[WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
160 messages Options
12345 ... 8
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Jeff Raymond
Francis Tyers wrote:

> On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 14:16 +0100, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>> If people cited their sources in the first place, there wouldn't be any
>> abuse by people using that fact to get it deleted. Any abuse with these
>> policies can be prevented if people just made the effort. I think I'm going
>> to reread those pages and think about rewriting them.
>>
>> Mgm
>
> Agree. If there is a problem with things being deleted, it isn't a
> problem with policy, but with the people writing them without specifying
> a source.

It's more a little bit of both.

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: [hidden email]
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
        Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
        - Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Francis Tyers
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 08:21 -0500, Jeff Raymond wrote:

> Francis Tyers wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 14:16 +0100, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> >> If people cited their sources in the first place, there wouldn't be any
> >> abuse by people using that fact to get it deleted. Any abuse with these
> >> policies can be prevented if people just made the effort. I think I'm going
> >> to reread those pages and think about rewriting them.
> >>
> >> Mgm
> >
> > Agree. If there is a problem with things being deleted, it isn't a
> > problem with policy, but with the people writing them without specifying
> > a source.
>
> It's more a little bit of both.

:)

Fran


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Philip Sandifer-2
In reply to this post by MacGyverMagic/Mgm


On Jan 25, 2007, at 3:37 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

> Also, if CITE and RS were to be nuked, there's not much point in  
> keeping
> WP:V; and if verifiability goes out of the window, I might as well  
> give up,
> because then Wikipedia will never be a accurate encyclopedia.

Not true. There is a difference between "all information must be  
verifiable" and "all information must be cited." One refers to a  
potential, the other to an actual fact and outcome.

Best,
Phil Sandifer
[hidden email]

You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a  
boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.

 >
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Philip Sandifer-2
In reply to this post by MacGyverMagic/Mgm


On Jan 25, 2007, at 8:16 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

> If people cited their sources in the first place, there wouldn't be  
> any
> abuse by people using that fact to get it deleted. Any abuse with  
> these
> policies can be prevented if people just made the effort. I think  
> I'm going
> to reread those pages and think about rewriting them.

But this is one of the problems. The burden of citing everything is  
larger than our editors, especially our casual editors, are willing  
to undertake. We will never reach a point where people will cite  
their sources in the first place. Hence the prospect of eternally  
playing catch-up.

-Phil
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Steve Block-3
In reply to this post by Ken Arromdee
Ken Arromdee wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, bbatsell wrote:
>> Those are *goals*.  Of course it's not feasible that every single  
>> sentence in every single article across every localized Wikipedia be  
>> sourced from reliable sources.  That's ridiculous.
>
> Instead we have "every single sentence in a random subset of articles must
> be sourced from reliable sources."  It sucks if a topic you're interested in
> is in one of that random subset.
>
> You also get subgroups of editors who absolutely refuse to accept some kinds
> of source.  [[Wikipedia:Attribution]] has stalled because it's impossible to
> tell some people that popular culture can't be sourced like science and
> history.

Is that still stalled?  That's getting silly.  When I tried to make it a
policy a while back I believe it was removed because someone wanted to
satisfy the concerns of one editor.  Now I may have that wrong, but I'm
worried if we've reached the point on Wikipedia where one editor can
prevent something happening. Do we really allow the filibuster? ~~~~



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.10/651 - Release Date: 24/01/07 18:48


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Steve Bennett-8
In reply to this post by Philip Sandifer-2
On 1/26/07, Phil Sandifer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> But this is one of the problems. The burden of citing everything is
> larger than our editors, especially our casual editors, are willing
> to undertake. We will never reach a point where people will cite
> their sources in the first place. Hence the prospect of eternally
> playing catch-up.

It's more than just that. I recently wrote a stub on [[Wingan Inlet]].
I know the place exists: I went there. Do I have a source? No. Am I
confident that a source exists? Yes. Would I rather create an
unsourced stub, or leave a hole in our encyclopaedia? Unsourced stub,
with fries.

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Steve Block-3
In reply to this post by Philip Sandifer-2
Phil Sandifer wrote:
>
> We should nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]. They are not working. They  
> have never worked. It is not a feasible project to go and add sources  
> to everything, and new contributors who are editing casually are  
> never going to be willing to do the extra work of having sources. The  
> result is a rule where we are always going to be playing catch-up.

