven't copied these sources myself - because I want to see if N2e intention is improving the sourcing or blindly tagging/deleting. Alinor (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, no offense, but that seems kind of pointy to me--if you know where sources are for challenged material, I would suggest adding the known source is the helpful path. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Alinor's claim that: "I know where a source is, but I'm too lazy to do anything about it." seems to be my position—is very close to not assuming good faith. If you look through the entire two-month conversation between us here, I think you will see good faith on my part from the beginning, and a repeated desire to keep the conversation about "the contribution and not the contributor" and "improving the article, not about the editor."

As to Alinor's substantive claim, that he wants a special/new tag for a time when he suspects that an editor does know exactly where such a citation exists, but s/he used a citation needed tag anyway, I will just say this. I typically do not know where such a claim is sourced when I place a ^{{{citation needed}}} tag on an unsourced assertion. That's why I'm adding a tag. I see a citation needed tag in an article is a courtesy to those editors who care most about a particular article, or are perhaps are knowledgeable or expert about where the secondary literature might support the assertions being made. Unless someone who cares comes along to reliably support the unsourced claims with inline citations, they have no place in a quality encyclopedia. Furthermore, per WP:BURDEN, it is the editor who wants the unsourced material to remain in an article that has the burden to cite it, or add it back to the article later once a source has been found. In my view, Wikipedia is improved in one of two ways then: either an unsourced assertion gets a citation, or the unsourced material is later (politely, and only after a long period of time in which interested editors might have sourced it) temporarily removed from Wikipedia until such time as someone does actually do the work to source it. It's really not that hard. N2e (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

N2e, you say "I typically do not know where such a claim is sourced when I place a 'cn tag'" - but when I showed you the places where the claim is sourced you've just ignored these. That's part of the problem here. The other part is that it's pretty easy and straightforward to click on the wikilink and check for sources there. Even if current policy doesn't require that editors do this. Alinor (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Stating something doesn't need to be cited because it is "backed by external sources at properly wikilinked articles" directly contradicts both the letter and spirit of WP:V, so it's hard to understand why it should added to the policy. All material that is challenged should be cited with a reliable inline source; there are no good reasons not to. If someone is over-tagging in a way that's disruptive, then it's a behavioral issue, which should be dealt with at the appropriate board (e.g. WP:AN/I), not by loosening or reversing the meaning of policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"All material that is challenged should be cited with a reliable inline source;" - yes, with one corrections I would like to be added - inline, unless "..." (as proposed above).

IMHO N2e editing process is disruptive and he refuses to change it (e.g. to check for sources at the wikilinked articles before tagging/deleting). I will contact N2e to ask him whether he would be offended by putting this issue at WP:AN/I. Alinor (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked him here. Alinor (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with the tagging of anything specific that is unsourced (or of tagging the whole article as unsourced if needed) in an article, no matter if it is sourced in other linked articles, other language versions of the same article, and so on. Removing unsourced info should only be done when it is contentious or dubious, but that is more an individual judgment call. If N2e is too aggressively removing unsourced material, then that can be discussed (I haven't checked if it is the case or not). Starting an ANI because he tags unsourced material doesn't seem like a wise move when it looks as if your position that sources in other articles are sufficient does not have consensus. Fram (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well good luck! Given that a large percentage of N2e's contributions appear to be geared toward improving sourcing and citations across any range of articles, I'd expect he's seen more than a little pouting from lazy editors. An editor obviously won't have the time to look into every unsourced claim he finds, and a simple notice in the form of a {{cn}} tag seems to me good practise, if the editor knows what he's doing. Nightw 11:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a short note here to say that I have responded above in this Talk page section, to both a potential wiki-etiquette item, and also to a substantive claim made by Alinor. I have also responded to Alinor's question to me about ANI review on my talk page.

