Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Contents

Policy, guideline... both?

Why is this in both the official policy and guidelines categories, and have the guidelines header? Surely it's either one, or the other? This is at least confusing, if not out-and-out contradictory. Alai 06:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't see that it is in both, Alai. Or perhaps it's already been dealt with. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. The truly remarkable thing is that the edit to redirect the policy template was only just reverted... You'd think someone might have noticed we were apparently without (at least explicitly-labelled) policies for over two days... Much better now. Alai 07:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Query

It's important to note that "verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Surely OR would not include checking a seconday sources' primary sources ? Rich Farmbrough 16:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  • By the same token, knowingly publishing false information, that is verifiable from a reputable published source, is not considered "original research", despite willful failure to qualifying the source as "dubious". Wow. nobs 16:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There are at least two kinds of news article. A news summary is a simple compilation of information from other sources, and can be verified by checking those sources. (Indeed, this is exactly the sort of verification that editors do daily at Wikinews.) A news report, on the other hand, is what Wikinews terms original reporting, and is a firsthand account or interview, and primary source material. The only way to verify it would be to repeat the observations or interviews that the author performed. The difference is that between verification by reference to a publication and verification by repeating the experiment/data analysis/measurement/research. The latter is part of what peer review involves, and isn't what Wikipedia is organized or intended to perform. Uncle G 17:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't make head nor tail out of Nob01's response but if say a New York Times article cites other publications, it would be fine to look at those other publications. Should they differ, rather than engaging in a "search for truth" you should report that they differ. Fred Bauder 17:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I was trying to figure out how to respond, but Fred Bauder explained it well already. I just want to re-iterate the idea that it's not up to us to check whether sources are correct, it's just up to us to cite reputable sources. Friday (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, so if a so-called "reputable source" is found to be dubious, nevertheless a provabely false insertion is made under the guise of "verifiability, not truth", that is still OK. nobs 18:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that's okay. If the New York Times reports that the sun did not rise this morning, we write: "The New York Times reported on December 7, 2005 that the sun had not risen the previous morning." We might add: "This was cited by The Washington Post as one of a series of errors recently made by the Times." We do not add: "And one of our editors, Nobs, knew they were wrong because he saw the sun rise for himself." SlimVirgin (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
My question relates more to using the information at all, when a user knows it to be false. In otherwords, take out the portion about the Washington Post, yet nevertheless present the Times articles as "reputable" when the user inserting it knows it to be false. nobs 18:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what your question is. As the page says, the criterion for entry into Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, as counter-intuitive as that may seem. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
We do, of course, have the option to choose not to use a particular source if we think it's unsuitable. Maybe this helps address your concern? This is a bit of a judgement call - for example, we generally don't want people saying "We should never use the Times as a source, because they said >whatever< and it was wrong." On the other hand, we often choose not to use tabloids as sources due to their disreputability, but sometimes they may be an appropriate source. Friday (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Let me give my own example: I do a search on Kiko Martinez, one result says he blew himself up in 1970, another makes reference to Kiko Martinez's widow, and other results cite Kiko Martinez attending rallies and lectures but does not give a date. So I write, "Kiko Martinez, who may or may not have blew himself up in 1970, attended rallies and lectures on unspecified dates", yet cannot attribute that to one particular source, would be considered original research. nobs 20:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

No you just say "According to X, Kiko Martinze blew himself up in 1970." As for Friday's comment: of course you personally can choose not to use a source you consider unsuitable. The real question is, what happens in someone else uses a source I consider unsuitable? We need policies and guidelines that can provide a common ground for me and the other person to discuss the appropriateness of the source, but ultimately, it is myself and the other person who have to seek some sort of compromise or accommodation. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

So I have a published source that says Kiko Martinez blew himself up in 1970; Fred Bauder says he sometimes chat's "with the same man at our local library", my inclusion is valid as WP:V, whereas Fred's is uncitable. nobs 21:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

What is important is not that you are making a claim about Kiko Martinez; you are making a claim about a verifiable source that makes a claim about Kiko Martinez. That is all we Wikipedians can do. Now, if Fred tells you "Hey, I talk to Kiko all the time" you should inform him that Kiko would do well to write to the New York Times or whatever paper reported the incident and ask them to retract it. If Kiko being blown up was worth reporting, then either (1) the fact that he is alive or (2) the fact that the source that reported his explosion is unreliable is also worth reporting. Ergo, you would be able to find a source that in one way or the other says that the first source was false. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobs01 might check the Alamosa, CO phone book or DexOnline [1]. Fred Bauder 22:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

