Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 79

< Wikipedia talk:Verifiability
Latest comment: 4 months ago by SMcCandlish in topic "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" section name
Archive 75 ← Archive 77 Archive 78 Archive 79 Archive 80

Change is hard

Latest comment: 1 year ago70 comments14 people in discussion

The first sentence says:

In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.

I am wondering today whether this might be better:

In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information you added comes from a reliable source.

I feel a little more strongly about removing the superfluous words than about added the other two. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I like this idea. Makes it a bit clear that verifiability isn't just for those using the encyclopedia (implying Wikiepdia editors), however verifiability isn't just for information that is added. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree. Maybe, "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that information appearing in an article comes from a reliable source."? I considered "published" rather than "appearing", but I was worried that might create quibbling over what 'published' means...if folks don't feel that's a concern, I think I'd lean more toward that word. DonIago (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I very much disagree on the addition of "you added". It doesn't matter who added the information. If it doesn't have a reliable source to check against, it isn't verifiable. I also like keeping the "using the encyclopedia" in the sentence, as it makes it clear this is policy related to the encyclopedia. Neither of the proposed changes seems like an improvement to me. --Jayron32 18:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
    I think the issue with 'Using the encyclopedia" is that it can imply only active editors of the encyclopedia should be checking that the information comes from an RS. I also don't really see a need to specify that it's related to the encyclopedia, why wouldn't it be? I don't see someone interpreting the lack of "using the encyclopedia" to mean regarding their homework. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
    No it doesn't. If I grab a volume of my old Encyclopedia Americana off my shelf, I'm using it to find information. Using doesn't now, nor did ever, mean "writing the encyclopedia". To use a reference work is to find information in it. I use Wikipedia to find information. I've never heard of "using" to mean "authorship". That seems a novel and peculiar understanding of the phrase "using the encyclopedia". --Jayron32 18:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
    I'm mainly referring into the context used here. OUtside of the context of Wikipedia then it makes perfect sense. But I understand the point you are making. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
    Even in this context, there's noting that implies "using" = "editing". Readers, editors, everyone should be assured that the context is accurate and that assurance comes through the presence of WP:RS. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
    About "using the encyclopedia": I'm concerned about readers who are getting information indirectly. Our material should be verifiable regardless of whether you're seeing it at en.wikipedia.org ("using the encyclopedia") or seeing in in a Google Knowledge Graph ("using Google"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Let's try this:

How's that? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd lean towards "the information" over "our content" because content implies to me the words as written, which should be based on reliable sources, but not directly taken (i.e., plagiarized or otherwise copies wholesale). —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
That's a legitimate option. What do others think? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I like it. It's short and gets to the point while still getting the point across. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I like it with the "information" option. I agree that "content" isn't the best option. I also like the use of "anyone" as an improvement.--Jayron32 21:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Like Jayron, I think we should retain "using an encyclopedia" and avoid the possessive "our content". However, I do like the idea of changing "other people" to "anyone". --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

My goal is to shorten and quickly "get to the point", while ensuring we are talking about Wikipedia's content, not information in general everywhere. This is a policy at Wikipedia to guide editors in their work. We are not seeking to create a general definition of the word. So here's my thinking for the three elements I changed:

  1. I chose the words "our content" over "the information" because to me "our content" means "the information at Wikipedia", but is shorter. It also covers more than just words, but also images and other things we host here. All of our content (except "the sky is blue" type of info) must be based on RS. So I still lean toward "content". Any "information" here is Wikipedia's "content". Maybe I'm being too pedantic. Feel free to offer your views.
  2. I prefer "anyone" over "other people using the encyclopedia" because it's much shorter and applies to readers AND editors. Readers have a right to expect that our content isn't editorial opinion. Editors check each other all the time. We insist that other editors also base their additions and edits on what RS say, not on their own opinions. So "anyone" is all-inclusive.
  3. I also wrote "verify" over "check". Maybe they mean the same thing, in which case "check" might be better, just to avoid the repetition of "verifiability means anyone can verify". But isn't that what we mean? Again, feel free to discuss.

Let's talk about each element and figure out what sounds best. I'll create numbered areas for each. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

ONE: "our content" vs. "the information" -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

TWO: "anyone" vs "other people using the encyclopedia". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

THREE: "verify" vs "check". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  • 1) the information 2) anyone 3) check. --Jayron32 12:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
.1 our content - "the information" seems vague.
.2 anyone - This is better on every level.
.3 check - By checking the reference we verify it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
.1 "information in the article" (as per Carter (Tcr25)) would also be good. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
  • 1) the information, 2) anyone, 3) check (I'd also lean towards keeping "using the encyclopedia," which might reinforce that this is about the information at Wikipedia; or maybe say "information in the article"). ―Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
  • 1) the information 2) anyone 3) check. notes: "content" is more how editors, rather than non-editor users, describe our content. Users come here to find "information." "verify" comes off appearing to be circular, even if it is a valid form of definition. SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let's see if we're getting closer:

I have exchanged "that information that comes from a" reliable source with "that article content is based on" reliable sources." How's that? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"The information" in the Some changes version is rather vague. Did you mean something like, "the information in an article"? DonIago (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
DonIago, the original is indeed vague, so I replaced it with "article content". That cannot be misunderstood, plus it's shorter. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I'd still lean away from "content" (although "article content is based on" does address my previous concern) and go with something simpler like "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means anyone can check that the information in the article comes from a reliable source.". ―Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Carter (Tcr25), "article content" means exactly the same thing, is shorter, and cannot be misunderstood. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
"information in the article" is slightly shorter than "article content is based on" (it's one more syllable, but one fewer character and one fewer word), but I also find it a more straightforward statement that feels less jargon-y. I don't see the potential for confusion or misunderstanding that you're seeing when the "in the article" clause is added. ―Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Carter (Tcr25), you're comparing the wrong words. The original is "the information". Doniago proposes adding the words "in an article" to that, which is not necessary. "article content" serves the purpose well and is the shortest version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm looking at the entire sentence, not just the two words. I'm sorry, but I don't see shifting from talking about "information" to "content" as improving clarity. ―Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I also lean away from the current "comes from" as we don't copy all content. Content is "based on" RS, regardless if a quote is copied from a RS, or our wording is based on a RS. "Based on" is all-inclusive. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. ―Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


Now it seems to boil down to two options:

  1. In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means anyone can check that the information comes from a reliable source.
  2. In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means anyone can check that article content is based on reliable sources.

Which one seems better? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I worry about the change from "other people" to "anyone". That can be misunderstood as saying that all references we use must be directly available to anyone who wants to check them. Many of our sources are behind paywalls, or only available in academic libraries, or are in foreign languages, or otherwise not directly available to most people. A change to using "anyone" needs a wider discussion than just this talk page. StarryGrandma (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Valid concern. Perhaps “someone”? Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Good point. Maybe "anyone with the ability can check" is better. The point of "anyone" is that we are not talking only about editors. Anyone must know the location of the source, even if they don't personally have direct access to it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
"Someone" is better than "anyone" and implies using another person if necessary to check. The nutshell above the lead uses "readers", which I think covers it nicely too since it is plural. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
The nutshell will be altered if we change any of this. We need to get away from focusing on readers, as editors also need to verify content. That's why "anyone" is chosen as it's all-inclusive. How that "anyone" does it is none of our business. They are welcome to get help from someone else. We can't address the full chain of investigation for every case. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
My thoughts:
  • I share the concern raised by StarryGrandma. It is not necessary for "anyone" to be able to determine that the material matches what a reliable source said; it is only necessary for "someone (not counting the person who put that material in the article in the first place)" to be able to do this. I suggest considering the word others.
  • I prefer "article content" to "the information".
  • I'm not certain about "comes from" vs "based on". I don't think that either of them are perfect.
    • "Comes from" suggests that we are more interested in provenance than we actually are. (Example: A natural disaster occurs. As long as it is true and could be found in a reliable source, it doesn't actually matter – in practice – if I heard about it from an unreliable source. Another example: I read a lot of health-related articles in mass media. The information that I add might actually/originally "come from" an unreliable source, but you would never know that, because I found and cited an appropriate source when I added it.)
    • On the other hand, I don't want most content to merely be WP:Based upon a source; that might suggest that editors could play fast and loose with sources, as long as it's only a little fast and loose. But I also don't want to say that absolutely everything must be directly supported by the exact cited source at the end of the sentence, because it's complicated (e.g., the lead, which might summarize a section in a single sentence, and that section might be summaries of chapters or even whole books).
Perhaps the last bit phase (comes from/based on) should wait for another day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem with comes from/based on is actually in the verb "check". Does this sidestep the problem?
  • In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means that others can establish that the information in a Wikipedia article matches the information published in one or more reliable sources.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that "matches" could be interpreted more broadly than proscribed by this policy. North8000 (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I suggest using "is supported by" rather than "matches" - we often talk about how content needs to be supported by reliable sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
@StarryGrandma, part of me wants to agree with you, because I like the familiar words. But the point behind verifiability is that you could find a source for an uncited sentence if you tried to, and we use "supported by" to describe the relationship between between a cited sentence and the source that's cited at the end of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
@North8000, are you concerned that "matches" is too exact? That it would empower the "if it's not plagiarism, it's not verifiable" faction? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: A big topic brought on by a very broad word. At the simplest level, it's a very broad word that would constitute a significant change in policy which could be used or misused in hundreds of ways beyond those that I can imagine. Also IMO it exasperates a problem that we have now which is de-legitimizing the editorial/ editors making decisions process. North8000 (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I am disturbed by the term "matches". That works if we are quoting, but that is far from always what we wish to do. Therefore, "supported by" is more accurate. While we are not required to use this function, but citations have a "quote=" function, and I sometimes use it to make it easier for anyone who checks to see the exact words from the source which support my wording in the article. So use the quote function when in doubt. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  • The only problem with “supported by” is that some editors will argue that their original interpretation of the sources is “supported by” those sources. That conflicts with WP:No original research. We need something a bit stronger. Perhaps: “directly supported by”? Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
    @Blueboar, what source? If I write "The capital of France is Paris", with no source or even anything else on the page whatsoever, would you say that this absolutely true and unquestionably verifiable sentence is "supported by" a source?
Yes… there are literally thousands of reliable sources that directly support “Paris is the capitol of France”. And if some idiot challenges the statement and demands a citation, we can easily pick one of those thousands and add it. An annoyance, but NOT a problem. Blueboar (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
It feels like there are thousands of source that "could" directly support that statement, but so long as it remains uncited, there aren't any that actually "do". We tend to talk about direct support in terms of the citation named at the end of the sentence, rather than sources that could hypothetically be added. I am concerned that "supported by" language will result in people claiming that all uncited sentences are unverifiable "by definition". Perhaps, though, if we followed it immediately with a sentence that says something like Information is considered verifiable if it is possible for an editor to find a published reliable source, even if no source is cited. This policy does not require an inline citation for all information, the risk would be reduced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Didn't we have this conversation once already or am I mixing things up? Usual is to apply a cn tag to uncited material and then if after some reasonable period of time, no cite, then it can be removed. There should be no requirement, implied or otherwise, that the person placing the cn tag or the person removing material, are at all, in any way whatsoever, responsible for locating a citation. Hypothetical sources are just that, hypothetical. Selfstudier (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
@Selfstudier, we're talking about changing the very first sentence of the policy from:
  • verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.
to something like
  • verifiability means other people would be able to determine that the information is supported by a reliable source.
Do you think that changing the wording from "comes from" to "is supported by" would be perceived (by some editors) as a change in meaning, from "uncited material can be verifiable, as long as it would be possible for someone to add a citation" to "everything uncited is automatically unverifiable, because if there isn't a little blue clicky number, then it's not technically 'supported' by anything"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
I responded to your previous comment, not this one. In my view, uncited material is in general essentially worthless (ie unverifiable, to both user and reader, blue sky aside) so I am in that camp that says uncited material may be removed (although for myself I would first tag for a cite).
Another way of saying the same thing is that material in the encyclopedia in general needs to be directly supported by a citation from a reliable source and if not it may be removed. Make it hard to add uncited material.
So I don't care about the wording per se, I care about the principle. Selfstudier (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
@Selfstudier, what makes you think that it is impossible to verify uncited material? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I can write a=B (just an example), place no citation and that cannot be verified. Sure some one might write something correct but I still won't know, as a user or a reader, whether it is or not without trying to myself find a citation for it. Admittedly I might not know even if it is cited, I would have to check the cite to be sure it supported what was written. So no cite is no use. Selfstudier (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
@Selfstudier, I think the bit you wrote about without trying to myself find a citation for it is the key point. If you can find an appropriate reliable source, then it is possible to verify that "a=B", which means that it is verifiABLE. Content is not verifiable solely if the source is served up to you in the form of a little blue clicky number. It's verifiable if someone (anyone, which might not include you) is able to find a source, not solely if someone already not only found the source, but also documented that source in the article for your convenience. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
That's what the cn tag is for, so that someone can find one (or not). Until it actually is cited it is unverified. If you want to be picky you can say that it "may" be verifiable (because it might be false). Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I would say that until someone (other than the person originally adding the information) checks a source, it is unverified. "To verify a claim" is not the same as "to cite a claim". Citing the content makes it cited. Verifying the content against a source makes it verified.
Part of the wording in the definition may seem subtle, but it is intentional. To verify information is to check [determine, establish] that the information matches [is based on, corresponds to, comes from] a reliable source. It doesn't have to match "the" source, but it absolutely must match "a" reliable source [some reliable source, any reliable source, even if it's not the source at the end of that material].
Uncited content may (or may not) be verifiable, and it may (or may not) have been verified... just without any trace of that verification happening left on wiki. Imagine this scenario:
  • Alice adds [good] content to an article without a citation: It is verifiable, uncited, and unverified.
  • Bob sees the content and looks it up in Google Books, but doesn't edit the page: It is verifiable, uncited, and verified by a subsequent editor.
  • Carol, knowing nothing of Bob's actions, adds a source: It is now verifiable, cited, and (twice) verified by editors other than the one who added it originally.
(Yes, I want to be picky about this. Wikipedia:Policy writing is hard, and being picky about the wording means that people will be more likely to understand what we actually meant. We don't want editors to mistake our 100% able-to-find-a-source requirement with a 100% little-blue-clicky-number requirement.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Honestly the amount of times I see the qualifier "Paris, France" in the |location= field of cites maybe referencing that isn't a bad idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Have you seen any edit wars over that? Imagine that someone did an AWB run to replace them all infobox items with "Paris" with an edit summary saying "Everyone knows where Paris is". Would you expect that to be contested? If so, we might want to make a habit of specifying the country for every city. But that's a MOS question rather than a WP:V one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes that's literally my point, you wrote If I write "The capital of France is Paris", with no source and my point was that would likely be contested... -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Really? How often have you seen someone genuinely express concern over whether the capital of France is Paris? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Have you seen any edit wars over that? Imagine that someone did an AWB run to replace them all infobox items with "Paris" with an edit summary saying "Everyone knows where Paris is". Would you expect that to be contested? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Extremely unlikely scenario - I have a hard time imagining something like that (Except perhaps as intentional vandalism). There are literally thousands of sources that can be used to cite “Paris is the capitol of France”… so many that it is highly unlikely that someone would challenge it. That said, on the very very rare occurrences that someone does, just slap in one of those sources to shut the idiot up. Not worth arguing about. “Let the Wookie win.” Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Blueboar, I think we're talking about different things. I'm imagining infoboxes that say |location=Paris, France, and someone mass-changed them to |location=Paris on the ground that the ,France part was unnecessary (not factually wrong, just unnecessary, the way most editors would say that "Paris, France, Europe" is unnecessary). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
And also, as I have said in previous discussions, 99.9+% of our claims are not in any way obvious like that; formulating policy around this tiny minority of material is a bad idea. Crossroads -talk- 00:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm currently thinking about a sentence like "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means that others are able to establish that the information in a Wikipedia article corresponds to the information published in one or more reliable sources." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I prefer the wording involving "can check", since that leans more toward the importance of citing sources rather than the exceedingly rare case where it's okay to claim something without a source. Crossroads -talk- 00:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Are you more interested in the "can" part, or in the "check" part? Would "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means that others are able to check that the information in a Wikipedia article corresponds to the information published in one or more reliable sources" be good enough? I don't want to do anything that will increase the number of "But I can't check it, because it's PAYWALLed and NONENG" complaints. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