On the substantive question of the discussion on this page, suffice it to say that I am opposed to a change to Wikipedia verifiability policy, simply because many claims on list pages and comparison pages are not otherwise easily verifiable. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I completely agree with your interpretation of the use of the cn template., and your interpretation of BURDEN. I see no problem here that can be fixed with an additional template or a policy change. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Nightw 10:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, it seems that there is no consensus for the policy-change I propose, so let's close it here. I copy below my suggestion to N2e. Alinor (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

From here: N2e, if you really want to improve the summarizing articles - would you agree to employ slightly different process: instead of "tag-wait-delete" use "tag-wait-check-delete"? (and if the "check" step reveals that the information is backed by external sources at the wikilinked article - then "copy" or "don't delete/continue wait")? Alinor (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

From above: N2e, When I showed you the places where the claim is sourced you've just ignored these. That's part of the problem here. The other part is that it's pretty easy and straightforward to click on the wikilink and check for sources there. Even if current policy doesn't require that editors do this. Alinor (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, if I might suggest something novel and extreme, perhaps you could ask that N2e work with you to source the articles in question? --Nuujinn (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who weighed in on the suggested policy change proposed by Alinor on 10 Jan 2011.

Since Alinor has continued to importune me to answer questions about my editing priorities and use of my time as a Wikipedia volunteer editor, I have attempted to write a final response to Alinor on this controversy of the past four months. That essay is here, should anyone be interested in reading it.

Kind regards, N2e (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, that's what I was trying, but it seems we can't agree on how to do this. Alinor (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

With all the BLPs already tagged as unsourced, it might be useful to have some automatic deadline required for fixing those articles. I've come across articles with tags placed years ago and feel that something like the 7-day deadline on non-free images would help. As it is, the V, RS, and N requirements are meaningless unless challenged. Existing V rules like, " articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. But in practice not everything need actually be attributed," don't help. I'm sure this stuff has been discussed thousands of times somewhere, but just reading the core policies it seems WP is just inviting continual OR and vanity articles. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I hear you, but I think there is something to that effect in place now, but only for articles created after a certain date (march 10th 2010?), in the form of the BLP Prod. Most of the BLPs of which you speak were created before the rules were tightened up, and the older article are, I believe, grandfathered in under the old rules. Hence the drive to deal with them, which is making reasonable progress, I think. Does that help? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think these articles should be nominated for deletion (noting how long they have sat unsourced). Granted, someone may respond to the nomination with a source... but that is all for the good. If a source is given, we can withdraw the nomination and add the source, either way the issue is resolved. Blueboar (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue with that if you chose to take that route--my tack is to run a check against google news and books, and if I find sources, add them, and if not, nominate for speedy, prod or afd as seems most appropriate. There's been a lot of activity, the list is down from 22K to 12.5K in the last six months or so. As it's running now, things seem pretty balanced and running smoothly--if we mass nomed the lot for any kind of deletion, it would swamp those notice boards. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That works too. The point is to a) find citations to support the article if we can, b) get rid of the article if we can't. How we do this is flexible. Blueboar (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

... and who does it is the only real problem. The trouble with giving deadlines to source things, is it puts the onus for sourcing unsourced material on someone else. Wikipedians have a tradition of taking a dim view of attempts to do that, so barring a BLP hatchet-job or other extreme case, there's an onus on the person who wants to remove the material to make a good faith search for sources first.—S Marshall T/C 23:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree in part. It seems the burden of proof for N should be on the person starting an article, as it's implied that anyone can do it if inclined. But since those OR articles are on the watchlist of the original author, a time-limit "requirement" would be reasonable and effective with removal semi-automatic. Personally, I feel that uncited vanity-style, libelous, or fictionalized articles are potentially much more damaging to WP's image than non-free images without proper rationales, which do allow for automatic tagging and quick deletion. The reason for that is that under U.S. copyright law, anything published (photos or text) under a "reasonable claim" of fair use can not be taken to court without first notifying the fair use claimant, i.e. WP., and requesting they remove it. So WP can't be sued easily. But a policy which effectively permits OR articles can be much more dangerous for WP and the article's subject. Even the thousands of porn-star articles usually have a cite to some other vanity-style website. If porn stars can have N backed by RS, than all articles should require one, one would think. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

