User:Duja/It's sourced
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Look how many sources!
Reviewers often get impressed by a number of <ref></ref> tags throughout the article, and authoritative names in the reference list. However, that is still not a guarantee that the topic is appropriate for Wikipedia, as the sources may be (ab)used in a number of ways, not all appropriate: for example, sources may actually referring to the subject just as a passing, or confirming a trivial statement not exactly related with the article subject. For example:
Through extensive research, Joe Schmoe published 7 books which confirmed the thesis that the sky is blue.[1]
- ^ Einstein, Albert (1930). Influence of skylight polarization on the sky luminiscence. Terribly Important Scientific Institution. ISBN 1-234-567-890.
However, the source only confirms that the sky is blue, not that Joe Schmoe actually contributed anything to the theory.
Also, skilled editors with an agenda may use the references as synthesis of published material serving to advance a position: by referencing bits and pieces from various sources, the article ultimately reaches a conclusion (explicit or implicit) not corroborated by them. The technique known as quote mining can create an impression that the topic has actual encyclopedic and scientific value, when there's in fact little or none.
In such cases, reviewers should investigate whether the sources actually confirm the article's statements; do they establish the subject's notability by means of extensive coverage, and whether the sources are really reliable. Further, policies such as What Wikipedia is not may preclude the inclusion of material because it's too indiscriminate or trivial, its notability is short-lived, and so on. Mere number and apparent quality of sources do not necessarily mean that the topic is worthy of coverage on its own right.