RFC on whether citing maps and graphs is original research

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on using maps and charts in Wikipedia articles. Rschen7754 15:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Is a final court judgment considered verifiable?

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments7 people in discussion

Is a court decision considered "verifiable" under this policy? In US, court decisions are open to the public, who have an interest in the proper functioning of their state dispute resolution mechanism. They are also not "original research" by the person writing thenarticle, as they are recognized acts of state, and are the report of research done by the court through an adversarial process. (They also must be redacted to prevent disclosure of personal information the public does not have an interest in.)

(I should note that trial courts are considered the "finders of fact" in the legal system.This means they have a legal duty to rigorously find the factuality of all cases brought before them.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.162.121 (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I am asking particularly because of the case of Emily St. John Mandel, who got divorced in 2022, but couldn't have her article updated "unless someone wrote an article". (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_St._John_Mandel, citations 40 and 41.) It seems to me that public records should be citable and verifiable, as they meet all apparent requirements: archived, individually addressable, and publicly available; however, there is no actual policy statement in place, and I would like to understand if such an issue has been considered before.

Thank you for your time! 24.214.162.121 (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, a primary source is ok for such a simple uncontroversial fact - unless someone comes along with a credible argument that the subject is not actually divorced. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
The problem, though, in that context is Wikipedia:No original research, which means that Wikipedia cannot be the first publisher of new information. Information must be cited to reliable, published sources. Appellate opinions are published in the sense that either they are formally published in reporters or they are widely available from legal databases. However, trial court judgments at the state court level are rarely published in either sense. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Another option, when one has a good reason to doubt the sourced information, is to re-write it. For example, instead of saying "she's divorced" (which would ideally be sourced), it would be fair to just remove information related to the marriage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Could I add my own essay to this page?

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I would like to add my own essay on the topic, Wikipedia:Unsourced information is not valuable, to the list at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Essays.

I am not aware of any procedure for such a request, and I am not sure if it can be seen as boastful of me to propose this.

So, what do you think? Veverve (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. My 2 cents: There are probably hundreds of essays related to wp:ver and only a few linked, and so it's a question of which ones are in the 1% that is more perfect and useful. There are good thoughts in there but also things (including IMHO a conflict with policy) which put it into the other 99%. Thanks again. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
I tried to correct some of the simpler errors in that page, and ended up at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Unsourced information is not valuable to recommend Wikipedia:Userfication instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Glossary

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion

@WhatamIdoing: Was this glossary discussed somewhere? Levivich (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe that the most recent discussion on this page was with you: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 76#RFC to change "verifiable" to "verified". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the glossary has any kind of consensus behind it. Some of the definitions are different from WP:GLOSSARY. One of the words is being discussed now at #Change is hard. I still don't care to discuss the definitions of these words, but I don't think it's kosher to add a glossary to the FAQ at a core policy without so much as mentioning that you'd done so on the talk page of that policy. I only stumbled upon it because the subheadings broke the TOC; it took me like a half hour BTW to figure that out, I would have figured it out sooner had you posted a notification on this talk page about the addition of a glossary to the FAQ. I'm not going to revert it but I will (once again) protest undiscussed major changes to policies (or in this case, their FAQs). Levivich (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps a link to WP:Glossary#uncited (etc.) would be enough. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
That discussion, much like the other recent discussion, didn't come to any form conclusions. I would be wary ofaking any changes based on them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


I really don't like FAQ's, and definitely not for something that has been challenged. They are really in-effect part of / given the same imprimatur as the page and need to get the same scrutiny/requirement for consensus, which they don't.North8000 (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at VPP regarding BURDEN

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Editors may be interested in WP:VPP#Where does consensus stand on this statement: "WP:BURDEN can be used to force inline citations on absolutely every statement that does not currently have an inline citation"?, as it's an issue that has been discussed here before. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Ai

Latest comment: 11 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

How is wikipedia preparing to handle AI generated content? The volume would seem to be a big problem for veracity 60.227.207.2 (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Interested editors have start to write a guideline at WP:LLM. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Our policies and guidelines apply to all edits in Wikipedia. So far, it has been pretty easy to spot languagebot (they are not really AI) products. In any case, any edit that is not neutral in tone, or is not verifiable from reliable sources, or violates other policies, such as that for biographies of living persons, can be reverted regardless of who or what produced it. Donald Albury 21:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

How to cite a newsletter sent via email? Is it even possible?

Latest comment: 11 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Let's say I want to cite the official newsletter of a subject per WP:ABOUTSELF, how would you do that? Is it even possible? (In case anyone asks, yes, the source meets all 5 requirements laid out in WP:ABOUTSELF.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think it is possible… unless archived and retrievable in some way (hard copy in a library, digitally on a website, etc.) An important part of WP:Verifiability is the idea that members of the general public can gain access to the source should they wish to verify that we are presenting what it says accurately. Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
WP:V requires that sources used for referencing to have been published, so that other editors can verify the source as necessary. When a group email is sent the sending server sends out an email separately to each email address on the list. So the email you receive is still a personal communication, and can't be used for referencing purposes. The only hope would be if an archive of the newsletter contents is published elsewhere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to go nosing around, but if this mailchi.mp is what you are asking about just cite it as a webpage as it's available online (I'm taking as given that this is an official announcement, and so is reliable). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested: Yes, that is what sparked the question and I did cite mailchi.mp in this edit[1] and explained my reasoning on the talk page.[2] But I was still curious if there was a way to cite the e-mail newsletter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
In general no, but per WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT if you read it online then {{cite web}} will usually be correct. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
  Resolved
Thanks to everyone for their helpful replies. Cheers! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Mis-redacted data from court documents

Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This is nothing about BLP, but it does deal with what should have been confidential information properly redacted in submitted court documents. In this case, in the current trial related to the Microsoft acquisition of Activision which the US FTC is trying to stop, Sony submitted documents that had redacted info using a sharpie, which was scanned in and then published after it was presented to the court. However, users were able to use Photoshop to reveal the information under the sharpie marks. Reliable sources have since reported on this information, even as Sony and the court rush to try to re-redact the information. (see for example [3])

Would it be proper to use the information that should have been redacted, as sourced to these RSes that are reporting on it? I would definitely not consider using the court docs directly at any time, and as I note, none of this is BLP-type information. Masem (t) 00:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This seems fine to me, as its been reported on by a secondary source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
As long as it's secondary reporting of the information I can't see an issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Excessive hatnotes

Latest comment: 10 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Dear @Nikkimaria: the current lead has 36 extraneous words is a very long hatnote, before the reader gets to the page content; this is contrary to WP:HATLENGTH. fgnievinski (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Does {{Redirect}} provide a solution? See, for example, its use at WP:N. (Next issue, move the See alsos to the See also section?) - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed with the removal of see-alsos. fgnievinski (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I have shortened the hatnote. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you; I've included a link to the dab page where the other related pages can be found. fgnievinski (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

reverts

Latest comment: 10 months ago14 comments5 people in discussion

@Fgnievinski, @Butwhatdoiknow, @Nikkimaria, care to discuss? Valereee (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I consider the (now-shortened) hatnote to be a more streamlined approach vs linking to a dab page. What's largely been offered to support change are article guidelines of limited relevance; the exception is DRNE, an essay which does not constitute a valid revert rationale. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria, thank you for providing a substantive rationale. You can save everyone a lot of time in the future if you do that in your edit summaries. (As opposed to "restore" - a description - and "rvt as per previous" - referring back to the explanation-free description.) - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
We don't need to choose, we can have a streamlined hatnote indicating both the second ambiguous topic and the disambiguation page. Otherwise, how to justify discarding the remaining ambiguous titles? fgnievinski (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
There are dozens if not hundreds of Wikipedia-space pages that start with the letter "V", but only two have ever occupied the redirect WP:V (with RSN being a special case at V/N). These are the ones someone entering that redirect are likely to be looking for, so as noted, the hatnote approach is more streamlined. Really, given how long this redirect has been around, and how consistently it has referenced this page, one could argue that there is no ambiguity at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
The first issue is: what are the requirements for a page title to be considered a reasonable target for an ambiguous redirect? Since you restored the long DAB hatnote before, I presume you'd agree they are could all be considered valid targets. The second issue is WP:TWODABS -- should we have a dab page or a hatnote? Here WP:TWOOTHER clearly applies: a dab page is warranted if there are two other ambiguous targets. fgnievinski (talk) 05:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
No, I restored the long hatnote because it was better than the dab page; now that the hatnote is shorter, that's even more true. TWOOTHER doesn't say what you're saying it does. The present hatnote is under one line on a laptop screen, well within any reasonable limits. The dab page is of no value and should not be linked. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, then AfD the dab page; let's see which consensus emerges. fgnievinski (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
A separate issue are the see-also links in the lead (WP:N, WP:NOR). I've argued the following: already prominent in Template:Content policy; see also: WP:RELATED. I'm curious to know your arguments. fgnievinski (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
NOR is presented in {{content policy list}}; N is not. RELATED relates to articles and is not relevant here - we do many things in Wikipedia-space that we don't in mainspace, because the purpose and audience are different. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Thinking about wp:KUDZU, I'm wondering why these two See also links should appear at the beginning of this article - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, WP:N is already discussed in subsection Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality. By reductio ad absurdum, why not include in the lead see-alsos all the other topics in the parent section Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_and_other_principles? fgnievinski (talk) 04:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I think the "See also" at the top is unnecessary. This is a core content policy. People should not be given lots of opportunities to get distracted by other pages before they even get to the first sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Very well, I've removed it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Circular reporting at Silvio Berlusconi?