They're probably not on the watchlist of the original author, or at least, the original author probably isn't watching. Nowadays, a decade after the start of the project, the normal state of a Wikipedia author is "no longer contributing". Some get bored, some are blocked for tendentious editing and leave the project, some are driven away by grinding bureaucracy or the need to constantly defend any material they've written from people with an agenda or people who want to rigidly enforce the project's latest new rule. In cases where either the original contributor is no longer interested or the rule came about after the material was written, it's the responsibility of the person who wants to enforce the rule to either bring the material into compliance with policy, or else achieve a consensus that it can't be done.—S Marshall T/C 15:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Essentially we are all saying the same thing. When you come across an article that is unsourced (or poorly sourced), the primary goal is to fix the problem. We try everything we can think of the achieve this goal... tagging, leaving messages, and even threatening deletion. Deletion should not normally be our first choice for fixing the problem (that depends on the specific article, or course), but... it does fix the problem. Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Threshold is a word of many meanings, but the nearest relevant one, following wiktionary, is

• (engineering) The quantitative point at which an action is triggered, especially a lower limit

To say that verifiability is the threshold for inclusion therefore implies that it triggers inclusion, and that everything verifiable is included. This would be a ridiculous proposition, never followed in practice, so it's a bit silly to state it thus. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, from an engineering standpoint, your deduction is not 100% correct. A trigger can be what normally causes the event to happen, but still subject to other criteria. Trigger/gun is a great analogy...pulling the trigger normally fires it, but only if the safety is flipped off. But I agree that the term is ambiguous in an area where it is important that it be un-ambiguous. Also, the inclusion of an example ("truth") in that sentence of something that does not trump the requirement is also confusing and problematic. North8000 13:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

[inserted later] The definition for "threshold", that SamuelTheGhost gave in the first post, is definition 4 from wiktionary.org.  From the viewpoint of definition 4, crossing a "threshold" triggers an action.  Conversely, if an action was not triggered, then the threshold was not crossed.  With this reading, if pulling a trigger does not fire the gun, then pulling the trigger is not a "threshold".  So I think that SamuelTheGhost was precise, but more to the point, I think that we should agree that definition 4 from Wiktionary is not the intent of the first sentence of WP:V.  RB  66.217.118.46 (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

[insert ends here]

Can you clarify what is ambiguous in the current version? --Nuujinn (talk) 14:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability is the first of several thresholds for inclusion. But it is not the only threshold for inclusion. The fact that something is verifiable means that it passes the first test and may potentially be included (it also has to pass the other thresholds). However, because Verifiability is the first threshold, it does mean that anything that is not verifiable may be excluded. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Its never implied (to me at least) that its the only threshold. AaronY (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll use terms from normal logic. Verifiability, the way policy is worded, is necessary but not sufficient. Material also has to be notable, and there are also some special rules for special cases.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the best other requirement to consider as proof that not all verifiable material should be included is that a consensus must be reached among the article editors that material is interesting enough to include in an encyclopedia. Notability applies to an article as a whole, but the interesting criteria applies to each claim within an article. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that this is the change I wanted to introduce, it seems to me that everybody agrees that it says the right thing, some people agree that it's an improvement, and some people think that it's unnecessary because the existing text already says that, but nobody thinks that what I've proposed is actually wrong. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the patronization Alex. I guess what I'm saying is that its obvious to me if Bill Clinton attends a softball game in Peoria and it makes the local paper it doesn't merit inclusion in his article, even though technically this guideline says that it does. I don't care if the wording is changed, but I've never for a second thought it meant anything with a source gets in. Its common sense that it wouldn't. AaronY (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This guideline sets the minimum for inclusion while WP:NPOV and WP:NOTABILTY are for weight and relevance. Just because we don't summarize those policies here (which we could) doesn't suggest anyone take the policy in isolation (in fact, that's explicitly cautioned against). Ocaasi (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a need to change the language... The intent of the statement is to outline what may and may not be added. If no reliable sources verify Clinton's attendance at the softball game, we may not mention it (even if his attendance is "true"). If reliable sources verify his attendance then we may mention it... but that permission does not mean we must mention it. I think this is clear in the current language. Blueboar (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The previous time these issues came up we ran into a language problem with both the word "notability" and the relation of WP:N to content policy.  As noted by Wtmitchell [here], WP:N is not part of content policy.  WP:NNC states, "The question of content coverage within a given page is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies."  At the same time, the word "notability" is frequently used on this page as it relates to content.  It seems that the word used in the WP:WEIGHT policy is "prominence".  Since I didn't like the word "prominence" in this context, I started referring to "notability/prominence".  FYI, RB  66.217.118.112 (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC) [inserted later] See also: Wikipedia:Notability vs. prominence.  RB  66.217.117.192 (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC) [insert ends here]

Here is another definition of "threshold", the point being that a threshold isolates two states:

www.merriam-webster.com threshold 3b : a level, point, or value above which something is true or will take place and below which it is not or will not.