nobs did an extensive search of Martinez after Mr. Bauder's suggestion, and found a reference to his "widow", (note: not "x-wife"), and several other publicity bulletins about his attendence at various events, but I could never link any event to a specific date between 1970 and 2005. I believe this is about as far as Wikipedia allows without inserting mine, or Mr. Bauder's original research. nobs 22:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't even find a WP article on Kiko Martinez - but it seems like a case of "are you talking about the same thing"? After all, there are at least two John Siegenthalers apparently of repute, and no doubt a handful more of no repute going by the same name. You need to be precise. For example, legal cases come with references - eg "941 P.2d 282, 283 (Colo. 1997)", and editions of books come with ISDN numbers - allowing this precision. Things can be confusing when you potentially have lots of things by the same or similar name, jguk 22:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, what's happening is the issue is "verifiablity, not truth" on this page; whereas [2] and [3] the sourcing of proper and reputable citations are attributed to the poster as a "personal attack" against a priveleged expert. nobs 22:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what's going on here, but I'll go back to the question of verifiability and Fred's comment on his ArbCom candidacy page that reads:

Should you when informed that Francisco Kiko Martinez is alive and well, contrary to the information in your source, then investigate? After all, you can claim the falsehood is in your quoted source. Perhaps you should call and ask him at 1-719-589-6543. Fred Bauder 21:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The answer from a WP:Verifiability perspective is "no". You should question how reliable your source is, and you should ask Fred to provide a published source (we, like other encyclopaedias, do not allow telephone numbers as references). There is also the question as to whether everyone is talking about the same Francisco Kiko Martinez (ie yourself, your source and Fred).

From a personal perspective, Fred may be right. You leave yourself open to being sued by libel for repeating and republishing an untruth, even though you have sourced it. The libelled doesn't have to restrict himself to going for your source.

From a Wikipedia perspective, Fred is the most influential member of the ArbCom and how he wishes WP:Verifiability to be interpreted is very relevant to Wikipedia. Ultimately what he says has loads more importance than what you say, regardless of the precise wording of the policy. Fred is one of those people who decides cases not on their precise merits, but rather on what side he wants to win, and he then picks an argument from the facts to get him there. There are loads of real-life judges who do exactly the same thing - I specialise in UK tax, and it wouldn't take too long to put together a list of UK tax cases that were decided more on whether the judges or Commissioners wanted the Revenue or wanted the taxpayer to pay. Personally, and I am a technically minded person, I prefer judges (and Arbitrators) who rule strictly on the merits of the case alone, without looking at wider issues - but unfortunately, in this world, we have to accept we don't always get them, jguk 23:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments very much, but let ask again, how does citing what a reputable, verifiable, publishied source, even if in error, constitute a personal attack by the user contributing the citation? This, presuambly, is what Talk pages are for, and this is why the material was raised in Talk, and not directly inserted, so it could be vetted. And the reference to Kiko's early demise is the only probable error I've discerned from an otherwise very credible source. nobs 23:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
That's a difficult question. You did not intend to make a personal attack, or to make a libel, but your edit may well have constituted a libel because you repeated a falsehood made by someone else. If you ask people the question "is a libel a personal attack?" they would say "yes". If you ask someone, if you clearly did not intend to make a personal attack in making a statement can it be a personal attack, the answer would be "no". The difference is in the intention. It appears from what you are saying that in answer to the question as to whether, in WP, you can break WP:No Personal Attacks despite you (even demonstrably) not having any intention to make a personal attack, the ArbCom has ruled "yes" - intention is irrelevant. I'm not sure I like that conclusion either, but that appears to be their conclusion - and, as noted above, it is consistent with how libel works, jguk 23:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The falsehood (assuming the evidence) is minor relating to Kiko Martinez allegedly being alive, and does not directly relate to supposed libel. There has been no allegation of libel, and several issues relate there (1) being that it isn't libel if true, and (2) if proven libelous would only be applied to the party who originated the libel. But all that goes way beyond the scope of the current ArbCom case. Nonetheless, the Wikipeida Policy is verifiability, not truth, which if you read my first posting under this subhead [4], I expressed amazement for the intellectual dishonesty this invites. nobs 15:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Nobs, you wrote above that because you have a published source that says Kiko Martinez blew himself up in 1970, including that in an article is valid under WP:V. Can you say what your source is, because that makes a difference? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The source is (déjà vu all over again) Wilcox, The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups, (Editorial Research Service, 1999), pp. 115-117. ISBN 0-933592-89-2 . nobs 18:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Nobs. Well, that provides an answer to your dilemma viz. your having a published source saying that X died in 1970 (meaning you can include it in an article in accordance with WP:V), while Fred says he has recently seen X alive. The answer is that Wilcox's book can't be used as a source about third parties because it's self-published. That puts it on the same level as personal websites and blogs. We can in certain circumstances use self-published material as a source about its author (e.g. we could use The Watchdogs as a source of information about Wilcox i.e. as a primary source), but we can't use it as a source of information about anyone else (as a secondary source). SlimVirgin (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Slim. While still somewhat of a newbie after 10 months, I'm also somewhat of a slow learner (I used to ride the short bus), and will put those areas of Wikipedia policies & guidelines on my reading list regarding self publishing, etc., if you'd be kind enuff to direct my attention to where I can find them. Thank you. nobs 18:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
They're scattered around in several places: there's a reference in [WP:V]] to personal websites, there are others in WP:RS to blogs, personal websites and other less reliable sources, and there's a reference in WP:NOR about avoiding using sources that have no fact-checking procedures. I'm going to try to draw these together so that they're in one place and clearer, which might help to avoid this situation in future. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