Latest comment: 10 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Please take a look at Talk:Silvio Berlusconi/Archive 2#Circular reporting?. -- Checco (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

More than 2,100 news sources on the web now link Berlusconi with the figures of Piersanti Mattarella and Elena Zagorskaya. More than likely, it is a case of circular reporting, caused by an inaccurate edit in Wikipedia. Would it be a good candidate for Circular reporting#Examples on Wikipedia? --Checco (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Be WP:BOLD you may get more discussion nthat way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested: WP:BOLD is often good advice. However, I think that's not the case here, hence why I reply. I just stumbled over this by accident, three weeks later. It turns out it did not spark any new discussion. In fact, I have just reverted it due to WP:OR and WP:CIRCULAR (ironically), because the article talk page was still the only place I could find that mentioned the problem. To my knowledge, the 2019 book that is mentioned on the talk page has never been checked for the claim, even though the original edit gave it as the source, and we should assume that edit to have been in good faith until proven otherwise. The claim from the book may still be wrong, but that does not make it circular. The problem with being bold in this particular case is that this is one way to introduce false claims into articles. Renerpho (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
By the way, even if there was an external source that mentioned the problem, chances are it would now be a circular reference as well, possibly originating from that post on the article talk page. Renerpho (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
For reference I did bother to check the book reference added with the original edit, it has no mention of the details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

sources about themselves

Latest comment: 9 months ago28 comments7 people in discussion

Without any discussion, Actualcpscm changed "sources on themselves" to "sources on their author(s)". Also at WP:RS. First, no non-trivial change should be made to key policy pages without discussion. Second, the new version is wrong. It doesn't mean "on their authors". What this section refers to is, for example, using a book as a source on what the book contains (even if it is unreliable for other facts). That is, using a book as a source on the book. We can discuss if the wording can be made more clear, but meanwhile I'm reverting both pages. Zerotalk 01:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I made those edits under the impression that the previous version was simply a grammatical error (which would make it a non-substantial change that doesn't require discussion). WP:BOLD also applies to policy pages if the changes are not substantial or an obvious fix of a clear mistake. I was operating under the assumption that this was the case here, but apparently it isn't. Thanks for pointing that out!
The problem is that this is not how I've seen self-published sources used. In fact, most WP:BLPs of people that are not notable enough to have biographies written about them by professional biographers will source at least some of their information to self-published sources. If the policy is to be interpreted the way you describe it, then no meaningful information can come from self-published sources. In this reading, the only admissible information would be "This publication exists, and it was written by Bob." Anything that Bob writes in his self-published publication, including information about himself, would be inadmissible. If Bob writes "I was born in 1975", that is not information about the publication itself, so it can't be sourced to a self-published source.
Setting aside that this is a little absurd, it conflicts with the further requirements set out in the same section. The criteria that immediately follow what I changed ("Not unduly self-serving, no third party claims, etc.") are clearly supposed to address information about the author of a self-published work, not merely information about the work itself. It is implied that information about the author of a self-published work can be sourced to that work if those requirements are met, but the way the policy is currently written (and the very literal reading you provide) don't really work on the same level.
I'm not familiar with the RfC (or other format of discussion) that resulted in this part of the policy; if you know where it comes from, could you point me to it? Actualcpscm (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the reversion of those edits. The policy obviously wasn't meant solely for authors since it clearly allows for entertainers or celebrities and whatnot to use social sites as sources on themselves. That has nothing to do with "authors". The only way that could be finagled into having anything to do with it is if you tried to say people who post things on social sites are "authors" of what they post, but then you know darn well you are stretching it... Huggums537 (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
That is actually what I meant; if I publish a Tweet, I am that Tweet's author. That is not "stretching it", it's language used to describe the matter quite frequently (see for example 1, 2, 3) Actualcpscm (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that in its current version, if it is read as literally as was proposed by Zero, the policy explicitly does not allow biographies on celebrities to use social sites as sources for any biographical information (see discussion above). Actualcpscm (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
If Bob writes "I was born in 1975", that is not information about the publication itself, so it can't be sourced to a self-published source., but this doesn't even make any sense. How is Bob ever supposed to write any information about "himself" if anyone is interpreting "themselves" as being the "publication"? I understand your dilemma very clearly. The problem is that both Bob and the publication are the source at the same time, and we can't divide them by saying "author" because sometimes the publication and the author are not the same such as in the case of social networks. What we have to do is find another way to solve the dilemma... Huggums537 (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I very much agree; if anyone is interpreting "themselves" as being the "publication", things become very difficult, but that is the interpretation provided by Zero0000. This interpretation is probably not the intended one, but it is very much the direct result of the way the policy is currently written. In "self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves", the "them" of "themselves" unambiguously refers to the sources, not any individuals associated with them, at least grammatically. I'm sure there's a better way to say this.
I think "author" works much better than the current version, as long as we provide the following clarification: in the case of social networks (or other ambiguous mediums of publication), the individual who wrote an individually attributable post or publication is considered the author for the purposes of this policy. This also happens to align with the language used both by those platforms and by other sources. Actualcpscm (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
the "them" of "themselves" unambiguously refers to the sources, not any individuals associated with them, at least grammatically. I really think this is a very inaccurate description of the policy when you look at the whole of it since the policy unambiguously refers to an individual that does not have to be an established expert in their field... Huggums537 (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
That's why I qualified that statement with "at least grammatically." I understand how the policy is intended, and I agree with your interpretation. What I'm saying is that the intention here does not closely match what is written. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I know what you mean, but I also think Zero0000's interpretation is just fine. That is why I am against your edit. I want to be able to use the publication as a source just as much as I can the author. Your edit seems like it might restrict usage to authors only, and publications might then be restricted. Huggums537 (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow; how do you distinguish between using "the publication" and "the author" as a source? Actualcpscm (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
That's a great question. In the case of using a book as a source for something in the book you could just as easily use the author as the source too. It does become glaringly different when talking about social media because the obvious source is the author, and the publication is just the platform it was posted on, just as with other situations where the publication is by someone other than the author, but ones where they are the same are just as you said, "difficult". Huggums537 (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I think a good suggestion would be to fix 3. "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;"
and change it to something more clear like:
3. "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source or information about themselves;"
Changes in bold [italics]. Withdrawn on 11:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I think a change like this might help. Huggums537 (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Updated on 11:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Actually, it would be even better if we just remove that line completely. I can think of no good way to fix it. My above proposal sucks, and the line is redundant anyway. It is pretty obvious to anyone with any sense at all that claims or events not related to the source are no longer information about the source themselves, and trying to push this line into policy with a subjective qualifier like "directly related" doesn't make things any more clear about whether non-related things should be included since there is no way to say what is or isn't "directly" related. It either is related or it isn't. Anybody could argue about what is "directly" related. These policies are amazing masterpieces of wikilawyering fodder. Huggums537 (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree that 3 is redundant, especially because 2 ("it does not involve claims about third parties") already covers every "event not directly related" that I can conceive of. The restriction imposed by 2 is basically just a stricter and more clear version of 3. I'd be fine with removing that line.
I don't think this fixes the issue of this policy that originally brought us here, though. I'm quite unsatisfied with the grammar of the current phrasing because the subject referred to as "them" changes at least once within the same sentence. However, we should probably get some more input before proceeding with removing part of the policy. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
How much lower is -205 then -123 feet lower 2607:FB91:696:116B:AC7E:D0E8:8EE4:59A4 (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a lot of misunderstanding about the meaning of the policy being expressed here. "About themselves" means "about the source itself". It doesn't mean "about the author of the source" or anything like that. The policy could be more clearly written but I don't recall any other interpretations. Examples:

  • Suppose book B that fails RS says "the butler did it". We are not allowed to write "The butler did it.[B]" because B is not a reliable source. We are not allowed to write "Book B says that the butler did it" if this is a claim about an identifiable real person (the third party condition). However, we are allowed to write "Book B says that the butler did it" if B is a novel as that is a statement about B. And we are allowed to write "Book B was published by Dover" with a citation to the frontispiece of the book. The things we can cite this unreliable source B for are statements about B. Zerotalk 06:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
So if Alice writes a book B, and B provides biographical information about Alice (such as Alice was born 1975), can that information be included and sourced to B? Actualcpscm (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Generally yes, you just can't base the entire article on autobiography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Agree with Alanscottwalker. We are allowed to say the "butler did it" from a novel anyway per the use of plots from primary sources, but I think the Zero interpretation is only one of several since book B can't really be an "established expert in their field" nor can book B write tweets or articles about themselves. Since the policy clearly is making references to sources that can do all those things, I would say that the interpretation of that clearly means that if those sources provide biographical information, then they are allowed. It really should not matter if the platform is book B, Twitter, or some article Alice wrote about herself or her activities. Huggums537 (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the confusion in this discussion is that per WP:SOURCES, in Wikipedia source has four related meanings work/publication/author/publisher so yes the author is the source and yes the book is the source, and yes the publisher is the source. So when that book talks about its author or its publisher it is aboutself. You can use aboutself information all across the pedia, you just have to be a bit more careful with it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that more. There actually is more things that could be considered the source rather than just the two I mentioned earlier. Appreciate the help making that more clear since I forgot all the possibilities... Huggums537 (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
That does seem to bring about a lot of confusion. If we take "source" to mean "author" in the current phrasing of the policy, it makes a lot more sense. Maybe that could be clarified with an efn? Actualcpscm (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Again, my problem with that is that if we make it to specifically mean "author", then by default, we automatically exclude all other potential meanings of "source", and I think that makes things worse, not better because then we could not, for example, be able to use the Zero interpretation to use a book as a source for itself. This is a useful interpretation since some books have more than one author, and also because some information in books are not related to the author, but they are related to the book or the subject matter of the book itself... Huggums537 (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant a clarification on the multiple meanings of "source". Something like this:
"Sources" can be interpreted in various ways (see WP:SOURCES). This policy includes all four major meanings of the word. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I disagree with what Zero wrote insofar as it ignores the related meanings of source, but yes when a book talks about its contents, or its purpose (eg, 'this book was written because'), is is aboutself too (and it is about aboutself as to the book, the publisher, the publication, and the author, all at the same time). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we want to allow material written by the person or group that is the subject of, or mentioned in, a Wikipedia article. We also want to allow material that was published under the control of a person, or group that is the subject of, or mentioned, in a Wikipedia article, even though the material was written by a ghostwriter, webmaster, publicist, etc. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It depends on what the material is. If the material is about the individual or group, then (with attribution) yes, we want to allow it… but if it is about something/someone else, then no, we don’t. Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources being published

Latest comment: 9 months ago12 comments5 people in discussion

I found an article called BreadTube that discusses left-wing YouTubers, but the article cites corporate newspapers that write about them, not the YouTubers themselves. This is an obvious COI but by our guidelines I can't cite their own words because YouTube isn't a publisher. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

That is not a COI. That is by design, as you know. Wikipedia will reflect what the sources say about those youtubers, even if it's inaccurate. There's an argument to make though that they aren't notable and don't deserve their own article, though, IMHO. Andre🚐 23:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Though, don't forget the WP:SELFPUBLISHED WP:ABOUTSELF exception. Andre🚐 23:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Well now we're back where we started. If Mr. Query posts a 1-hour autobiography on YouTube, and the papers disagree, why do we care? We both know the press no longer commands public opinion or youth culture.
And as I said they are notable as a group, not as individuals. My alderman doesn't have a Wikipedia page but his name is still in the page about my town. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on secondary sourcing, the article is much better served by reliable sources reporting on the movement than the movement discussing itself. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
First of all, why; and second, when you say Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, are you pointing out a fact or is "not too many primary sources" a formal rule? Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
There is Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, part of a Wikipedia policy, which states, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Does that answer your question? Donald Albury 14:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
In other words, if the article BreadTube has secondary sources that prove that it's relevant, but reliable primary sources that disagree with them, would that be an appropriate article? We expect some sources to contradict when we read history. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
By "relevant", do you mean notable? Primary sources cannot be used to determine notability. That requires reliable secondary sources. If reliable secondary sources support a determination that a topic meets the general notability guideline, then WP may have an article on the topic. Primary sources do not enter into the determination of notability. Other considerations may apply as to whether WP has an article on a topic, but I cannot think off-hand of how the contents of a primary source would prevent WP from having an article. Donald Albury 19:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
In this case, the primary sources don't disagree on whether said YouTuber is notable. They disagree in the sense that Vaush can say, "I am not a BreadTuber" and the press can say "Yes, you are", so in practice a left-wing YouTuber is not necessarily a BreadTuber and vice versa.
This is why an article like "List of left-wing video essayists" i.e., what they do rather than who they are, broken down by category and supported with secondary sources would be more useful. It's the same reason Liberal Cuck Media doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
We care because people lie about themselves. They misrepresent when and where they were born, the ethnicity, occupations, and religion of their parents, about what they have done in their lives, and anything else they think will make them look better or elicit sympathy and support. Sometimes, it is simply not remembering things, or misunderstanding things heard or experienced as a child. Sometimes it is improving one's resumé. Sometimes it is in the service of commiting fraud on the public. Independent, reliable sources are much more likely to be free of biases, omissions and falsehoods about a person than autobiographies and YouTube presentations are. Donald Albury 14:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
(I am so disappointed to discover that BreadTube isn't about bakers.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Hazara is not karluk

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hazara is not karluk Hazara is Mongolian 5.161.114.111 (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Wrong place. You need to discuss this at the talk page of where you saw this. I will say that the Hazara language is usually classified as a Persian language. Perhaps you are looking for Qarlugh (Hazara tribe). Donald Albury 19:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RfC: Deprecating WP:NOTDIR

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RfC: Deprecating WP:NOTDIR. BilledMammal (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Bing AI chatbot

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

User:B9Joker108 just reported that they found out that a chunk of text they added to multiple articles diff was made-up by Bing AI, including a non-existing source; see User talk:B9Joker108#Fake reference?. Intriguing, and worth to mention at this policy: 'beware of AI, check the source!' Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Chatbots work by predicting the probable next word in the sentence, they don't understand their inputs or what they output. There's been a lot of discussion already, and some draft policy ideas at WP:LLM. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Editors on this page might be interested in this RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles. Sunnya343 (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2023

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please check over the internet and many reliable sources like google where clearly show that Jamnagar 2023 population is 668,000. So take note that and change done as soon as possible. Johnbo234 (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Also, as noted on your talk page, it is not up to other editors to google reliable sources. You have to find and add them yourself.  BelowTheSun  (T•C) 17:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

2023 Israel–Hamas war has an RFC

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

2023 Israel–Hamas war has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Subject matter experts

Latest comment: 6 months ago12 comments7 people in discussion

This is prompted to a post on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Landed families blogspot. The discussion touches on who is a subject matter expert for purposes of the Self-published sources section of the Verifiability policy. That section contains a definition, "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". But it also refers to the article "Subject-matter expert" which contains a much broader description, such as a person with an appropriate degree or license. Many people with high level degrees or licenses have not published in multiple "reliable, independent publications". Outside of academia, there is less incentive to publish, and often reasons such as proprietary business information to not publish. So which controls, the publication requirement, or the "Subject matter expert" article?