In all honesty if that happens I will probably walk.  As someone who
edits in an arena of pop culture, comics, I don't think I could stand it
if these crutches were taken away.  Comics have been published for over
70 years and I would seriously have no other stick with which to beat
the people who think Wikipedia can readily summarise the plot of every
single character and adventure depicted.  Why does that matter?  People
need to ponder how maintainable six billion articles on comics would be.
  Think I made that article up?  People quite reasonably believe the
batarang deserves an article.  Extend that to Moon Knight's throwing
arrows, which I could quite happily add an article on the basis of West
Coast Avengers #18-24 or thereabouts.  The best stick we've got at the
moment to cut away at this is reliable sources.  Now I know that there's
a split in what Wikipedia is, and I know there are a lot of grey areas.
  I will defend any article I believe is well written regardless of
source issues, and if there are such articles at afd please give me a
call, but I will more readily defend the ideal Wikipedia was founded on.
  We need to focus on the general reader and focus on getting those
books into the hands of those African kids that Jimmy often mentions.
What value are those books going to be if they contain facts sourced
from my webpage?  And if you abandon reliable sources and citing, why on
earth do you think we'll have quality articles?  How are you going to do
it.  Sorry, but I'm battling POV pushers on too many fronts to even
entertain this idea humourously.

> Nor do the pages prevent incidents like Siegenthaler, which was a  
> problem with exactly one cause, which is that nobody had ever  
> actually looked at that page after it was created. No policy in the  
> world will fix a page that nobody is editing.

Actually, that's a flawed argument.  We don't know if they haven't
prevented more examples like Siegenthaler.

> Yes, we need to ensure that people do not add crap information. This  
> can be covered easily with "Information that people doubt the  
> validity of should be sourced."

Ugh, no.  People doubt the validity of?  What on earth is validity?
Well, it's stuff that people of note have said, or, well it's stuff that
is of importance to the subject.  It's just more looseness, and it's too
loose.  Wikipedia either has to have standards or throw of the pretence
of being an encyclopedia and allow original research.  Hey, want your
stuff in Wikipedia?  Chuck up a web page and then source it.  This
applies to popular culture as much as it does any other field.  Want to
posit the idea that reading comics makes you gay?  Chuck up a website
and then cite it in Wikipedia.  Well no, don't even cite it, just put it
in and stick to your guns, because hey, it has validity.

  And we can then leave the community
> to deal with issues on a case by case basis with the direction that  
> they should be careful to make sure that information is accurate. And  
> we should shoot people who continue to add dubious information over  
> the objections of other editors. Which is basically how we wrote an  
> encyclopedia that has proven pretty trustworthy, and, more to the  
> point, is how we actually operate now on the vast majority of our  
> articles, since [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]] are not actually useful pages.

Okay, I realise here I'm going to get shot at, but it is my
understanding that it is not enough for information to be accurate.  It
has to be relevant and it needs to be .  Wikipedia is simply too big now
to be built like it was in the old days.  America doesn't operate the
way it did in the Wild West, Wikipedia can't operate the way it did back
then.  Enforce mob rule and then watch as we lose the battle to the mob.
  We're walking a tight line as it is, at the outer edges like
Siegenthaler.  I'd hate to see the centre go.

>
> But to have a pair of policies that cannot be honestly implemented  
> serves only one purpose: causing debates among editors that waste  
> time and good faith.

Look, I agree that there are issues, but those issues aren't with the
policies.  They are with the editors who can't seem to apply, what for
better words I'll call common sense to the policies.  They can't seem to
grasp that there is a need to compromise, a need to facilitate other
opinions and a need to deal.  They can't grasp the concept of
collaboration, they can't grasp the idea that life is not black and
white.  They can't see the future is reached by groping about in the
dark as much as it is reached by walking clear lit corridors.  Too many
times an obvious decision is delayed due to one person in a far off
field crying out "Process".  What we need is a way of enforcing the idea
that it is the spirit of the rules that are observed, not the words.
Too many people are invested in the fight, not the book in the hands of
that African kid.

What we need is perhaps better management.  Kelly used to talk of an
elected chamber which would debate issues.  I'm starting to see the
value.  But that's a whole nother can of worms.