<- Thank you. WP:RS#Reliability says, "exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name [5]. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking;" which I read to say, it is not necessarily rejected out of hand, given the qualifiers; but this is exactly the sort of "fact-checking" necessary to determine if Kiko still has a pulse, etc. nobs 19:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean about fact-checking. That doesn't apply to Wilcox because he's not a recognized expert in any field. I know you think he is, but he isn't. He could certainly be used if published by a proper publisher, but not when he self-publishes. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The Military Law Review [6] says he is; I got multiple sources say similiar (incidentally, Chip Berlet "was a Mencken Awards finalist", Laird Wilcox actually won it [7]). nobs 19:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm misreading it, but that says he was a finalist. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
You've quoted the Military Law Review many times. But who other than them says he is? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobs is neglecting to disclose that the personal attack involved was on Talk:Chip Berlet, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Disruption_by_Nobs01 (you will have to look in the history as the personal attacks have been removed). The problem is that there is only the most minimal nexus between Kiko Martinez and Chip Berlet. In the time frame that they were both in Denver Kiko was accused of a crime. Chip, a private investigator may have worked on the case. But Nobs contention is that since both were members of the National Lawyers Guild that Chip Berlet is somehow responsible for the alleged crimes of Kiko Martinez. That sort of stuff is why a one month (or one year) ban is proposed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Nobs01_banned_for_one_month Fred Bauder 20:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Fred - just out of interest, do you really know either Chip Berlet or Kiko Martinez - and is it just a coincidence that Martinez lives near you or is that connected with Nobs01's enthusiasm for the matter? jguk 20:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Neither Chip Berlet nor I are sure we met, but we might have. Kiko Martinez and I both practiced law in Alamosa Fred Bauder 20:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

nobs never made any personal contention regarding anything; nobs inserted a direct citation from Arleigh McCree, A Case For Self-Defense, Military Police (Summer 1981), quoted in Laird Wilcox, Political Research Associates: A Study in "Links & ties", subchapter Chip Berlet and the National Lawyers Guild, (Editorial Research Service, 1999). As SlimVirgin raised at the time, and now reviewing the applicable policy (WP:RS#Reliability) "we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking." This is one reason nobs used the Talk page (it now appears obvious, too much material, too fast). Now we have discovered an error in the original self-published source. Beleive it or not, the process works.
Let me add, the whole matter has now been carried farther then ever intended, and I have no plans to spend restless days and nights plotting to expose Chip Berlet for all sorts of things. This has been an intrusion into my ordinary work of researching matters from an earlier period, and I have no interest of writing American history from the 1960s & 1970s, which, Mr. Chip Berlet it appears, has played a part in shapping. nobs 20:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Hopefully ArbCom will take note of that and allow you to move on without a ban, jguk 20:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, yes, the process does work, but normally the process is to edit in accordance with our policies and guidelines, which caution against using self-published sources. If Nobs had paid attention to that, this entire thing could have been avoided. SlimVirgin is also wondering why Nobs keeps referring to himself in the third person. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. This is a good lesson in why we have Admins. As to the 3rd person, I don't know, I guess it became a habit I picked up studying 19th Century German poetic texts. nobs 20:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

But what about a blunder made by The New York Times in a subject that I know a lot about? I and others wrote numerous letters to the New York Times in vain. Can't we remove the NYT as an example of a reputable source? Why should I trust the NYT in other subjects that I do not know much about? I find it hard to trust the NYT (and as a consequence Wikipedia) because of this incident. See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Reputable_sources Andries 22:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability does not mean "potentially verifiable"

This is already covered in the sentence

It is unreasonable to expect other editors to dig for sources to check your work, particularly when the initial content is questionable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit,

Nevertheless.