A threshold for inclusion is therefore also a threshold for the absence of inclusion.  This is technically an ambiguity, where "ambiguity" is defined in www.merriam-webster.com as ambiguity 1b : "A word or expression that can be understood in two or more possible ways".

The problem for policy arises in considering verifiable material for the "absence of inclusion".  WP:V says that editors cannot consider material that "could be not true" for the "absence of inclusion".  RB  66.217.118.112 (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There's also WP:Editorial discretion. Editors are expected, even required, to use their best judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The "threshold for inclusion" implies a necessary, not a sufficient, condition. If the threshold for your inclusion at a party is that you bring the hostess some wine, it doesn't mean you'll be let in if you arrive with the wine, but also drunk and covered in mud. But there are times when the existence of a reliable source would be a sufficient condition too: if the article is underdeveloped, for example, or if the point is one required for NPOV.

We should be careful not to add anything to the policy that editors could use to reject reliable sources, because everything depends on context. What the policy currently implies is that if you arrive at an article with a good source, there has to be a strong editorial reason to keep your material out. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If a reliable source has printed a mistake, WP:V policy should not require editors to ignore the error.  Under WP:V, editors cannot consider a retraction by the newspaper for the story about the Clinton softball game, because WP:V is "whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."  WP:V is currently a force to include mistakes in the encyclopedia, and this force has no documented purpose.

From WP:V:

• See also, argument from authority.
• Notes, 4. "Wales, Jimmy (16 May 2006). "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information...I can NOT emphasize this enough."
  

RB  66.217.117.29 (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

*WhatamIdoing, Wikipedia:Editorial discretion has the status of an "essay", it says an essay may be a "minority viewpoint", and "Consider these views with discretion."  Discretion in this case can include citing WP:V the way it is currently written, which is that it is incorrect to challenge verifiable fallacies; since Wikipedia is about verifiability, not the truth of the verifiable statement.  RB  66.217.118.27 (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

With all of it's wording shortcomings, I think that it's clear that meeting wp:ver is a requirement for inclusion, not something that mandates inclusion.

It easy and common for a wp:"RS" to be unreliable, (wp:rs has no criteria for knowledge of the subject or objectivity) and to have information that is patently wrong, or just one of many conflicting opinions. More commonly, people misuse what's in a RS. For example, The New Your Times covers John Smith's claim that the earth is flat. Then they use the NYT as a source for the statement that the earth is flat. Either way, nothing in wp:ver mandates inclusion of anything. North8000 21:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If the consensus of editors is to omit something... just omit it. The "Threshold" clause allows for this... and if that is not enough, you can always invoke WP:IAR. If, on the other hand, the editors are debating whether to include something, then we would need to know what the something is before we can address the issue further. The simple fact is, we do not require that everything verifiable be added to an article... but we do require that anything added be verifiable. Blueboar (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that WP:V is "not something that mandates inclusion", that "we do not require that everything verifiable be added", and "we do require that anything added be verifiable.