It appears the link to the "Subject-matter expert" article was introduced by User:Newslinger on 4 January 2019. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It links to the article but it doesn't appear to refer to it. Am I missing something? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I've just commented at RSN, but this seems to be based on misunderstanding. The SPS policy says a SME must have been previously published by other reliable independent sources in the same field, before Wikipedia considered them a reliable source. The definition of a SME doesn't change the "must have been previously published" requirement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Agree. There is a very long discussion of whether a claimed SME who had never been independently published could still satisfy the requirements for an exception from SPS here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_89#Joe_Baugher. Banks Irk (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Policy seems clear to me: to meet WP:EXPERTSPS an author must have reliably published other work. Maybe a case could be made that we should accept other sources as expert SPS, but the current policy is absolutely clear and if we want to allow more SPS that would require changing the policy. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
There certainly are borderline cases... Such as where someone has had articles published by a dozen plus news orgs but has self published or non-academically published all their books. Or when someone has only had a single book published, but by a strong academic house. But it really seems a stretch to me to extend the expert category to people who just haven't been independently published at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Non-academic publications count exactly the same as university presses and academic journals for the purposes of SPS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed as long as the publisher is a reliable independent source it counts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
No they don't. A publisher can be independent without being reliable and most non-academic publishers simply aren't reliable, if tomorrow I make "Horse Eye's Publishers" and then publish a collection of your thoughts on wikipedia (which I wouldn't even need your consent to do, I can just scrape things you've written on wiki) you do not become a wikipedia SME for the purposes of Wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, books published by the big 5 mainstream publishers are not necessarily reliable, look at Worlds in Collision or Fingerprints of the Gods for instance. It depends on the credibility of the author Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
And academic publishers can be predatory and they publish enough fraudulent and wrong content to fill Category:Scientific misconduct, so we're even now, right? Non-academic publishers are perfectly fine for the purposes of SPS, so long as they are actually normal/professional publishers, and not self-publishers with a business name (e.g., 'if tomorrow I make "Horse Eye's Publishers"').
If you read the words in WP:SPS, you will not find the word academic, or any synonym or related word, anywhere in it. This means that for the purposes of SPS, non-academic publications count exactly the same as university presses. Whether a non-academic publisher is appropriate for the subject matter is a completely separate question. You probably shouldn't be looking at an academic publisher if you're writing about current pop culture, for example. You absolutely should be if you're writing about cancer. But that's not a consideration for the purposes of SPS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I think this is a matter of context. If an author had works on the history of science fiction in the twentieth century published by Gollanz, then their self published work on the subject would pass SPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

What to do when a reliable source says something but no evidence and it seems very unlikely?

Latest comment: 6 months ago34 comments6 people in discussion

At Talk:Julian Assange#Mubarak closing mobile services there a discussion about a section where there is a single reliable source but what is claimed seems to me to be very unlikely and probably the author mixing things up. There is no other source I can find that says anything about it and there are lots of sources that talk about the events without mentioning anything happening like it - I'd have thought it would be very newsworthy. What does one do in Wikipedia about something like that? NadVolum (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

No source is always 'reliable' in the abstract. All sources get things wrong sometimes. Hence the need to apply our own judgement on occasion (which is presumably why WP:OR does not apply to such discussions), and exclude content if there seem to be reasonable grounds to assume an error in the source cited. As for the specifics of the Julian Assange article, I'd try to get more contributors involved in the discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
For context the author Andrew O'Hagan says they were there for what happened so he probably wasnt confused and other journalists probably didnt report it because they didnt see it Softlem (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
They were talking in Bungay ten minutes from Ellington according to what he wrote. What is this 'there for what happened'? I think you're confusing Assange with the hacker in Swordfish if he could do this at the same time. Not that there was any real possibility of doing anything with a shut down system. NadVolum (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
They were talking in Bungay ten minutes from Ellington according to what he wrote According to what he wrote The revolution continued and Julian was satisfied, sitting back in our remote kitchen eating chocolates and after describing the event he says That is why I didn’t walk out so he knew enough to make decisions because of it
I think you're confusing Assange with the hacker in Swordfish if he could do this at the same time. Please be civil
Not that there was any real possibility of doing anything with a shut down system O'Hagan never says Nortel was shut down, he says Mubaraks hackers tried to shut it down, and every source you cited says mobile internet access was blocked and you already said that a source says that many people could still do voice calls which contradicts your claim about a shut down system
AndyTheGrump is right we should get more contributors involved in the discussion Softlem (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
The analog landline system was not closed down and Noor which is an internet system used by the financial system was allowed to keep working for a while before also being closed down. Nortel was irrelevant - it would not matter to the situation if it was open or closed! It is a place Assange hacked many years previously. You did not explain what you meant by 'there for what happened'. NadVolum (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
The analog landline system was not closed down and Noor which is an internet system used by the financial system was allowed to keep working for a while before also being closed down. I explained this in the main discussion
You did not explain what you meant by 'there for what happened' If it was our remote kitchen he was there
Nortel was irrelevant - it would not matter to the situation if it was open or closed! Thats OR and unverifiable speculation. WP:SPECULATE We know they are involved in the infrastructure for Egypt Telecom
We should keep talk about the facts in the main discussion and let other editors decide the original question. I think this is more context than they want and they can read Talk:Julian_Assange#Mubarak_closing_mobile_services for more Softlem (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
@NadVolum, when a single source reports something, the question is really about WP:DUE, not about reliability.
Without looking at this specific source or claim at all, I can tell you that the usual things to do are to omit it (if it wasn't important to any of the thousands of sources about this BLP, why should it be important enough to mention in an encyclopedic summary?) or to phrase it tentatively (e.g., "he claimed that"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
The Guardian repeats the story and cites O'Hagan [4] Softlem (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
And it was re published in O'Hagans book The Secret Life Softlem (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I've no doubt O'Hagan believes something like that happened. My problem is nI don't see how they could achieve anything by hacking and I don't see how Nortel was relevant and I can't find any independent evidence of the hacking or its effect. But I can see how he could have mixed up the then current situation with something about Assanges life in 1991. NadVolum (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter does it? We care about verifiability, not truth. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Right. It was already attributed like WhatamIdoing suggested, According to Andrew O'Hagan, Softlem (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I came here because of WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If it is an exceptional claim and there aren't multiple good sources it should be removed. I don't think WP:DUE is the right policy as I would support its inclusion if I actually believed there was some truth in it rather than O'Hagan mixing up things by mistake. NadVolum (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I get where you're coming from that the claim should absolutely be attributed, but it doesn't seem to be all that exceptional unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think WP:DUE is the right policy as I would support its inclusion if I actually believed there was some truth in it rather than O'Hagan mixing up things by mistake. There are multiple good sources O'Hagan said it and thats what the wiki article says now Softlem (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I understand what you imagine happened. I was just giving other RSes. Not finding independent evidence of state sponsored hackers being stopped is not surprising Softlem (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
If you understand then why is Nortel relevant? Would hacking or closing down the manufacturer of a modem stop the modem working? NadVolum (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
If you understand then why is Nortel relevant? I didnt say what you imagine happened really happened just that I understand what imagine
why is Nortel relevant because the phone network was a service that came through Canada
Would hacking or closing down the manufacturer of a modem stop the modem working? Thats not what happened and its not the same as hacking or closing down a company in Canada to stop a service that came through Canada Softlem (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
The Independent talks about it [5]
and Los Angeles Review of Books talks it about after interviewing O'Hagan [6] that means 5 or more sources including Ghosting and 3 or more sources O'Hagan didnt write attributing it to him Softlem (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Those are all just quoting O'Hagan. They do not present any other evidence of anything. The service was not run by Nortel, Nortel just supplied some equipment to one of the actual service providers Telecom Egypt and that was out of action for the whole five days. Nortel was hacked by Assange in 1991 and it was a telecoms equipment manufacturer. There was no point in relation to Egypt in 2011 in hacking it. Anything that was in Egypt was controlled in Egypt even if a company was owned outside Egypt - but Nortel owned nothing. There is just no evidence anybody hacked anything never mind Assange's crowd except for what OHagan says. And it is very difficult to see how they could hack anything there if the internet was closed down and there was no point in hacking Nortel in Canada.. NadVolum (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Reliable sources do not owe you "evidence". You are a Wikipedia editor, not a judge in a criminal court case or a peer reviewer of submissions to a scientific journal. As for Those are all just quoting O'Hagan, that means that all these reliable sources have made a judgment about his statements that apparently differs from your own. Putting the latter over the former when writing articles is a textbook NPOV violation. Or to put it differently: WP:NPOV asks that articles should reflect all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic - without adding "...unless these views disagree with the conclusions from your own original research." I will admit that this can, in rare cases, lead to unsatisfying situations where an editor really knows better than several RS, but honestly most of the times it is the other way around. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
The question was whether what was described was extraordinary. No checking is implied by people quoting somebody and attributing what was said to them. There is just one source. And Wikipedia editors can judge if a source seems extraordinary and this policy says that if it seems so then multiple independent sources are needed. NadVolum (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Anyway I have asked about it at WT:WikiProject Computing#Third party opinion on a hacking claim wanted as that project should have people with the technical expertise to give a pretty definitive opinion om whether it is an extraordinary claim. NadVolum (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Also found another source at Literary Hub where O'Hagan talks about it in more detail and says that he was there and watched. [7]
So 6 or more sources, 3 sources from O'Hagan and 3 sources attributing it to him Softlem (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
The London Review of Books source cited in the Wikipedia article for this claim casts doubt on it: Why would the Egyptian government have "hackers", when they merely need to issue an order? A cell phone tower with the power turned off doesn't take calls, no matter what some distant hacker is doing.
From a technical POV, I think it dubious. The underlying factual claim here is that "the country's [Egypt's] phone network which was routed through Canada". Nortel was primarily a hardware manufacturer, rather than a service provider, but even if you assume that there was a service being provided, what service (a) would have mattered for ordinary operation of a mobile phone and (b) would have been been round-tripped through of trans-Atlantic cables just to make a normal cell phone call? It's 5,500 miles (8,900 km) one-way from Cairo to Montreal. That's a really long trip to send a text message to someone who could be just a block away.
But, of more importance: One (1) human on the planet has made this claim. Why is a claim made by one (1) human important enough to mention here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
The London Review of Books source cited in the Wikipedia article for this claim casts doubt on it The London Review of Books doesnt, someone wrote a letter
Why would the Egyptian government have "hackers", when they merely need to issue an order? Egypt was still hunting ISPs after days of turning them off. Its easier and faster to do it at once [8]
A cell phone tower with the power turned off doesn't take calls, no matter what some distant hacker is doing. Cell phone towers werent turned off and we dont know what day this was supposed to have happened
Nortel was primarily a hardware manufacturer And we dont know what going through the portals of a Canadian telecommunications supplier [9] would give them access to
would have been been round-tripped through of trans-Atlantic cables just to make a normal cell phone call? It's 5,500 miles (8,900 km) one-way from Cairo to Montreal. That's a really long trip to send a text message to someone who could be just a block away. We know from [10] it was internet service over mobile phone and thats how the internet works.
But, of more importance: One (1) human on the planet has made this claim. Why is a claim made by one (1) human important enough to mention here? The one (1) human is Assanges biographer and he saw it. Several other outlets attributed the claim. And NadVolum agrees its DUE if true Softlem (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Citations are supposed to support claims. None of yours above actually do that, they just mention the topic. He didn't actually write an autobiography in the end so he never wrote about Assange in 1991 or his trial, he just wrote about his experience with Assange. He might have figured out that he'd got his story wrong if he'd actually written about Assange in 1991. NadVolum (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Citations are supposed to support claims. No Reliable sources do not owe you "evidence".
He didn't actually write an autobiography in the end Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography. the cited Wikipedia article says In March 2014, O'Hagan wrote about his experience as a ghost-writer for Julian Assange's autobiography (published by Canongate and Alfred A. Knopf). His essay, entitled "Ghosting",[1] published in the London Review of Books, gained significant media attention because of his description of Assange's character and strained relationships with past and present colleagues.[2][3]
he never wrote about Assange in 1991 or his trial Youre the one who thinks this is about his trial and have no source to support that. But its not true that he never wrote about Assange in 1991 or his trial. In Ghosting he wrote Assange described how, as a teenager, he’d wandered through the virtual corridors of Nasa, Bank of America, the Melbourne transport system or the Pentagon. and The book chronicles Assange’s life from his Australian childhood to his time as a teenage computer hacker to the founding of his controversial website and subsequent legal troubles. [11]
he just wrote about his experience with Assange Exactly he experienced this with Assange and its attributed to him in the Wikipedia article According to Andrew O'Hagan Softlem (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that biography. I got a copy and it does mention his attack on Nortel when in Australia. I think that makes it less likely that he was confusing the two. It doesn't make what he said any less weird but it makes it less easy to explain away as a mistake. By citations I mean the various cites in your previous reply. They didn't support anything you were saying. For instance you say about Egyptian hackers 'Egypt was still hunting ISPs after days of turning them off. Its easier and faster to do it at once' with a cite. The cite only covered that they were still hunting down the smaller ISPs, not that it was easier to hack them to close them down than to call them up or send a policeman around like the Homeland document said they did. Anyway the ISPs couldn't connect to the world wide web because the Ramses Exchange had switched that off, and O'Hagan only talked about Nortel. The citation on "And we dont know what going through the portals of a Canadian telecommunications supplier" was just O'Hagan again and the big question was what internet connection could anyone get through - was there any evidence of anyone succeeding somehow despite the switch off? And the exact same applies to "We know from [7] it was internet service over mobile phone and thats how the internet works" which cites the same thing from O'Hagan. It's just silly quoting O'Hagan to dispute concerns about what can be done when the internet is shut down with a switch. The only communication I have seen about was voice calls, radio, and satellite and some SMS message were sent out of the country by voice to text services. NadVolum (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
The cite only covered that they were still hunting down the smaller ISPs, not that it was easier to hack them to close them down than to call them up or send a policeman around like the Homeland document said they did. If the source is cut off you dont have to hunt down the rest
was there any evidence of anyone succeeding Again Reliable sources do not owe you "evidence". You are a Wikipedia editor, not a judge in a criminal court case or a peer reviewer of submissions to a scientific journal.
somehow despite the switch off? The timeline showed not all ISPs were shutdown. Saying it was impossible because some were or because RAMSES is OR
thats how the internet works yes the internet connects from across the world even i know that and the lead for Internet says The Internet (or internet) is the global system of interconnected computer networks
It's just silly quoting O'Hagan to dispute concerns Its not silly to quote an RS and the witness. Your concerns are WP:OR and WP:SPECULATION and you just said your theory is less likely
when the internet is shut down with a switch I think there are other ways to shut down the internet
The only communication I have seen about was voice calls, radio, and satellite and some SMS message were sent out of the country by voice to text services. You say a lot you know is off topic Softlem (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Could you just read [12] which you referred to and is about a Department of Homeland security report on it. They did switch of the internet connection to the rest of the world. They say "breakers thrown" and "Ramses exchange refers to a central building in Cairo where Egyptian ISPs meet to trade traffic and connect outside of the country, a facility known as an Internet Exchange Point." This of itself would not close down ISPs, they could still provide limited services but not connect to things like Google, Facebook or Wikipedia. I don't know why you go on about government hackers closing the ISPs. How about just picking just one sentence of O'Hagan's description to defend because there is something wrong with all of them and it just makes for a walls talking about it all? NadVolum (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
they could still provide limited services Its completely shut down but still provided service makes no sense, glad youre dropping this Softlem (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Anyway I'm sorry for wastng anybody's time here. I should have resisted being diverted from the original question, the rest of it is not relevant to this talk page. NadVolum (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ O'Hagan, Andrew (6 March 2014). "Ghosting". London Review of Books. 36 (5): 5–26. Retrieved 12 April 2019.
  2. ^ Sawer, Patrick (22 February 2014). "'Paranoid, vain and jealous' – the secret life of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange". The Daily Telegraph. London.
  3. ^ Smith, Lewis (22 February 2014). "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is â mad, sad and badâ , claims ghostwriter Andrew Oâ Hagan". The Independent. London. Archived from the original on 7 May 2022.