I would like to have specific language that makes it clear that "potentially verifiable" information is not good enough.

Specifically: "verifiability" requires information to be

accompanied by a source citation that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized faithfully

and is not met by

An unsourced piece of information, even if there is no specific reason to doubt it, and even if one could potentially find a source for it by applying well-known research tools.

In other words:

MacShane wrote that John O'Hara's "Appointment with O'Hara" columns in Collier's Magazine were "garrulous and outspoken" and says neither "added much of importance to O'Hara's work."
MacShane, Frank (1980): The Life of John O'Hara. Dutton, New York

satisfies the verifiability policy (even if you do not have a copy of MacShane's book in front of you and even though what MacShane says is clearly opinion; the verifiable fact is that MacShane said so).

On the other hand:

The Saigon Cafe is a cafe in Duluth, Minnesota

does not satisfy the verifiability policy, even though one could potentially verify it by consulting an online Yellow Pages. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless written as "The Saigon Cafe is located in Duluh, Minnesota[8]
^  Yellow Pages, Minnesota 2005 edition, Yellow Book USA, Inc.
≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Sure. That works. Assuming good faith of course, i.e. assuming that the editor wouldn't put that in without having actually looked it up. (If a specific edition is being cited, BTW, I don't see why the editor shouldn't cite the page number). But that's true of any reference. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
This works a little better for me: [9]. The point is, the editor who inserts the information is expected to provide the source, particularly if challenged. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Another example:

Adam Ant Has spoken openly on television about being bipolar

does not satisfy the verifiability policy, even if the editor saw and heard him talking about it on television. If the editor saw him on television, then it is potentially verifiable because there is almost certainly a recording of that program somewhere, and it may even have been described, but it does not satisfy the verifiability policy until the source citation is actually found. (To end the suspense: [10]).