We've seen that the word "threshold" is itself ambiguous, as two definitions have been given and are in use.  We've seen that there is a connotation of "threshold" that is the "threshold for the absence of inclusion".  No one has offered a purpose for having a "threshold for the absence of inclusion".  I agree with what Blueboar said, "The intent of the statement is to outline what may and may not be added."  I submit that this proposal restores that intent, and that in the absence of further analysis, consensus exists to restore that intent.  RB  66.217.118.91 (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is needed. The intent is already clear in the old language. Blueboar (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, before I said I thought there was a consensus, I concluded you were using SamuelTheGhost's definition of "threshold", and that my response would clarify that the word "threshold" is confounded.  The question becomes, even if you don't see the need, and think the intent is clear in the old language, is that an objection to a change which to you is not a change?  RB  66.217.118.91 (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, I'll take your silence as a "rhetorical answer".  I'll also withdraw my thought that you were using SamuelTheGhost's definition, i.e., Wiktionary definition 4, of "threshold".  At this point, I don't know what definition of "threshold" you meant when you said in your recent post, "The "Threshold" clause allows for this..."  RB  66.217.118.46 (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In summary, I think that "threshold" is ambiguous, and, per it's common use, would lead towards the wrong impression. I lost track of what the proposal is, but "requirement" or "condition" would be much better (and less ambiguous) words. And, including an example of one thing ("truth") that does not override the condition, and a poor choice of a word is problematic on two levels. One, it confuses the main/core statement of wp:ver, and secondly it leads to wide mis-quoting that wp:ver states that accuracy (in cases where objective accuracy exists) is not an objective of Wikipedia. So I think the "not truth" should also go. North8000 14:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most editors here that the purpose of the "threshold" language is to say that it's not enough for something to be true, it must also be verifiable -- and even that may not be enough.

The main problem is that the principle, especially in the abbreviated form in which it is usually quoted ("verifiability not truth"), can be misunderstood as follows: We don't care whether something is true or not. We just check whether it's verifiable, and that's it.

This misunderstood version is actually convenient when dealing with fringers who claim that established and verifiable facts are false. (E.g.: "It is not true that Obama was born in Hawaii, so we can't say it." Response: We don't care whether it's true or not, only whether it's verifiable.) As a result, we have a significant number of experienced editors, including at least one high-profile admin, who believe this is the correct interpretation.

In the past we have had a number of situations in which there was a strong consensus among Wikipedia editors that all reliable sources that reported something were in fact wrong. These situations tend to attract editors who then claim that we are obliged to parrot the incorrect reporting as if it was true, because truth simply does not matter. This is particularly egregious in BLP cases and in cases such as the Sam Blacketer controversy article, which are about events that happened at Wikipedia. In these cases we are in the best situation to report the correct facts, and readers including journalists turn to us to learn about them, not for our parrotting of news sources without any warning that we know it's all misinformation.

For this reason I think the "threshold" wording needs tuning. However, the proposed change is certainly not optimal for this purpose. Hans Adler 15:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

How about

Verifiability is an absolute requirement for inclusion of material in Wikipedia. No other consideration (such as assertions of truth) is a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. North8000 15:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I used "assertions of" in the example so as to not disparage the concept of accuracy. North8000 15:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Hans Adler would like to tell us what wording he would suggest? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Look, the problem on this page (and so many other policy pages) is that the original text was intended to be evocative of a principle, but many editors try to read it as literal law in order to use it as a hammer in particular disputes they are engaged in. The solution to the problem is to get editors to think about the bigger picture. Twiddling with the wording is not really going to help much.

That being said, the idea this line is pointing to is that Wikipedia editors should not be trying to evaluate the ontological truth-status of various perspectives on a topic. What we have, instead, is an epistemological problem: How do we know which statements about a topic qualify as knowledge that should be included in the encyclopedia, and what kind of knowledge do those statements represent? The answer to the first question is that statements qualify for inclusion when they can be verified - i.e., when we can find credible published sources that make the statement in question. The answer to the second question relies on a judgement of whether the statement is a commonly accepted truism, an established perspective in a debate, a dated historical claim, the opinion of an individual, or etc. - in other words, how does the statement fit into the greater social and scholarly worlds. We are not trying to establish what is true about a topic, we are trying to present a snapshot of the prevalent beliefs about the topic.

I could propose better wording, but it's christmas ansd I have better things to do today. --Ludwigs2 13:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Very nicely said, Ludwigs. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Ludwigs2 might demonstrate that he "could propose better wording" some time before next Christmas? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

ok, but you're going to be disappointed next Christmas when there's nothing under the tree.

how about this? This would replace the entire intro:

.