Mass deletion proposal of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Unreferenced_articles based on WP:VER

Latest comment: 6 months ago85 comments9 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An editor has declared that unreferenced articles violate WP:VER, at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Unreferenced_articles and has proposed that all 100,000+ of them be summarily deleted through a change to the prod system making deletion mandatory if references are not provided by a drop dead date. My question is: Is the verifiability policy being correctly interpreted over there?    — The Transhumanist   23:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Verification only requires that sources exist, but the discussion is about changing policy. So it isn't a valid question. If policy discussions had to follow existing policy then you couldn't even start a discussion about changing policy.
The original proposal to template new articles without any form of referencing could have got some support, but it somehow became PROD all existing articles (which immediately failed at RFC). I don't think asking established editors to a least include a single reference in the article upon creation is asking much, and it does only apply to established editors as new/IP editors don't get away with not doing that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
@The Transhumanist, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 207#Request for comment: Unreferenced PROD for the rest of the story.
This, and many other conversations like it, show two points of confusion:
  1. Some editors believe that content is never WP:Glossary#verifiable unless it is already WP:Glossary#cited.
  2. Some editors believe that this policy (specifically this policy) already requires the addition of at least one source to every page in the mainspace (except WP:DAB pages).
We probably could fix these problems, thought the glacially slow speed of information spread in an environment in which Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions and in which editors are incentivized to overstate the minimum requirements means that it would take a while to have any noticeable effect. That would likely require re-wording a few things in the policy, e.g.,:
  • A clearer definition up top, such as:
    −
    '''verifiability''' means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source
    		+
    '''verifiability''' means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information matches what is stated in a reliable source, through any means, including finding a source themselves that hasn't been cited in the article yet
  • Adding a direct statement about whether this policy always requires citations (it's always a good idea, but the confusion is about whether it's always a requirement):
    −
    		+
    If an article contains none of the [[WP:MINREF|four types of material that are required to have inline citations]], then ''this'' policy does not require that article to have any sources at all. Citing sources in excess of the minimum requirements is encouraged but optional.
  • A clearer statement about BURDEN:
    −
    Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed
    		+
    Editors are permitted, but not required, to remove any material that lacks an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports those claims
On the middle point, I suspect that if editors were given a choice, they'd actually prefer something like "Every article except DAB pages and non-BLP navigational lists (which can be distinguished from other stand-alone lists by permitting only blue-linked entries with brief descriptions) must contain at least one independent source, even if none of the material on the page technically requires an inline citation. (This source does not need to be formatted as an inline citation.)" WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Changing WP:VER is problematic. I tried to "simplify the convoluted wording" of the policy many years ago, believing that verifiability meant referenced, and got straightened out in short order. Reading the discussion again after all these years, I find it rather amusing. Fortunately, they were very patient with the newb, and took it easy on him, and explained the whole thing in plain English. It set me on the road from cluelessness toward being politically informed. The gist of the policy page is that its wording is a carefully balanced compromise between the deletionist faction and the inclusionists, both groups perpetually closely watching the core of the policy for drift one way or the other. If you so much as add a comma, it'll be inspected by who knows how many editors. That being said, I have noticed a (glacially) slow shift favoring deletionism. Well, that's my $00.02. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   19:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Based on your comment believing that verifiability meant referenced, perhaps we could add a sentence that says Verifiable does not mean cited. Verifiable means that it is possible to cite it. Do you think that would have clarified things for you back in the day?
We'd probably have to add yet another sentence about citations sometimes (i.e., frequently) being required, and we can predict opposition from the folks who believe that accurately describing the current policy is lowering standards (or at least making it difficult for them to claim that inline citations are required at the end of every sentence), but if we leave the practicalities aside, do you think that would have helped you back then? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't think it would have flown, per Blueboar's explanation. I like this wording a little more: Verifiable does not mean cited. Verifiable means that accessible sources exist (out there, somewhere). :)    — The Transhumanist   20:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I’m glad I said something useful, but don’t remember what it was. Could you link to my explanation? Blueboar (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
@Blueboar: You shared your wisdom about WP:VER in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 24#Proposal: change the name of this policy to "Verification is required". Here are some excerpts:
I think the ambiguity is somewhat intentional. The ambiguity is a nice compromise between deletionists and inclusionists. The idea is that if something is verifiable (ie it is likely that it could be verified, but hasn't been verified yet) it does not completely violate this policy... it simply needs to be verified. It covers the grey zone between deleting unsourced statements immediately, and leaving them tagged with a [citation needed] tags forever. Blueboar (talk) 5:27 am, 7 February 2008, Thursday (15 years, 8 months, 29 days ago) (UTC−8)
There is a difference between the "some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information" that Jimbo is talking about, and information that is likely to be verifiable, but isn't yet verified. Obviously we should remove nonsense and challenge statements that are questionable... but, as Carl states, not everything needs to be given an inline citation - and some statements are so basic that they do not need citation at all (these are frequently referred to as "Water is wet" or "The sky is blue" statements... statements of uncontroverted and obvious fact). There is a ballance here between "get rid of it if it is not cited" and "let people say what ever they want". Blueboar (talk) 8:06 am, 7 February 2008, Thursday (15 years, 8 months, 29 days ago) (UTC−8)
Transhumanist seems to be a hard liner where it comes to verifiability... that is OK. Carl seems to be a soft liner (if that is a term)... That is OK too. Me... I fall somewhere in the middle. That is also OK. Indeed, the entire point of the current language is that it accomodates all points of view on verification. If any of us sees something that we think needs a citation, we can challenge it. If a citation is not provided after a reasonable time we may delete the unsourced statement. The question then becomes: what is a reasonable amount of time?... and that depends on the nature of the statement and what kind of article it appears in... In some cases (such as an unsubstatiated negative comment a BLP) we should delete immediately. In others we can wait several months. We use our good judgement. If there is a disagreement over whether the challenge is realistic or not, we discuss and reach a compromise. All that fits with the current language... which is why I prefer it. Blueboar (talk) 9:32 am, 7 February 2008, Thursday (15 years, 8 months, 29 days ago) (UTC−8)
   — The Transhumanist   21:40, 2 November 2023‎ (UTC)
Thanks… (wow, that Blueboar guy sure said some smart things… on occasion) Blueboar (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
@Blueboar: Thank you. I'm not a hardliner, by the way. Your quotes inspired me to write this:
It is enforced. But it is verifiability and not verification that is being enforced. Citations are not required by this policy -- that's a misinterpretation that is very easy to make, and a great many people do. Only the potential of sourcing is required, that is, sources must be out there. If something doesn't have sources out there somewhere, then it isn't verifiable and that item is subject to being deleted. It's a subtle distinction, yes, but very carefully maintained by those who watch over this policy. The wording of the policy is misleading, perhaps intentionally so, and because of this it provides the image that Wikipedia seeks reliability by requiring that everything in it be referenced. But it is just an appearance - because verifiability is much different than actual verification. So people are allowed to jump to this conclusion, as no clarification is provided in the policy. It's a political balancing act, between being largely unreferenced and wanting to be fully referenced, and between verification and the wholesale deletion of a huge proportion of Wikipedia. The reality is that most of Wikipedia is unreferenced. We can't allow that material to be deleted, because that would be too damaging and costly. So, if someone goes on an enforcement rampage to delete every article they come across that lacks sources, they will likely be the focus of an RfC, and shut down. Therefore, the policy is not useless, and serves an extremely important purpose. The Verifiability policy is the fulcrum point of a check and balances system. It is a compromise between deletionism and inclusionism, and is at the very center of Wikipedia's highly political structure. Once you understand this and embrace it, you will have achieved Wiki-Zen.  :) Become one with the wiki. Good luck. Have fun. The Transhumanist 11:51 pm, 17 June 2008, Tuesday (15 years, 4 months, 20 days ago) (UTC−7) (In response to: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 29#Useless if we don't apply it)
   — The Transhumanist   22:20, 2 November 2023‎ (UTC)
Yes, but we are at Wikipedia, not "out there" in the world. We have an obligation, clearly explained here: "Responsibility for providing citations". Readers and other editors should have the evidence, right there in the text, of which reliable source backs up the content. No editor has a right to add content (that is not "sky is blue", IOW that might be challenged) with a "trust me" attitude. Hell no. We are skeptics by nature. We demand evidence, and for our content, that evidence is in the form of sources. We must demonstrate that the source of the content is not from our own brains, but from outside sources that are verifiable. If we can't name them in the form of inline citations, then other editors have a right to assume we are pushing OR BS and delete the content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see mention of the subject in the section "Responsibility for providing citations". Nor do I see emphasis on "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." (bolding added)