Dpbsmith (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Bleh. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're getting at, but given the current state of Wikimarkup, such a requirement would turn this from an encyclopedia that anyone can edit into the unreadable and virtually uneditable (except by the most fanatical) encyclopedia. older≠wiser 20:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Either you're misunderstanding me, or else I'm misunderstanding the current policy. I believe I'm talking about a "requirement" that already exists, not a new requirement. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I value verifiability as much as anyone at Wikipedia. But I tend to agree with older≠wiser. "Potentially verifiable" is at best redundent, possibly just meaningless. Rather than say something like "You can't add information unless you could back it up in the future," I think it makes much more sense to say something like "If any editor feels that information in the article may be incorrect, they have the right to challenge the person who added that information to provide a source." I don't like the way I phrased either of these choices, but you get the idea. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I obviously completely failed to express myself clearly. I've not infrequently seen people complain about "removing potentially verifiable" information. My understanding is that the standard is "verifiable," not "potentially verifiable." Once challenged, if a verifiable source citation isn't coming within a reasonable period of time, the information should be removed... probably placed on a Talk page... and kept there until someone, preferable the contributing editor, provides the citation. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree Slrubenstein | Talk 05:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely. I think I got confused by some of the interspersed comments about footnoting a phone directory, which IMO is not of much use unless the existence of said establishment is genuinely challenged. But even so, I'd really hate to see stuff like that footnoted. That would make many people even more inclined to completely ingore footnotes (that is, I think footnotes should be used to provide substantive elaboration that doesn't fit into the flow of the text rather than to provide citations for tedious trivialities). older≠wiser 21:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see the policy made more explicit. I see too many editors in deletion discussions saying an article should be kept because it is "potentially verifiable", even after other editors have complained about not being able to find sources to verify the information in the article. I think it is the responsibility of every editor to cite sources for everything of substance they add to an article. This does not mean footnoting everything, it does means citing your sources. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree. Literally the majority of Wikipedia is accurate but lacks explicit citation. I think that being hardassed about this is an invitation to mass deletion and (because not everyone will accept this) edit warring. I'm probably as good as anyone here about citing, and still I'd venture that half of what I write lacks explicit citation.
Let me give a tangible example: do you think we would be better off without Thermidor, which as far as I can tell is entirely accurate, but lacks any explicit references? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
And how can you tell Thermidor is accurate? How can any any reader of Thermidor judge the reliability of the article? Given that anyone can add anything they want to WP, the authority of articles in WP has to come from the sources used in writing the article. If you write an article without checking sources, you are depending on your memory, which may be incomplete, or even wrong. And we cannot rely on all editors to add only facts. When I start or add to an article, I always cite references. -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • (Interjecting belatedly, because I presume the question was addressed to me.) Because I know the topics in question, and the only things there I'm not absolutely sure of from my own knowledge is the detail about th particular chef who may have created lobster Thermidor, and the remark about Monty Python. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
And how can I tell that the article on Thermidor in the Encyclopedia Britanica or Encarta is correct? I can't. There are no citations provided for specific facts (and even if there were, I probably would not look them up unless I happened to become interested in delving into a topic in more detail). There is an element of trust that these publishers have a process for vetting the accuracy of their articles. A persistent criticism of Wikipedia is that the information is not trustworthy because there are few controls over who can add/edit information. But that is in a way the very premise of Wikipedia, that over the long haul, having hundreds or thousands or millions of reader/editors providing input will eventually result in a comprehensive and high quality encyclopedia. Some people instinctively distrust this premise.
Back to point, the mere presence of a citation is no guarantee that the cited reference actually supports the fact. I think it is extremely misleading and dangerous to promote the illusion to general readers that the mere existence of citations = accuracy. What is needed is a more reliable process for vetting articles. IMO, a simplistic "requirement" that citations always be provided is not the answer. Checking citations may be a partial step in such a process, but the presence of citations alone are not sufficient. I'd fully support having a separate page for editors to provide verified citations of factual content (the talk pages partially serve such a function, but talk pages are frequently archived and past discussions become forgotten as old editors leave and new editors come along). But I very strongly oppose the approach of some to require that every fact be cited within the article. older≠wiser 14:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
At least with citations you have somewhere to start in verification. If an editor is not just simply pulling 'facts' out of his or her head, it should be easy enough to cite his or her sources. My feeliongs on this have grown out of seeing too many editors argue that an article up for AfD should be kept because it is "potentially verifiable", even though no sources are cited, and other editors have reported having problems finding verification. An article is "verifiable" only if there are sources that can be checked. If you can't cite publicly available sources for everything you say in an article, it's "original research". -- Dalbury(Talk) 17:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not completely disagreeing with you. Especially with new articles, it may not be unreasonable to insist upon some verifiable source to warrant keeping the article. I just think we'd need to phrase such guidance carefully to avoid inciting a pogrom for the removal of any and all uncited facts. Also I'm not sure that we should always require that the original contributor provide the citation--cerainly it'd be nice if all contributors would do so. I mostly avoid AFD as it is largely a rather unpleasant aspect of Wikipedia, but I think "potentially verifiable" is a pretty lame reason for keeping an article--either an article is verifiable and someone does a little bit of digging or it is not (or no one cares about it enough to bother digging, which IMO amounts to the same thing). Perhaps there could be some sort of staging area for such "potential" articles and if no one bothers to improve them within a period of say a month, then they can be deleted. That way they'd have a chance beyond the relatively quick turnaround periond of AfD, but still have a limited shelf life. older≠wiser 18:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I've not nominated any article for Afd, or voted for deletion, simply because it lacks cited sources. I have started tagging articles with {{Unreferenced}}, but that doesn't seem to actually accomplish anything other than warning readers the articles has no cited sources. I would be in favor of some process that raises the profile of these articles, but not necessarily AfD. The deletion process is already overwhelming, and doesn't need whole new classes of articles being nominated. -- Dalbury(Talk) 18:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd suggest that much more useful than tagging entire articles as {{unreferenced}} is tagging specific claims that you doubt with {{fact}}. Let's fish where the fish are: put the fact-checking work into what someone actually thinks is likely to be wrong. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree about asking for citation for specific points rather than tagging the whole article. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Responding to "the mere presence of a citation is no guarantee that the cited reference actually supports the fact", above: Yes, this is certainly a problem in academic writing. I have found many cases in my work where a statement in a journal article is followed by a citation. Too often, the cited work has only a loose association to the statement it supposedly supports. However, the statement looks more trustworthy with a citation. I feel that in a case like this, it would be preferable to have no citation at all, rather that creating this illusion for the reader. ike9898 14:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Now is not the time

This is not the time to start trying to force editors to use footnotes. The Siegenthaler incident has highlighted Wikipedia's poor use of sources, and there's more interest than ever now in encouraging editors to provide sources for their edits, or at least for any that are even slightly contentious. What we have to concentrate on is persuading editors to provide any sources at all, rather than fussing about the precise form they have to come in, and especially not one as complicated as SEWilco's.

Yes. There is a pattern of the policies and discussions about sources being totally out of sync with the reality of how people source. I don't have facts or figures, but my observation is: People don't source. However, WP:Cite sources says "For the reasons listed above, if you add any information to an article, you must cite the source of your information." (emphasis in original). It's silly to have a rule respected by so few. Stevage 17:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

In any event, he is just wrong about embedded links providing less information than sources. When using a footnote system, you're meant to add the number after the sentence, then go to the Notes section to add the full citation information. When using embedded links, you add a numbered URL after the sentence, then go to the References section to add the full citation information. Therefore, both styles, when used correctly, provide exactly the same amount of information.