I'm very sympathetic to that formulation, although it's quite a big change from what's there now. Two small comments:

1. You're a bit addicted to "in the greater world"
2. Things aren't "self-evident", but citation may be omitted for uncontroversial statements for which sources of verification are widely available, such as "most people have two legs" or "Manhattan is an island". (The sky often isn't blue) SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the tone, but I also have misgivings. One additional bit with which I would take issue is the assertion that "users must verify ... that the source is ... qualified to discuss that topic". No. Besides the special case of qualifying a recognized topic expert for acceptability as a SPS, I can't think of a circumstance in which editors (as distinct from users) need to verify (or, indeed, should make a judgment about) source qualifications. A rather extreme example would be qualification of e.g., Danny Glover or Rosie O'Donnell as acceptable sources for comments on world politics. Somewhat related to this is concern over the ambiguity of the term "source" -- If A publishes info that B asserted X about topic Y, then (presuming that A is a reliable source on the topic), is the degree of qualification of either A or B to discuss the topic a matter which requires editorial judgment by individual WP editors? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

[continued from Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_44#.22Threshold.22_again]

• North, there's clearly no consensus for the change you want to make, and the current wording has been widely cited for years, so please don't change it again unless the consensus becomes clear. People have to know, when they quote a policy from memory, that the material is going to be there when they come to check it. "Verifiability, not truth" sums up the core editing approach of Wikipedia, and people find it memorable and easy to understand. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

People, even some admins, also misunderstand "verifiability, not truth" as saying we don't care about truth at all and that we intentionally make our articles lie (e.g. about things concerning Wikipedia, as in Sam Blacketer affair) in case the "reliable sources" clearly get things wrong. I.e., these editors argue that even an exceptionally strong consensus of editors that information (in this case BLP information) is obviously false is not enough to keep it out of an article once it has appeared in an "RS" and not contradicted by others. This is not what happens in practice, but the widespread misconception has sometimes led to unnecessary disruption.

This formulation has existed for so long that it has become almost impossible to change now, and of course a consensus needs to be obtained before changing it. But it must be changed or at least annotated with an explanation that discourages the fundamentalist interpretation. Let's work for a consensus to do so. Hans Adler 13:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Slim and all. The change was the end result of a 3 week group discussion (above) and then in the end set out for an extra 2 days for any one who had any objections. There seems to be a double standards here. North8000 (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a long, convoluted discussion, and it's by no means clear that there is any outcome at all. There can be no strong consensus unless interested editors can see at a glance what is at stake and that a consensus, with which they may or may not agree, is about to form. Without that, there will never be enough participation for a sufficiently robust consensus. Hans Adler 19:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the substance of it, a part of the discussion was that this is a verifiability policy, and it says that verifiability is absolutely required, and that nothing trumps the requirement. This doesn't change policy, it actually gets rid of flaws which clouded the policy. Specifically, this gets rid of the lack of clarity in one portion of the sentence which just said one particular thing ("truth") doesn't trump verifiability, and in a way that causes it to be widely mis-misapplied to disparage the idea of accuracy (in cases where objective accuracy exists). IMHO this is a good change that should be made. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, hells belles, let it go. This doesn't help clarify the policy at all, it just adds more wikilawyer fodder. I can already imagine editors trying trying to subvert NPOV by presenting a biased source and saying it's 'absolutely required' that we use verified sources. please read the points I made a couple of threads up. --Ludwigs2 20:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Last thing I want to do is add to Wikilawyering! But I think that the title of this subsection confused matters.....there was no "absolutely" in what the group developed. The new wording was that of Nuujinn's 18:06 9 January post except with the punctuation change by 66.212, Which I recapped in my 17:38 10 January post.

I read your earlier post. I think that may be a very good discussion to have, but a bit off of this topic. The change did not put anything in promoting accuracy. It just reworded something which had often been mis-quoted as disparaging accuracy. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

A change we agreed to in this discussion has been reverted with the edit comment, "...please gain clear consensus before changing it".