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.10/651 - Release Date: 24/01/07 18:48


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:FA]]

Steve Block-3
In reply to this post by Philip Sandifer-2
Phil Sandifer wrote:

> Pop onto AfD for a bit. Or to articles on popular culture. Or  
> [[WP:FAC]].

There are issue within the featured article process, I'll grant you
that.  Apparently one of the issues with the Superman article is that
some citations are Harvard style and some are Wikipedia style.  I'm of
the opinion that the time spent discussing that would be better served
ignoring it or fixing it. But hey, it's just one more hoop.  Like I say,
some people jopin Wikipedia just to find new hoops.  I suppose it's a
logical progression.  You get all your featured articles to one state,
so then you look at how to move them on.  I'd say you're looking at the
wrong end of the telescope though.  You should get all your other
articles to FA state and then improve the standards.  What a hobby we
have, ladies and gentlemen.


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.10/651 - Release Date: 24/01/07 18:48


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

geni
In reply to this post by Philip Sandifer-2
On 1/25/07, Phil Sandifer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 24, 2007, at 9:50 PM, geni wrote:
> >
> > That differes from our copyright policy how?
>
> Our copyright policy is mostly intuitive,

False.

It includes elements of law so beautifully complex in their
construction that a lifetime of study would hardly scratch the surface

> and can be explained in a
> sentence in such a way that an average person can understand it. It's
> slightly trickier with images, but only slightly since we've been
> cracking down pretty hard on "fair use" of late.

You have no idea do you? You really have no idea.


wil still have 100Ks of "fair use" images. Will have stuff under very
complex areas of copyright law and downright insane ones.

Do you know what the copyright status of Works of the Philippines
government really are? Image scans made in the UK? engravings under
crown copyright?

Did you follow the PD soviet debate?

The average person doesn't have a hope in Hades and we are forever
playing catchup.

> Copyvio is not
> nearly as widespread as lack of sourcing. Copyvio is not a newbie-
> unfriendly concept.


Oh but it is. oh but it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_with_unknown_copyright_status
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_with_no_copyright_tag
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_with_unknown_source
--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Jeff Raymond

geni wrote:

> False.
>
> It includes elements of law so beautifully complex in their
> construction that a lifetime of study would hardly scratch the surface

False.  Our fair use policy is rooted in copyright paranoia.

-Jeff

--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Ken Arromdee
In reply to this post by MacGyverMagic/Mgm
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> Also, if CITE and RS were to be nuked, there's not much point in keeping
> WP:V; and if verifiability goes out of the window, I might as well give up,
> because then Wikipedia will never be a accurate encyclopedia.

Perhaps true if you completely nuke them, but to say that they need to be nuked
is really an exaggeration for effect.

We don't need to nuke CITE and RS.  What we do need is to be less extreme
about when they are used.


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Ken Arromdee
In reply to this post by Matt R-2
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, Matt R wrote:

> > [[WP:FAC]]. Sourcing disputes are a more or less constant din - both  
> > with articles that are accurate being taken to task for not being  
> > well-sourced enough (This has become a pernicous flavor of  
> > deletionism in the past year or so) and with articles that are  
> > complete shit getting a pass because they have sources, even if the  
> > sources are bollocks.
>
> Even for the best policies and guidelines, there'll always be some people who
> try to abuse, wikilawyer, or generally twist them to their own ends. NPOV
> disputes are more or less a constant din, too, but that's no reason to nuke
> NPOV.  

While all policies can be abused, some are easier to abuse than others.
Some are even attractive nuisances.

WP:CITE and WP:RS are unreasonably easy to abuse, and should be fixed so they
are less so.  Just because they cannot be perfect doesn't mean we should
leave gaping flaws in them.

Of course, we don't really need to nuke them, just fix them.


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

geni
In reply to this post by Jeff Raymond
On 1/25/07, Jeff Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> geni wrote:
>
> > False.
> >
> > It includes elements of law so beautifully complex in their
> > construction that a lifetime of study would hardly scratch the surface
>
> False.  Our fair use policy is rooted in copyright paranoia.
>

No it isn't. In any case I wasn't talking about "fair use".