I find his edit warring about this very tiresome. It has been going on for months over multiples articles, policy pages, guidelines, the Village Pump, at least one RfC, and now RfAr. We are not going to stop editors from using embedded links. We're going to encourage their use, because we want to encourage any source citation at all. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia already accepts embedded links as a minimal source, just as a book title alone is accepted. It is expected that citations will be improved, just as it is expected that everything else in an article will be improved. (SEWilco 19:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC))
I have to agree that edit warring over format and requiring a certain format when there is no consensus is silly. But I would also have to say that going and changing a bare external link into a footnote with added title and author information is an obvious improvement. And SlimVirgin, if you don't wan't edit wars, why are you going around on articles with no controversy and removing that extra information that SEWilco's bot has added? I refuse to get dragged into this case/conflict and I would prefer we instead just separate out the issues and make common sense decisions. More information in citations is to be encouraged, though not required. Enough said. I don't agree with a lot of SEWilco's edits, but I am able to separate the person from the edits. When they make sense, we should support them. - Taxman Talk 20:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Taxman, I'm not removing information. I'm restoring embedded links that he removes. If he wants to add citation information to the References section, that'd be most welcome and he'll never find me removing it. But that's not what he wants. He wants Wikipedia to outlaw embedded links, and he's been editing warring on policy pages and guidelines for months, misrepresenting what one says on another, adding misleading information then edit warring to keep it in. WP:CITE says pages shouldn't be changed from one style to the other without consensus, and I'm asking that he stick to that. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Citation format poll

The poll has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Citation Poll.

/originally by SlimVirgin (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC) / comment edited for new location Mozzerati 20:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You should wait until discussion is over before moving stuff. The fact it is "taking up the whole page" is not a clue to you, participant SlimVirgin, that it is an active discussion? (SEWilco 19:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC))
No, it was you who put it up. As you've asked so many questions, it's more appropriate on a subpage. All that matters is that people who want to take part know where to find it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Biographical material

I'm going to try to add something about the importance of using good sources when it comes to biographical material about living people, following the Siegenthaler incident. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Not everything can be verifyalbe from "reputable sources"

Lets say I created an article on Zeliard, a video game from 1990. Under common WP conventions, video games that were developed, published and sold, usually are considered notalbe enough for an article.

During the description of the game, I say, "the top boss in the game is called Jashiin".

Now, this statement is:

A. True.

B. Verifiable. Anyone who owns and had played the game can verify the truth of the statement.

However, no notable newspaper has ever published an article about Zeliard, so there is NO WAY to get "solid references".

So we have a notable article, with a true and verifiable statement, which, however, was never referenced.

About 90% of the article's length (pretty much anything except the infobox containing data that probably can be verified somewhere, such as corporate press-releases), covers in-game plot, theme, and characters, which were never described in press.

Does that mean the article on Zeliard should be thrown out alltogether?