This discussion began on 25 November 2010, and over the course of three sections has had 163 comments from 21 participants.  Thereby, readers of this page are aware of this discussion and its objectives.  Five comments marked the consensus call on January 10.  More than 46 hours elapsed after the final consensus call before the change was promoted.  I think that this is a reasonable procedure to determine consensus in this context, and clearly there was a consensus with this procedure.  Thus I see no basis for the revert.  RB  66.217.118.187 (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, This is a continuation from the message started in the next subsection.  I think there is a difficulty here in consensus building if a VIP editor can wait until after a presumably valid consensus has been established and make a revert.  I'd like to know if you agree or disagree that the consensus process that was followed was reasonable in the context.  If not, what should have been done differently?  Thank you, RB  66.217.117.30 (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearly there was a consensus with the procedure that was used.  Are there any comments as to whether it was a reasonable procedure to determine consensus in this context?  If not, what should have been done differently?  RB  66.217.117.16 (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted an addition which I feel is already covered under our copyvio guidelines; its pointless imho to cover guidelines in more than one place and given how daunting the scope of our entire MoS is (probably 200+ pages if printed out), I don't feel there is a need to over-explain things or lengthen rather than tighten guidelines in many areas. Lets just try to stay on topic here. AaronY (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• It is already covered under WP:COPYVIO and that's where all detailed discussion of the issue should stay. All this page needs is a two-sentence mention of the fact that you can follow the sources too closely, plus a direct pointer to the policy. The background and context to this edit, of course, isn't completely unrelated to the circumstances in which User:Rlevse became a redlink: WP:V has genuinely been used as a reason for substantial copyright violations in the encyclopaedia. The problem the edit was supposed to address is not just theoretical.—S Marshall T/C 20:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the Rlevse fiasco. I still don't think we need to summarize one guideline in another. There's always a tendency to over-explain in these guidelines which has the opposite effect of the one desired. Once they become too long or digress too much people's attentions begin to wander. I'd be interested to see what others think. AaronY (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This could obviously go either way. Brevity v Spell-it-out. Suffice to say, the tension between V and COPYVIO is a real one, and a brief pointer for resolving that tension is not a bad idea. Ocaasi (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Is 2 to 1 consensus now? Oh well I guess if someone else comments we can change it back. AaronY (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think all we need is a pointer, with no explanation. Explaining how to avoid copyvio here just increases the chance of confusion or conflicts between here and elsewhere. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Pointers can do the trick in such cases, but they should be clear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi S Marshall, I removed "'Too closely' includes any sentence-by-sentence paraphrase of a source." It's not clear what that means, and I don't think we should get into it here. It's probably more appropriate just to link to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm having trouble seeing any clearer way I could put it. Basically, we don't want editors paraphrasing the sources at sentence- or phrase-level. We want editors reading the sources, understanding them, and then summarising what the sources say, but using entirely original language in the process. That's more than just varying the wording the sources use, and it's more than just putting the same information in a different order; it's making the point the sources make, but using completely fresh language to do it. I really do think WP:V needs to say more emphatically that it isn't an excuse for copyright violations.—S Marshall T/C 15:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • At the same time editors should be cautions when naming items or concepts, especially where sources that are not renouned for their accuracy are involved. For example "Atomic weight" and "atomic mass" are not the same, neither are the "Republic of Ireland" and the "Irish Republic". Martinvl (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• We can't always use original language, though. It depends on the context, and when close becomes too close is a matter of judgment and sometimes negotiation. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• In cases where we can't use original language there are various recourses: direct quotations, intext attribution, etc. within the overall limits of fair use. I'm right with you that editorial judgment is the king here. The point of a policy, though, is to explain the things that should rightly influence editorial judgment, and one of them is copyright.

  The reason I'm so adamant on being clear about copyright within the text of this policy is because WP:V is a big stick for dealing with problem articles and problem editors. That's a good thing, and it's important, but it also means that in contentious discussions WP:V can be deeply interrogated. It's also deeply interrogated at FAC and to a lesser extent GAN. But you can go too far in verifiability, because the ultimately verifiable article references a source for each statement it makes, and gives correct proportionate weight to each point that the source does—but the easiest way to achieve that is a paraphrase, and paraphrase can sail close to, or actually infringe, copyright boundaries. And that's why we have copyvios in both contentious articles and (as the Rlevse fiasco demonstrates) featured articles: because the editors involved are parsing WP:V without paying any attention to copyvios at all. Real and recent issues show that it's time we were clearer about copyright in WP:V.—S Marshall T/C 16:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There was a discussion started about this above under the copyright heading. AaronY (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Am I to take silence as consent for this edit, then?—S Marshall T/C 23:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I disagree with it as do others I think. AaronY (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Purely on the basis of WP:CREEP, as I understand it?—S Marshall T/C 17:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't read essays. I'm voting this way because most of the analysis I've seen of Wikipedia by independent sources says one of the reasons our growth has slowed is because new editors are bitten frequently and referred to a huge unwieldy manual to learn some mistake they have inadvertently made. I favor anything that cuts down the over-explaining of the MoS while keeping its core messages intact. Ideally the whole thing should be a fraction of the size it is now. A lot of its length is due to needless repetition (the case here imho), and over-explanation. AaronY (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly true that our growth has slowed, new editors are bitten frequently, and the rules are huge and unwieldy and not very clear. Right with you there. Unfortunately, this is what happens when policies are written by a committee. Particularly when the committee is self-selecting, and therefore consists of the people who would rather spend their time telling other people how to write an encyclopaedia than writing it themselves. (Harsh words but it includes me too.)