--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Francis Tyers
In reply to this post by Ken Arromdee

> While all policies can be abused, some are easier to abuse than others.
> Some are even attractive nuisances.

The only people who think that having to cite and verify articles with
reliable sources is "abuse" are the kind of people who think "oh no my
pokemans character studies are at risk again!"

Fran.


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Bogdan Giusca
In reply to this post by Ken Arromdee
Thursday, January 25, 2007, 6:25:38 PM, Ken wrote:

> WP:CITE and WP:RS are unreasonably easy to abuse

What you call "abuse", others call improval of the sourcing and
of the verifiability, and of therefore the credibility of Wikipedia.

From my experience on Wikipedia, almost all the criticism on the
Reliable Sources requirements comes from people who edit mostly
articles on anime, webcomics, furry subculture, internet memes
and the like.

Those areas are not the core of an encyclopedia and protecting those
areas should should not result in the compromising the rest of
Wikipedia.

We can't have two sets of rules: one for cruft and one for the rest.

There are plenty of wikis for obscure stuff which fail our current
policies on verifiability.


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Francis Tyers
> There are plenty of wikis for obscure stuff which fail our current
> policies on verifiability.

Hear hear, this is an encyclopaedia, not a clown car.

Fran


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Jeff Raymond
In reply to this post by Bogdan Giusca

Bogdan Giusca wrote:
> We can't have two sets of rules: one for cruft and one for the rest.

This is hardly true.  There's no reason why an article on an independent
rock band should be held to the same sourcing standard as a European king
from the 1700s.  What's reliable in the humanities is stricter than what's
reliable in the entertainment world, and our reliable source guideline
fails to understand that.

-Jeff

--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Eugene van der Pijll
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-8
Steve Bennett schreef:
> It's more than just that. I recently wrote a stub on [[Wingan Inlet]].
> I know the place exists: I went there. Do I have a source? No. Am I
> confident that a source exists? Yes. Would I rather create an
> unsourced stub, or leave a hole in our encyclopaedia? Unsourced stub,
> with fries.

I recently wrote a stub on [[Heliophorus]], a genus of butterflies. It
links the existing article on its subfamily with the existing articles
of the species. As the subfamily article only lists genera, my new
article is the only way to go from the subfamily article to the
individual species. It is therefore useful, even though it contains
nothing more than a partial list of species.

I created this list from wikipedia: it just contains all species that
have an article. If I had to list my source, it would have been
"Wikipedia", which is Not Acceptable, and would have been removed (I
guess). So I left it unsourced.

Does this make it a worse article than, say, [[Heliophorus brahma]],
which has 6 sources (5 books, 1 journal article)? Note that that article
is 1 sentence long. What do you think is more likely; that this one
sentence is the only information found about the species by someone who
has checked those 5 books; or that the references section has been
copied from some other article, and is therefore more or less worthless?

I hope that someone will some day add useful information to my stub, and
with a bit of luck, he'll add his sources too. But the extra info is
woth much more than the sources, IMHO.

Adding unsourced information is a good thing.


Eugene

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Thomas Dalton
> I recently wrote a stub on [[Heliophorus]], a genus of butterflies. It
> links the existing article on its subfamily with the existing articles
> of the species. As the subfamily article only lists genera, my new
> article is the only way to go from the subfamily article to the
> individual species. It is therefore useful, even though it contains
> nothing more than a partial list of species.
>
> I created this list from wikipedia: it just contains all species that
> have an article. If I had to list my source, it would have been
> "Wikipedia", which is Not Acceptable, and would have been removed (I
> guess). So I left it unsourced.

Your article is basically a list - using Wikipedia as the source for a
list is generally accepted. As long as the articles you link to have
sources, then the sources don't need to be stated on the list.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Eugene van der Pijll
Thomas Dalton schreef:
> > I recently wrote a stub on [[Heliophorus]] ... it contains
> > nothing more than a partial list of species.
>
> Your article is basically a list - using Wikipedia as the source for a
> list is generally accepted. As long as the articles you link to have
> sources, then the sources don't need to be stated on the list.

In theory: yes. In practice: would everyone recognize it as such? (Hint:
it now has a {{unreferenced}} box, for those viewers that have not
disabled them in their personal Monobook.css.)

Eugene

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
12345 ... 8