This question is critically important to the Verifiability policy. Its not just about Zeliard, its pretty much about ANY article statement which is true and verifiable, but is not documented in press.Elvarg 21:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • These details are likely to be in the instructions, or in some other material published by the manufacturers. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe they are, maybe they arent. OK, lets say I say "the third level containst a forest-like map". This statement is also true and verifiable (and its truthfulness is so trivial and noncontroversial that it cannot be labelled "original research", yet it probably is not mentioned in the manual or anywhere else.) Now what?Elvarg 21:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It almost certainly has been published somewhere by the manufacturers. If you're certain it's trivially true, add it to the article, but if someone challenges your edit, you'll have to find a source. If no one challenges it, and so long as you're certain it's something not likely to be challenged, there'll be no problem. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
        • This doesn't solve the problem. The statement is trivially true, and nobody has a reason to challenge it on grounds of having a different opinion. However, someone may still want to challenge it just for the sake of challenging it (anything can be challenged).Elvarg 21:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
        • If the game is notable, you should be able to find a third-party description of it, if only on the Internet. Superm401 | Talk 22:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
          • 1. Even famous games (especially older ones) may not have press releases about them. And not only games. Notability is a subjective meaning. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia -- and as such, it can and should include articles that may not be notable enough for press releases, but that would be interesting to a sufficient number of on-line readers.
            • Press releases are unnecessary. Superm401 | Talk 22:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
          • 2. The Internet is not considered a solid referential source anyways. Elvarg 22:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
            • As I explain below, we accept all sources on a case-by-case basis. We do not and should not discard internet sources wholesale. Superm401 | Talk 22:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
              • What's to stop me from creating a web page and putting facts on it, then writing a WP article "referencing" facts from that page? Yes I know its against the rules, but its impossible to enforce. Or if you want to stay legal, pretty much any subject has SOME supporters, and its not hard to find a webpage to support pretty much anything... The point is, that by itself, a reference from a web page is not any more solid then a statement from wikipedia -- without credibility, they both are worth zilch. In fact, I'd argue that a wikipedia statement is usually more credible, since it is subject to peer review, unlike web pages. Elvarg 23:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
                • That's comparable to writing an article and putting it in a xeroexed newsletter you control, and then citing the "publication" as a source. I think very few editors would accept that as a "reliable" source. There will always be disagreements about whether a particular source is "reliable", and there will not always be consensus, but I can't think of a better system than the collective judgment of Wikipedians on the reliability of a source. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
                  • Then we are back at square one, agreeing on a fact that accepted sources have to be reputable. And reputable sources may well not consider an article not notable enough for print, yet it IS notable enough for Wikipedia (refer to Not a Paper Encyclopedia). Elvarg 23:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
                    • We use Web sources that we judge to be reliable when there are no reliable printed sources readily available. We apply the same judgements of reliability to Web sources that we apply to paper sources. Of course, that still leaves holes, particularly for topics that are well-known to English speakers. As I see it, we need to make a good-faith best effort to document, from whatever source, the content in Wikipedia articles, always subject to challenge from other editors. If we can't point to a reasonable source for the content, we shouldn't put it in. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Aren't we forgetting that the game itself is a sort of "publication" -- it is copyrighted material. I don't see how this is much different from someone writing a plot summary for a novel -- either there is prima facie evidence to support the assertions or there is not. I know some people have a bugbear about citing primary texts, but when the subject is the "text" (or game, movie, TV show, etc.) itself, it is kinda hard to avoid. older≠wiser 22:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point, Bkonrad. The game itself is a publication. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, this can be problematic. Yes, the game is a publication, but what if I say "the level 8 boss is named Alguien"? Its also true and verifiable, and the game is a publication, however its not mentioned in the manual, and getting to level 8 would take a considerable amount of effort and skill, hardly justified for the sole purpose of verification of a statement. It's incomparable to a book, where you can just open it at page 857 without reading the whole book first.Elvarg 22:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but when summarizing a novel, I can always refer to the novel itself as a reference (refer to a page number, ISBN number, etc). I can't do it say in a video game.
    • Also, the discussion always seems to go about finding workarounds to the conditions stated. I'd rather deal with the concept. Maybe a video game, as a "publication", was not a perfect example. The question remains -- does Wikipedia allow facts which are true and verifiable but have never been documented by anything that can be considered a reference?Elvarg 22:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • If you are describing a valid concept, you should be able to find many valid examples. To answer your conceptual question, we don't allow what you just asked about. We permit information that is verifiable through secondary sources. Secondary sources do not necessarily need to be "academic" or from scholarly journals or the like. We judge on a case by case basis whether the secondary source is trustworthy. However, it is vital that you can verify it by a means other than "seeing for yourself". Just as we would not include information in China that could only be verified by visiting it, we do not accept information about publications or software that can only be verified by using them. Such information is original research, which you probably know is specifically forbidden. Superm401 | Talk 22:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Please don't make it personal. I could spend several hours coming up with a dozen examples, but I'd rather focus on the concept. And now we came close to the source of the problem -- the acceptance of verifiable yet unfeferenced facts, which obviously also involved the definition of original research. Do you say that ANY statement which was never before published is considered original research? Elvarg 22:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Do you say that ANY statement which was never before published is considered original research? Although this wasn't directed at me, I'll answer "no". There are two components to the phrase "original" and "research". To consider commonplace observations as "research" is IMO stretching the notion of "research" beyond the limits of sensibility. older≠wiser 22:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
            • This is my opinion as well. I think that "no original research" cannot be applied to trivial statements. For example, the statement "488837 + 399498 = 888335" is probably never stated in amy book exactly, and thus is NOT REFERENCED, yet it is NOT original research, as there is no research component to it (it is true, verifiable and trivial. Whether its notable or not is another matter). Elvarg 22:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
              • The problem is, any idiot may write nonsense in an article, and argue for its inclusion saying that it is trivial. We need to clarify "trivial". Borisblue 23:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
                • Whether its trivial is irrelevant; we shouldn't allow original research regardless of how trivial. The page WP:NOR, however, makes clear that the equation you list above would not be original research. It represents a synthesis of available published data (e.g. from a math textbook). We can publish such syntheses so long as they do not create a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." Clearly, this simple equation creates no such novel interpretation. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
                • Another point: in response to your example if the video game hasn't spawned a mention of the Boss' name in a strategy guide, manual or something, then my take on it is that the Boss is not notable enough to mention. Borisblue 23:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
                  • "A Wikipedia entry (including any part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas". The keyword is IDEAS. A statement of trivial fact is NOT AN IDEA, and hence cannot be original research (IMHO). Elvarg 23:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
                    • We have to include facts in that definition I'm afraid, otherwise we'll have nazis putting in articles that 6 rather than 6 million jews died in the holocaust. The statement "6 jews died in the holocaust" is a "fact". An unverifiable fact, but a fact nevertheless. WP loses nothing from omitting that boss, if he's not worty of a mention anywhere else. In fact, the first paragraph of this policy mentions "Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research. One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher." Borisblue 01:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
                      • I disagree. First of all, since 6 million jews were killed, 6 have also obviously been killed (it's the "if I have a million dollars, then I have a thosand dollars" argument), and hence its true, verifiable, and dubiously obvious. Secondly, even if there was a statement by nazis that "ONLY 6 jews have been killed", then its neither true nor verifiable (evidence of at least 7 killed would make the statement verifiably false, and there is more then sufficient references to back that up as well). You may have a point, but this argument does not validly convey it, since neither of your statements exibited a situation of a statement which is true and verifiable but not referenced, and hence did not deal with the issue at hand. Elvarg 18:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • On another note, you are free to cite a video game as a source for information, so long as it is a reliable source for that information. (e.g., [11] which has style information for citing software/video games) However, if the information appears in an article about the game itself, you usually don't actually need to cite the subject of the article as a source; if there are multiple editions or translations, you may want to cite the one you used. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I've had this conversation a few times, but never in so much depth. It seems to me that although it's never really stated, there are cases of verifiable, true statements which are not original research, which can however, not be included, and this is one of them. IMHO, there is nothing "original research" about playing a computer game and documenting the names of each of the levels, including secret levels. I doubt the game's documentation will document the secret levels at all. There may very well be no reputable sources that have written about these levels. Most sites that go into this much detail are run by kids and are not "reputable". Magazines that do reviews rarely go as far as secret levels. And lastly, the information is "verifiable", but it could be really, really hard to verify. For example, in Sega Rally, if you beat a particular time for the world championship, a secret track is revealed. Now that the game has been around so long, you could find that information easily. But not 10 years ago. And not for tiny games which may otherwise be notable. Stevage 17:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Case in point. While I (as a person who never played Sega Rally, could raise doubts about the truthfullness of your sentence, which you cannot backup through references, I CANNOT SAY your statement constitutes "original research". The point is true, verifiable yet unreferenced sources are not ALWAYS original research (are in some cases, not in others), and in those cases where they AREN'T, there needs to be another policy/guideline to determine the criteria by which they should be included or not. Elvarg 18:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Two meanings for "verifiable" are being confused. A source is verifiable if it is easy to check the source and make sure that it really says what the person citing it says it says. If someone quotes "The New York Times" that's a verifiable citation. If someone quotes a personal communication, or something they saw themselves, that's not verifiable.