My problem with the current version of WP:V is that for some reason, editors including very senior editors have taken or are still taking it as a reason to breach copyright. Which is exactly ass backwards, because while it's important to have an accurate encyclopaedia, obeying the law is even more important. In fact, if you'd like to trim WP:V then I'd encourage you. I mean, the first, second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh (and then I stopped counting) paragraphs all contain the same basic thought, with only slight variations in the order in which they say "reliable", "published" and "source". Surely some of this repetition could be trimmed.

My point is that the policy that talks in so much detail about how to analyse and cite sources needs to be clearer about how far the sources can be used, and there's plenty of other spare wording that can be trimmed to make room for that.—S Marshall T/C 20:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the point about "not reading essays", Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing is an essay, and referral to this essay was what started this section.  FYI, RB  66.217.118.46 (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

S Marshall, sorry for not responding; I didn't notice until now that the discussion had continued. The copvios we've had have involved extensive close paraphrasing, not just the occasional too-close sentence; and in several cases straightforward plagiarism. The issue of the occasional close paraphrase isn't something we can deal with here, because it really does depend entirely on context and it's complicated. For example, sometimes close paraphrasing is necessary; sometimes it will involve common words and phrases and therefore won't be a copyvio; mostly intext attribution will be a good thing, but sometimes it's misleading. I agree that discussion about this is good, but I don't think this policy is the place for it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Sure, copyright is complicated and we don't need to deal with it here. Detailed discussion belongs at WP:CV. But WP:V as presently phrased is misleading (or at least, has been extensively misunderstood, including by formerly-senior editors) because it would be possible to comply with it by close paraphrasing. WP:V describes Wikipedia's "three content policies" as WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and quite falsely suggests that this is an exhaustive list, in a definite sin of omission against WP:CV. Until I started this argument by amending the policy, its only mention of WP:CV was somewhere under "non-English sources". This policy needs to adapt to the problems it's created.—S Marshall T/C 08:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"This policy needs to adapt to the problems it's created" Can you provide some examples of problems created by the wording of the policy? It seems to me that the copyvio policy is clear and not in conflict with anything here. Policies do not need to be part of core content policies to be applicable and effective. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The AN/I discussion up to this diff is rife with examples. You'll see a significant consensus that the various problems are tied to several areas of the encyclopaedia, but particularly WP:V, WP:DYK and WP:FAC. I'm trying to address WP:V specifically because it's easier to do one thing at a time and one has to start somewhere.—S Marshall T/C 23:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not feeling it, that example seems a better argument for revamping ANI or DYK than twiddling the wording here. I note that some editors suggest that the core issue is pure copyvio, and some editors refer to RS problem. The last comment by UncleG I find at the moment especially poignant. But that thread is a witch's brew of issues and does not, in my opinion, illustrate any particular problem with the wording of WP:V. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there's an argument for revamping FAC and DYK guidelines a bit, but that doesn't preclude fixing problems closer to the root. I decided to start with WP:V because it's policy underlying a lot of the decisions that are made elsewhere in the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 10:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This nonce further comment is to prevent this unfinished discussion from being automatically archived as a result of low editor participation during the Christmas break.—S Marshall T/C 12:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we need a warning about WP:COPYVIO in this policy. User:Gavin.collins also misunderstood WP:V and WP:OR and thought that verbatim wording was mandated by them. Fences&Windows 23:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)