We are talking about content that is not "the sky is blue". In theory, it's possible to write an article without any inline citations because every word is about a "sky is blue" fact. Outside of that bizarre possibility, editors must not write content with a "trust me, it's documentable" attitude. No, they have a responsibility to provide inline sourcing from RS for any content "whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged". We must not minimize these requirements. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean, the policy says that the following types of content "must include an inline citation":
  1. All quotations,
  2. any material whose verifiability has been challenged, and
  3. any material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged.
Now, what does the policy say about inline citations for material that is:
  1. not a quotation,
  2. whose verifiability has never been challenged, and
  3. whose verifiability is not likely to be challenged?
WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the policy covers that, but I describe it above when I write about "sky is blue" content. Such content is unlikely to be challenged, so it doesn't need a source. It's also uncontroversial content. If it gets challenged (because of ignorance or cultural differences), a consensus can decide whether to source it.
The initial obligation of the editor adding content is to always add sourcing for content that might be challenged. But what if they don't think it will be challenged (because in their mind it's a "sky is blue" statement), so they don't include a source? That's okay. They were AGF, but other editors didn't agree and they challenged it. Okay, so now it's challenged and needs a source. A source is found and added. We do this all the time. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree. Or, as I suggested above, "If an article contains none of the four types of material that are required to have inline citations, then this policy does not require that article to have any sources at all." WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't disagree with that statement you make above. It covers the 0.001% of the time no references are needed. Because it covers an exceptionally rare situation, can it be made shorter? Come to think of it, do you know of any examples of articles that justifiably do not contain any sources? Can you even describe such an article? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Different people have different ideas about how WP:LIKELY a challenge is. Some editors prefer to think that since someone actually did fact-tag a statement about how many fingers humans have, then everything will get challenged at some point before the WP:DEADLINE. Other editors prefer to think that since only a very few percentage of claims actually get challenged, then probably most uncited content won't be. The first editor might say that this will happen only to 1% of material and basically no articles; the second editor might say that this will happen to 80% of material.
As for articles that justifiably do not contain any sources, the second editor will generally find them in short stubs. (The more content you add, the more likely it is that something will need a source.) Imagine, e.g., a substub that says "Italian Renaissance sculpture is sculpture made in Italy during the Renaissance". You might decide that it's a pointless article, but it would be difficult to imagine someone seriously wondering whether Italian Renaissance sculpture might instead be, e.g., modern Japanese paintings.
If you'd like to look at a "whole" page (i.e., something longer than a single sentence), look at User:WhatamIdoing/Christmas candy and think about whether there is a single statement in there that you genuinely doubt. Look at the first version of Breast cancer, and ask yourself whether any of that is something that you genuinely doubt our ability to source. Don't evaluate it according to whether it would pass FAC; just look at it and classify each claim as either "I could probably find a source for that, if I put a little time and effort into it" or "I have no confidence that I (personally) could find a source for that, even if I spent hours and hours searching for them". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
That should be downgraded to an essay not elevated any further, I'm certainly not going to give it much weight. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Do you see anything in any content policy that explicitly requires an inline citation for any other type of material? For example, if there were a sentence in an content policy that said something like "All statistics or similar numeric descriptions must be supported by an inline citation", then that would indicate an error of omission in WP:MINREF. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
The omission in that essay is that it doesn't deal with why content could be removed and the responsibility of editors to reference material if it is challenged. By that omission it gives the impression (that is wrong and doesn't have community support) that content that is challenged doesn't need referencing because it doesn't fall into those for categories. This is what was discussed the last time it was brought up. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
"omission in that essay"? ActivelyDisinterested, what essay is that? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Inline citation it's an essay about how inline citation should be setup that had extra content added to it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
MINREF says – this is a copy-and-paste quotation –
"Wikipedia policy requires an inline citation to a reliable source specifically for the following four types of statements:...Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with {{citation needed}}, or any similar tag)"
What is it about the words "Wikipedia policy requires an inline citation...for...Any statement that has been challenged" that makes you say "it gives the impression...that content that is challenged doesn't need referencing"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

A reminder: Verifiability is truth. "It is commonly cited that the minimum condition for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. However, for Wikipedia's purposes, verifiability is truth. We can't call something true without evidence, and our standard of evidence is verifiability from reliable, published sources." (Copied from Maddy from Celeste) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  • One of this things about what editors decide doesn't need referencing is that it's based on the biases of whichever socio-cultural background they come from and serves to reinforce those ideas. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
    I agree, and this can lead to some unfortunate unfairness, in which editors will demand a citation for, e.g., a statement about that a famous Indian Bollywood actor really is an actor, but would not make the same demand for a fairly minor American actor.
    But uneven application of WP:LIKELY doesn't actually help us understand what it means for an uncited statement to be verifiable. For example, the policy talks about "material whose verifiability has been challenged". We don't "challenge" or have disputes over whether material is cited; anyone can look at a paragraph and see whether there are any little blue clicky numbers there. So what, exactly, are we doing when we "challenge its verifiability"?
    I think we're saying that we believe it's impossible for other people to verify that the information matches what the reliable sources say. I believe that to dispute the verifiability of material is to say (a) that verifiable means that sources exist (out there, somewhere), and (b) that we believe that no sources actually exist out there, anywhere for this particular material.
    I believe this distinction between "sources exist (out there, somewhere)" – verifiability – and "there's a little blue clicky number in the article" – cited – is important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
    We are at Wikipedia, not "out there", so we bring the source "out there" and put it "here" as an inline citation. Here the two become one. We should not add content based on what's "in our head". It should be based on "a source we know" and will provide on the spot.
    Readers should not have to go on a hunt for sources. They should never have to "just trust" the unknown editor of the content, especially because we know that editors are fallible, and some are even malicious. Unsourced content that is challenged can be removed. If it's rather benign and seems possibly true (and not a BLP issue), we can tag it with a "citation needed" tag and be patient. If it's been there for a while, and no source has been provided, we can try to find one or we can just delete the content. Standard procedure. The policy works fine as is. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)
    That's fine, as long as 1) it's not done automatically, by bot, which is what that proposal was leading up to, and 2) deletion is not made mandatory, such as with a drop-dead date, which the proposal included. That proposal disregarded WP:VER and if put in place would have overrode it.    — The Transhumanist   08:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
    As I said above the idea was bad, but policy discussions don't need to be policy compliant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
    Meaning what? That the statements in the discussion weren't verifiable?      — The Transhumanist   13:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
    No that a discussion about changing WP:VER cannot be said to be disregarding WP:VER. If that was the case it would be impossible to discuss any changes to WP:VER. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
    What does "LCU" mean? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
    See User talk:ActivelyDisinterested/Archive 4#LCU. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
    I agree with The Transhumanist and object to the proposal that is the subject of this thread. It should not be a fully automated process, but something should be done, and automation will be necessary. In theory, it's possible for there to be an article that justifiably does not have sources, but it's such a rare likelihood that we should assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that an article without references is in violation of policy. Just as we should "just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backwards".[13]
    What could be done is automate a process of notification of the article creator or the last few involved and active editors, or those who watchlist the article. If they don't respond within a specified time limit, then delete the article. That way automation does not control the whole process. A possibility for human intervention is opened, and if involved editors don't think it's important enough to look at the article and add sources (or defend the lack of sources), then delete it. I suspect most of these articles are obscure or lack real notability, and can be created again if someone feels they really are notable. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
    This back and forth between claims of what the policy means versus what it actually says, has been going on for decades. We aren't covering any new ground here. WP:VER doesn't specify that an article is in violation of the policy if it is unreferenced. It clearly states when material that is unreferenced can be removed. Here's the nutshell, verbatim: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations. It states "attributable", not "attributed". In the body of the policy it states All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Nobody gets in trouble for not referencing material, and material is not breaking the rule if it hasn't been referenced or removed. The material just becomes eligible for removal. The policy's wording is the result of decades of consensus building between editors of the various wiki philosophies, and is quite deliberate in its meaning — and, it has been written to be as non-confrontational as possible. There is no monster that is condemned to be slain.    — The Transhumanist   17:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
    The Transhumanist, the wording "attributable", not "attributed", should be changed, because it contradicts the very first section, which details how editors have the "Responsibility for providing citations". What's "out there" must be linked to by an inline citation. Anything else is OR. Making that change will clear this up. The strength of Wikipedia is that we cite sources. We should not degrade that in any manner. If anything, we should tend to strengthen that. Without that, our credibility suffers. Changing ONE word will resolve this. Just change "attributable" to "attributed". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Valjean, are you saying that material is not verifiable unless it is already cited? The policy requires all material to be verifiable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
    Yes. It is not verifiable "here". (What's "out there" is effing irrelevant unless the editor adding content cites it "here".) Editors have no right to add content and force readers to "just trust me because I have read the sources". No, editors must provide the source as an inline citation. Readers should be able to verify content, not by themselves doing the research, but by clicking the inline citation, going there, and double-checking/verifying that the content is backed up by the source provided as an inline citation in our text. Editors are supposed to do the homework of finding sources, and they should "show their work", as our teachers in grade school taught us. Our teachers could thus easily verify that we were not cheating. They could see how we arrived at our solution because we wrote down our reasoning process and calculations. Here we read things in sources and then describe that information in our articles. We are all humans and can make mistakes. Readers should be able to easily check to see if we have interpreted a source correctly. They shouldn't have to ask us where we "got that idea". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
    Why are you talking about a "right to add content" at all? Is it somehow an imposition on your own "rights" to have someone attempt to improve Wikipedia, unless they do it perfectly? We might hold certain aspirations, but talking about excluding content because other people having "no right" to participate unless they can do it correctly on the first try and without any collaborative assistance does not sound like the wiki way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
    And it's not what we advertise. This is what we advertise:
     — The Transhumanist   18:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
  • You are right that all have a right to edit, but no one has a right to expect that such an edit will be saved or later built upon. Our invitation is very simplistic, IOW encouragement to BE BOLD. Here I'm speaking to us in this conversation, so maybe I should have written "experienced editors have no right" to expect us to "just trust me". I'm speaking about what our policies should say. I am not speaking to newbies and drop by editors who are not expected to know all these things. But when they decide to dig deeper and learn why their first edits were not accepted, they should be able to find in our policies why their OR ideas not based on any RS were not accepted. They will then learn to not add what they think is better content. They will learn to only add what a RS tells them. (This obviously has little to do with stylistic, MOS, grammatical, and framing issues.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
    The vast majority of editors are new and inexperienced, and therefore, the vast majority of new edits are unsourced. Seasoned editors have been perpetually trying to catch up with backlogs in pretty much every department, let alone fixing the lack of citations.    — The Transhumanist   19:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
    What editors believe has sources "out there somewhere" is a matter of socio-cultural bias. What areas editors believe don't need referencing is a judgment they make based on the ideas and values of their societal background. When content is challenged it is, in part, that bias that is challenged, which may explain some of the backlash it sometimes receives.
    As to what it means to "challenge its verifiability", it's simply a believe that no sources backs the content, a challenged only answerable by supplying referencing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
    Bingo! What is "common knowledge/sky is blue" varies across cultures and languages. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Too right you are. And on the other side what is obvious to someone with knowledge of a subject can be just impenetetrable to someone without. I recently had the unpleasant experience of arguing with someone who said a citation said something and there were a whole lot of cites that copied it, all with zero knowledge of how it works and just one letter so not a reliable source on the original saying it was codswallop. Notable enough to be due so in it goes. Oh well. NadVolum (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the "cultural" argument is especially relevant.
Here's the question we're trying to address:
  • Is it possible for uncited material to be verifiable?
Imagine that you personally happen to know that the uncited statement is accurate (e.g., you personally read about this exact thing in the news this morning). But it is definitely and indisputably uncited in the Wikipedia article. Is that unverifiable, and thus in violation of the policy's requirement that "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable", or is that merely uncited, in which case it is necessary to determine whether it is one of the four types of material required to have an inline citation before you know whether a citation is required (NB: not "a very good idea", which of course it is)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
What you don't think is "relevant" is based on your socio-cultural biases, that's the point. Saying you don't think it's relevant shows it is relevant, not that it's not. Because what you will or will not challenge is based on your preconceived ideas and biases. "How could you not know that? (When everyone I know knows that)", "That's just general knowledge! (In the culture I live in)", etc.
And if someone challenged something I knew to be corrected, I would supply referencing as required by policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, of course: Once someone actually CHALLENGEs the verifiability of the material, then the policy requires that a citation be added. But unless and until someone challenges the material, the policy does not require that a citation be added (assuming it's not a quotation).
What I mean above about it being irrelevant is that I don't think your argument (basically: What's obvious to me isn't obvious to everyone; therefore I think it's best for everything to be pre-emptively sourced even if the policy doesn't require that material to be cited yet) has anything to do with whether verifiable is a synonym for cited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Of course verifiable is not a synonym for cited, so we should resolve that by changing that one word to verified, or "verifiable by citing the source". Then they are synonyms. Problem solved. Like I wrote above, "changing ONE word will resolve this. Just change "attributable" to "attributed"." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Okay, @Valjean, it's time for you to make up your mind. Above, I asked "are you saying that material is not verifiable unless it is already cited?" and you said yes. Here, you say no, material can be verifiable if it's not cited.
Could I please have exactly one answer to this question – just this one, single, isolated question – and ideally an answer that you're planning to stick with for the next month or two? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Where do I say "no, material can be verifiable if it's not cited."? (It's hard to keep up because of the fast pace and edit conflicts.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Me:  "Are you saying that material is not verifiable unless it is already cited?"
You:  "Yes. It is not verifiable "here"." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Valjean, I tried to make that very change 15 years ago. And it did not fly. Over the years, many others have tried. And their efforts died. The reason is, that the policy is in a stalemate between deletionists and inclusionists. The current wording is a form of détente, and has been that way for decades. If you look at the talk page archives, you will see this debate run over and over again ad nauseam. The core of the policy has not budged, regardless of how many times editors like you or me or WhatamIdoing have argued on either side or the other of the debate. It's a perpetual tug-of-war between equally matched teams. If you don't believe me, edit the policy, or create a proposal to change it, and see what happens. (It'll just be another waste of time, like this debate we are in right now). See Blueboar's explanations above for clarification. He hit the nail right on the head.    — The Transhumanist   18:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
You're right that it "is a form of détente", and that's untenable. We should finally resolve it, but this thread is really about something else and we're deeply into policy discussions. This isn't good. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Somehow, we coexist on Wikipedia in relative harmony, which is as close to tenable as we get.      — The Transhumanist   19:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
You keep on sidestepping the central point, but sidestepping not won't make it go away. What is or is not required to be referenced is based on socio-cultural bias. Policy follows what is actually done yes? So that is policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Just looked at that proposal and I strongly disagree with it, but it demonstrates something which has been evolving on WP. I file it under the bureaucracy tendency. One thing I did not see explained either here or in that Village Pump discussion is that Wikipedia is in a constant state of drafting, and never finished. I suppose most articles went through phases where they were badly sourced. If you keep deleting such pages, then we'll never be able to do what we are best known for doing. We would switch over into a temple for tweaking old articles made by people in the good old wild days. If we don't want that then we have to remember the practicalities of our strange way of starting and then building up articles, which was historically often fuelled by the annoyance editors (as opposed to bureaucrats) have at poorly sourced articles. Are all articles supposed to be born in the perfect finished form like Aphrodite?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
The answer to your last question is a resounding "NO"! But that doesn't mean that as an article is being built from a stub it should not be based on cited RS. It should. Each building block should be cited. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
m:Eventualism is my own approach, but it's not everyone's.
My concern about the trend in that area is that it seems to be based on an anti-collaborative style, rather like opposing lawyers in court. Everyone tries to be polite/formal about it, but there's a lot of standing on my inalienable right to not have to do anything except complain about how you didn't do it perfectly.
The story we want to tell is like this:
  • Bob added something to an article, but he didn't add any sources. Alice noticed his mistake and fixed it for him. Wikipedia is improved!
The interactions we get from the ones screaming about how all the burden is on YOU NOT ME!!! is more like the story in Wikipedia:Bring me a rock. In older, more judgemental language, "they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers". We don't want editors to dump dubious text and then say "you source it, if you want a source; I can't be bothered". But we also don't want editors to blank everything that doesn't have an inline citation associated with it, and say "I challenge every uncited statement from here to infinity, including 'The capital of France is Paris' even though WP:NOR directly says the statement "the capital of France is Paris" does not require a source to be cited". We are looking for a happy balance between the two extremes. Perhaps the path there is to specify in BURDEN that this is what's true in a dispute, and not, e.g., when someone mentions the capital of France. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
You seem to be trying to squirm out from under the clear policy statement:
"All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." (bold original)
We are supposed to provide sources in two cases, either before or after a "challenge". We should provide sources when adding content to prevent challenges that we might reasonably foresee. This is where the imperfections of human cultural differences come into play, so we AGF and provide the source if the content is later challenged. We should try to provide sources for new content, even an updating of the score in a soccer game. This is one of the most frequent types of subtle vandalism. Scores and numbers get changed all the time without the editor providing a source. That's not right. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
No, I'm trying to set up the preconditions for an intelligible conversation, namely that when we each use a word, we are using it to mean the same thing. For example, if I encountered "the capital of France is Paris" (sans little blue clicky number) in an article, I would describe that as:
  • verifiable,
  • uncited, and
  • not requiring a citation.
I'm not sure how you would describe that. Maybe verifiable or unverifiable? Uncited, of course. Maybe requiring a citation (because the burden to demonstrate verifiability always lies with anyone except you)? Maybe not, since a core sourcing policy explicitly says that it doesn't? I don't know. But I'd like us to have a shared vocabulary, so that we can understand whether that text already violates existing policy ("must be verifiable") or whether requiring a citation for that statement would require a change to the existing policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
And the fact that you know Paris is the capital of France, and the reason that you think everyone would know that Paris is the capital of France, are products of your socio-cultural background. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
But it's not relevant to the question of which bits of wikijargon we should use to describe that statement. The statement itself could be anything. The question I've asked Valjean is about which words we should use (e.g., in this policy) to describe an uncited statement for which the editor who is talking about the uncited statement is perfectly certain that a suitable reliable source could be trivially produced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
@Valjean: that is just not dealing with the reality of how WP works, as opposed to how you think it should work. WP as we know it would not exist if everyone had to do every edit that way even when starting to or tweaking new, low quality articles. Since the beginning of WP there has been an idealistic idea that it just isn't fair that WP works without being more strict. Various attempts were made to create wikis which were more strict. They did not work. The only way of achieving what you are demanding is by filtering out the best of WP, which is of course also an old idea that has been attempted various times.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Due to the high volume of this discussion, its fast pace, and edit conflicts, I'll just post my view and give this thread a pause:

We are supposed to (according to Jimbo) document the "sum of all human knowledge", and we do that by finding it in RS "out there" and then describing that, with its source(s), "here" in our articles. That's how we build content. All content should be "verifiable in cited" sources "here", not in "citable" sources "out there". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out whether you think "verifiable in citable but uncited sources" is an oxymoron. I understand that you wish it were; I'm trying to figure out whether you believe it already is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, I suspect that's a good question if I can even parse it correctly. Even more worrying is whether I can explain myself well enough that I don't trip over my own awkward attempt to clarify things. Let me make a feeble attempt, and, as usual, you will help me refine my thoughts, for which I am always grateful! I appreciate your clear thinking. That's the blessing of writing. Speech doesn't quite do that. Writings can be tweaked, while speech is gone with the wind.
Let me illustrate. If I have a fatal illness, but you tell me there is a cure, it does me no good if you don't tell me where it's located. That's what an inline citation does. It tells me where the cure is located. When in doubt (if it's "likely to be challenged") you must tell me the location. Our policy tells us that. If content is likely to be challenged, then an inline citation must be included. Is that clear as mud? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Murky as mud. Because what if the editor does not respond well to that type of motivation? They make an edit, and then walk away. You let them know that their work could be removed, but they don't care, and work on 1 or 10 or maybe even 100 other articles that week instead. If you follow them around, deleting everything they write, they'll either report you for stalking or move on to another project or another account. There are millions of people around the world contributing to Wikipedia, and most of them know very little about the policies. My guess is that the vast majority of citing is done by our army of silent but effective (and overworked) wikignomes. If you can figure out how to recruit or train more of those, maybe you could get a handle on the backlog.    — The Transhumanist   07:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
@Valjean, I think what would help is if you could imagine a statement that is currently not required by this policy to have any citations whatsoever. Like, none anywhere on the page. ("Christmas candy is candy associated with Christmas"? "Red is a color"? "The human hand normally has four fingers and a thumb"?) Think of a sentence that could be in an article, and that, if someone dropped a fact tag on it, you'd think "What a troll" instead of "Okay, I can imagine why someone might want a citation for this".
Then tell me: if that sentence is uncited, is that sentence still (currently, without the citation) verifiable? (For clarity: The answer to this question can be a single word, either "yes" or "no".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
In this scenario, the request for the citation is unreasonable, and I suspect the following discussion would result in a consensus to not add a citation. A wikilink would probably suffice for the person who doesn't understand what "candy" or "red" mean.
Otherwise, with a reasonable request, yes, it is unverifiable here (the only thing of relevance to the reader), and that lack of a citation requires the reader to perform their own OR to find it out there. We do not do that. We provide the source inline, right here. We prove to the reader that the editor who wrote that content didn't just write their own opinion or get the idea from their own head. The reader knows the author based the content on an external reliable source. Wikipedia is better than many other sources because we provide the documentation. Our current policy is fine. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
The policy says All material...must be verifiable. It does not say that material must be verifiable unless it's unreasonable to ask for a citation. Do you think that those statements (e.g., "Red is a color"), when uncited, are 100% completely verifiable within the meaning of that policy requirement? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Our policy should be: "All content that is likely to be challenged must be verifiable in an inline cited source, not just in an undefined citable source. That source must be included." (or something like that) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The present policy requires it to be WP:LIKELY, not just conceivably possible ("might be", as in "pigs might fly"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Good catch. I'll fix that above. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
The existing policy wording is "All...material whose verifiability...is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation...". The existing statement says "must", and here you are proposing "should". This is inconsistent with what you have advocated for, so I assume that you would prefer to stick with the existing wording. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Fixed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
My focus above is the key wording: "verifiable in an inline cited source, not just in an undefined citable source." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
To my eyes, that looks like a wordier or more redundant way of putting it, but it doesn't change the meaning. If it's LIKELY, the current policy says it "must" include an inline citation; if it's LIKELY, you propose saying that it must "be verifiable in" an inline citation, and you specify the obvious, which is that an uncited source is not the same thing as an inline citation. These have no content difference, and they are not the source of the disputes.
The source of the disputes is editors reading "likely" and then replacing that with their own views. Imagine the editor who would say something like "Paris is the capital of France? Oh, no, people only know that if they've had more than a couple of years of education, so it is extremely LIKELY to be challenged!" or "That fish might be shorter than your finger, but saying it's 'small' is a 'scientific classification' and all scientific classifications are extremely LIKELY to be challenged!" That editor reads the policy (or doesn't, because Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions) and then makes up non-existent rules, like "WP:V says that every single article must have an inline citation to at least one source". This might be a highly desirable thing for WP:V (or WP:NOT) to say, but the fact is that those words aren't actually in this policy (yet). And we will never get them into this policy unless editors stop twisting the definitions and making up stuff about what's really here.
If editors would stop saying that WP:V already requires inline citations on practically everything, because (ITNSHO) practically everything is LIKELY, and that therefore WP:V certainly requires at least one source per article, then we might be able to get other editors to say things like "What a shocking oversight – Did you know that verifiable only means you could find a source if you really had to, and not that it's verifiable specifically in the source named in the little blue clicky number at the end of the sentence? According to our policy, uncited text could be verifiable even if there's no source in the article and no free-to-read reliable source online for that material! And did you know that, while the policy says that everything must be verifiable/able-to-find-a-source-yourself-with-effort, if there's no MINREF material, we could actually, legally, legitimately have a whole Wikipedia article that isn't required by any policy to cite a single source in it? We should fix this terrible oversight, and require more than just 'verifiable'. We should require a citation to at least one source in every single article".
But we can't get there so long as we have a couple of editors who go around saying things like "WP:V already requires this – why, no, I can't actually find a sentence that plainly says that each article must have at least one inline citation anywhere in the policy, but I can tell you that if (but, sadly, only if) someone needs to cite something, then the person who needs to do that work is not-me, and that's practically the same thing" or "verifiable means the same thing as cited; unverifiable means the same as uncited". If we are ever to get a statement into this policy that says a minimum of one source is required no matter what, then you really need to stop claiming that the policy already says this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
"you really need to stop claiming that the policy already says this". I didn't say that.
We already use (at least) two basic types of inline "citations". We have refs/notes and wikilinks. The first are used for things likely to be challenged, such as quotes and controversial stuff. We try to provide them when we write the content. (Failing that, we just add them later when requested.) We also use wikilinks for the uncontroversial stuff written in wikivoice. They obviate requests a lot of the time. Without them, we'd be getting lots of challenges over trivial "sky is blue" stuff and single words from people with other cultural and language backgrounds.
Do we ever mention "wikilinks as a form of inline citation" in this policy? Maybe we should. When we get a seemingly unreasonable request from someone who lacks basic English language skills or a rudimentary knowledge of English or American history, our first solution should just be to wikilink it. Maybe that will resolve the problem, and after all, isn't that what this is all about? We just want to inform people and make it easy for them to verify stuff. For controversial stuff, we provide outside sources. For trivial stuff, we provide wikilinks to whole articles where sources are provided as inline citations.
For your theoretical "article with no inline citations", I imagine it would still include wikilinks. We should make that a rule. "An article must contain essential wikilinks, especially if there is no obvious need for other inline citations." For trivial stuff, wikilinks obviate the need for other inline citations. Maybe that should be added as a fifth item to WP:MINREF. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
A wikilink is not an inline citation, and a Wikipedia article is never a reliable source per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it.
In practice, they are useful as a source of information if an editor is wondering whether it would be reasonable to CHALLENGE something (e.g., in a List of Michelin 3-star restaurants: If you click through to the linked article and see that the article begins with 'Ooh La La is a French restaurant best known for winning three stars in the annual Michelin Guide', then only trolls, idiots, and lazy people would seriously wonder whether that item belongs in the list), but they are expressly disclaimed for the purpose of complying with this policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I think we agree. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The core of wp:ver says that sourcing is required if challenged or likely to be challenged. "Likely to be challenged" is non-explicit guidance but it's easy to resolve that by merely challenging it. (I've advocated that saying that a challenge should include a good faith expression of concern about the verifiability of the material but so far we don't have that, and IMO the current policy in this area is perfect for Wikipedia other than that)  :-) ) Based on this, the premise of the assertion that the OP brought to light is based on misreading wp:ver. That said, what more can be said? North8000 (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

When experienced editors misread a policy – when, for example, someone says that the four-item table in WP:MINREF is omitting or downplaying policy requirements, but does not notice that it is extremely similar to (but written more forcefully than) the four-item bullet list in WP:BURDEN – then it may be appropriate to re-write the policy to be clearer. Sometimes, of course, clarity isn't desired, especially by people who dislike the current policy requirements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

To the extent that any of the above "we should rewrite the policy" ideas by Valjean et al. could have any effect that amounts to making it no longer valid to cite hard-to-get-at but extant and otherwise reliable sources, I'm absolutely opposed to such a change. I've gone out of my way to obtain (sometimes at considerable expense) various out-of-print (but not out-of-copyright and thus not on Internet Archive, etc.) and otherwise scarce books by subject-matter experts in various topics, and they are perfectly valid as sources (often among the best sources when it comes to quality of information), but not easy for some random reader to get via the Internet without spending considerable money (probably not even through inter-library loan in the US; copies in US libraries, if any, would probably be non-circulating). And the vast majority of the scientific and other academic material we cite is paywalled. The fact that it takes at least an undergrad at a univerisity with institutional access to verify that content is not a WP:V problem, and can't become one. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, by slogan, and the encyclopedia anyone can verifify something in if they have the time and the means, by policy. It is not the encyclopedia anyone can verify every fact in with no legwork or investment, and it would fall apart rapidly if it became that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish, there is no need to worry about this. Valjean is hoping to make people add more sources, not worse ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm an inclusionist, and especially favor the inclusion of sources as inline citations more than is currently the case. We can't expect newbies to understand all this stuff, but they cannot learn it if it's not specified more clearly in our PAG. As noted above by The Transhumanist, "The reason is, that the policy is in a stalemate between deletionists and inclusionists. The current wording is a form of détente, and has been that way for decades." I believe this is an untenable situation. Our PAG should avoid ambiguity. We should finally resolve this. IIRC, there are only two words that would need to be changed to fix this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2023

Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
119.13.62.5 (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Saypov 119.13.62.5 (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You CAN prove a negative

Latest comment: 5 months ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Both of these tasks are equally practical:

  • Verifying that source X does say statement Y.
  • Verifying that source X does not say statement Z.