The essential point is that, unlike scientific papers and traditional encyclopedias, the accuracy of Wikipedia's material does not and cannot rest on the authority of its contributors. Therefore, it has to rest on someone else's authority. Therefore, in principle, everything in Wikipedia needs to be referenced to a source.

It is the source that needs to be verifiable, not the fact.

Due to the existence of public libraries, print materials are verifiable. Also, unlike web references, they are durable--the same book is likely to be available from libraries five years from now--and the expense of publishing in print constitutes some kind of mild sanity check. Due to the ease of checking web references, web references are verifiable.

Personal observation of the contents of a video game might be verifiable if one could show that there were many public libraries that had copies of that game available for circulation. But it is much better to find a description in a game magazine, because that is more verifiable than the game itself.

An unreliable source can be verifiable. What's important is to state the source. The reader can judge its reliability. Furthermore, in cases where a source is obviously non-neutral, it is not inappropriate to make a comment to that effect, provided of course that the comment is neutral and, if necessary, sourced.

For example, in a discussion of whether chocolate is healthy, it would be perfectly reasonable to cite Harvard researcher Norman Hollenberg to the effect that it contains flavanoids which may reduce high blood pressure, and equally reasonable to note in the citation that Hollenberg's studies have been funded by the American Cocoa Institute and by Mars, Inc. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)