Consider a citation of X, which simply lists the name of the work; in order to find statement Y in work X, the reader would potentially have to read through the entire work. Similarly, the reader could read through the entire work to verify that it does not say statement Z; it is just as neutral, factual, and verifiable to say each of these statements:

  • (positive) X says Y.
  • (negative) X does not say Z.

Of course, the negative statement is frequently not useful; there are an infinite number of things that X does not say. However, sometimes, it is useful to point out a negative statement, particularly as it relates to a positive statement. For instance, consider this text:

In 2022, Fields Medalist David Cohen–Steinberg published a paper that said "Goldbach's conjecture is herein proven to be false without a shadow of a doubt."[11] However, his paper neither provides a proof nor cites one.

[…]

11. ^a b c Cohen–Steinberg, David. "Fool's Goldbach". MIT Department of Mathematics. November 21, 2022. Retrieved November 23, 2022.

Here, we have 2 statements:

  • (positive) Reference [11] says "Goldbach's conjecture is herein proven to be false without a shadow of a doubt."
  • (negative) Reference [11] does not contain a proof or even cite one.

It would be worthwhile to make an explicit policy regarding such negative statements; specifically, it should be permissible to say that work X does not say Z, especially when Z relates to some other statement Y that is positively cited as being in X. Um… I think I said that right… 24.118.62.152 (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Why? Why not just remove the other statement Y that is incorrectly representing the contents of X, or find a third source A, which actually does support statement Y? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Y is not incorrectly representing the contents of X.
  • Finding a third source to say something (at all) is precisely what is not necessary. This is what needs to be made clear to editors; the one source is good enough.
  • I will add that I do not think your reply is particularly responsive to the issue raised; it seems to miss the point, which I say not to call you out, but rather to indicate to readers of this thread that I do not think we are actually talking about the same thing here.
24.118.62.152 (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
We are not restricted to using only one reliable source for a statement. In fact, we should search for multiple reliable sources for any given content to be sure that we are representing in Wikipeida the consensus view of experts on the field. If multiple reliable sources agree on a fact/position/interpretation, then we only need to cite one of the sources. If one source contradicts multiple other reliable sources, then the policy at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight applies, and the editors contributing to the article can reach a consensus to exclude the fringe source (we should always exclude non-reliable sources). If there are multiple reliable sources supporting each of two or more different facts/positions/interpretations of something, then the policy at NPOV:Due and undue weight again applies, and the article can reflect the different positions/interpretations roughly proportional to the number and quality of reliable sources supporting each fact/position/interpretation. I have dealt with cases when a fact/position/interpretation is found in only one reliable source, but I think the said fact/position/interpretation is not compatible with related facts/positions/interpretations in other reliable sources. I cannot let my doubts about the fact/position/interpretation in question affect how it is presented in Wikipedia, as that would not be sticking to the source. - Donald Albury 16:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
What you say would fit better in the previous discussion about EXTRAORDINARY. It sounds like you would not admit any change in reliable source requirements even if you think something is extraordinary. NadVolum (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Personally I'm all for this, I don't know of any policy which covers it, WP:CALC seems to me to be the closest. Wikipedia does need better protection from untrue statements. The immediately preceding discussion #EXCEPTIONAL tweak to close wikilawyering loophole covers another aspect of this problem. Basically people are not all that interested in writing citable errata or don't have the qualifications to do so - at most we get some random response in a comments section of an article saying it is wrong or rubbish or stupid but we can't cite that. NadVolum (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Why? The IP apparently wants to write sentences like "Reference [11] does not contain a proof or even cite one." To which I have to ask: Who cares about Reference [11]?
Imagine that someone has used a completely invalid source for an otherwise true statement, like:
The IP wants editors to read the cited source, discover that it {{failed verification}}, and then add a second sentence that says something like:
  • The Bible does not contain any information about the Oscars.
This would not be a valuable contribution. A valuable contribution would look like removing the incorrect in-text attribution to the Bible and adding a citation to a reliable source that actually contains the relevant information, e.g., https://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/2023. There's no encyclopedic purpose at all in saying that the Bible doesn't talk about the Oscars, or that any incorrectly cited source doesn't say whatever it's claimed to say.
Additionally, if we move in that direction, we'll end up with POV pushing: This medical journal article claims to prove that HIV causes AIDS, but I don't think it's sufficient proof, so I'll just write "Reference [11] does not contain proof that HIV causes AIDS or cite a source that proves HIV causes AIDS." Just before posting this, the IP was edit warring over cannabis products to say that the FDA didn't cite studies proving (to the IP's satisfaction) that the product had side effects. The FAQ at the top of this page says that reliable sources don't have to cite their own sources, but the IP's goal is to be able to discredit reliable sources if they don't cite sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
You missed out an indirection in the question. It is more like 'Famous person' says 'source' proves 'something'[1] - and [1] is reliable. But 'source' doesn't say aything much about 'something'. For instance Lady Tartagua says the Bible has a list of Oscar winners[1], but no Oscar winner appears in the Bible. The rule followers will say that searching the Bible is OR and lots of editors are quite happy to have daft things in no matter how stupid provided they are attributed like this is to Lady Tartagua. EXTRAORDINARY in the discussion before this is more like 'reliable source' says 'somethng', and the 'something' sounds very unlikely. NadVolum (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
As to what the IP said in the article - any decision here would not support the edits they made. The FDA itself said the statement in its own voice - and that sort of thing if it is to be countered without sources would come under EXTRAORDINARY in the previous discussion. Or for a medical article WP:MEDRS.NadVolum (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  • If source X claims that source Y includes a proof of Z… and source Y does not, in fact, include a proof of Z… then we must at least question the reliability of source X. Blueboar (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I follow your reasoning. If a statement X (e.g., Goldbach's conjecture is proven in this paper) is challenged by an editor, then the best course of action would be to find another source which says that X is not true (e.g., "Goldbach's conjecture is not proven in that paper" OR "Goldback conjecture is not proven").
Of course, it will not always be possible to find such a source. Failing that, the editor should establish consensus that the source does not support the claim and remove it from the article. Alaexis¿question? 21:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
What the IP apparently wants to do is add "However, the FDA does not cite any studies to back up these claims" after the statement that "In 2022, the FDA stated that 'scientific studies show possible harm to the male reproductive system...'[FDA source]".
To use the sentence @NadVolum wrote above, instead of 'Famous person' says 'source' proves 'something', it's an attempt to discredit 'US FDA' says 'scientific studies' prove 'something' – and the IP doesn't want people to believe that 'something' might actually be scientifically proven. So instead of finding MEDRS-compliant medical review articles like "The effects of cannabidiol on male reproductive system: A literature review" or "The endocannabinoid system, cannabis, and cannabidiol: Implications in urology and men's health" or "Review of the oral toxicity of cannabidiol (CBD)" (and, from a brief review, 100% of other medical journal articles addressing this particular subject), the IP wants instead to say "Well, the exact cited source didn't cite sources that convince me, so let me scatter some disbelief over this widely acknowledged fact." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
So in this case there is no consensus that a source does not support this claim, therefore the source should stay and no statements should be appended to it. Alaexis¿question? 22:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

EXCEPTIONAL tweak to close wikilawyering loophole

Latest comment: 4 months ago50 comments12 people in discussion

WP:EXCEPTIONAL presently says: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.

This is a system-gaming/wikilawyering loophole because "two" matches the definition of "multiple". I believe this should be changed to "numerous", "many", "a majority of", or some other formulation that actually gets at what we mean here. Some disputation about wikilawyering related to this has come up at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film, and involved a guideline change from Describing a film with superlatives such as "critically acclaimed" or "box-office bomb" is loaded language and an exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources. to use many; instead of multiple. It was reverted on the grounds that the wording has to match WP:EXCEPTIONAL, so here we are.

The issue is that if anyone can find a bare two sources that say the PoV that editor wants to push (even if the majority of sources disagree), the mulitple wording gives them all the wikilawyering leverage they need to do it (and seems to be backed up by guidelines parroting the same wording). This is clearly not the intent of WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and is inimical to properly encyclopedic writing. This is just one of those WP:Policy writing is hard matters, and needs some wordsmithing. But I'm not absolutely certain what wording would be best here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps "a proportional number of"? If the topic has thousands of sources, but only dozens support this exceptional claim, it's probably not appropriate to include - but if there are only ten sources on a topic, then two would warrant including the claim. BilledMammal (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Not sure of the wording but it's something we need to change. Doug Weller talk 09:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
In the bulleted list of red flags, this concern is already covered: "Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community...". I think it is generally understood that multiple high-quality sources (more than one) is needed for an exceptional claim, but exceptional claims must still adhere to WP:DUE for inclusion and prevalence.
In this specific case at MOS:FILM, the concern was raised that editors would find what they believe to be significant coverage on a loaded language claim like "critically acclaimed", but since the claim was exceptional and typically gets flagged by MOS:WTW, you really needed more than just a passing mention in multiple reviews. High-quality sources help solidify the case for inclusion when challenged. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
  • As with everything, policies and guidelines must be approached with a degree of common sense. The problem I have with this proposal, is that it changes the emphasis from requiring that exceptional claims are well corroborated to requiring that there is widespread reporting of an exceptional claim. I think this would be a mistake, given the fact that an exceptional claim—by its nature—may not be widely reported. I do not believe we should impose that requirement either, but it is important that an exceptional claim is corroborated by high-quality sourcing. You are correct that a literal interpretation of the policy may mean that an exceptional claim may satisfy the requirement if just two sources report it. Indeed, given how "exceptional" or provocative the claim is, whether it relates to a living person or not, and whether it is libelous or not, two sources may be sufficient. Editors may take the view that given the degree of exceptionalism then three or four sources should be the bar. Of course, there is a direct relationship between the quality of the sources, and the number that editors consider sufficient, but that should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
I think the proposal is unnecessarily replicating WP:DUE where the weight of opinion should be taken into consideration (e.g. film criticism, climate change etc) and imposes a "weighting" condition in cases where it is arguably not appropriate. WP:DUE takes care of the number or proportion of sources required when that is a consideration, but WP:EXCEPTIONAL should concern itself with how well corroborated a claim is.
Betty Logan (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree that we should remain flexible on this. A lot depends on HOW exceptional the claim is, given the topic in question. The more exceptional it is, the more we need to support it by citing sources. The number of sources can be determined on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Betty and Blueboar. The quality of the sources makes a huge difference in how many are needed, so this is a case-by-case matter. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
A problem I came across wasthat the original source was quoted in multiple other reliable sources and they kept saying therefore that there were multiple reliable sources. None of them would have checked it since they were just doing things like reviewing the book and quoted the author. Unfortunately that was no other source which described anything like what was described or any effect that one might expect from it but inferring anything from that is classed as OR. I tried to get third opinion from a Wikiproject that one might expect to have some expertise but nobody there contributed anything. NadVolum (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I would take the republication/repetition of the idea in the original source by multiple other RS as a meaningful confirmation and approval of their thinking, enough that citing a few of them would be good enough. (News aggregators do not count.) A great idea starts somewhere, and when other great thinkers start repeating it, the weight of their approval means something. We'd then cite the original source and also cite some of those who approvingly repeat their idea, often along with some of their added commentary as they will usually do more than just repeat it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
And there you have the problem. A person goes and writes something he almost certainly got the wrong end of in a book. The book reviews go and quote it and the newspapers too. All with absolutely no evidence. And those quotes attributed to him are then taken as extra reliable confirmatory sources overriding exceptional and we go quoting it too attributing it as well - but by your reasoning we've checked it as well and found what the author said is probably right. NadVolum (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I think this goes to the heart of the point I was trying to make. Putting aside considerations such as WP:FRINGE or issues where there are counter-claims for the moment, when a claim is duplicated by high quality sources ordinarily WP:DUE would tip the scales in favor of inclusion. However, with exceptional claims, I think we should be seeking a certain level of independent corroboration. It is very difficult to address this through hypotheticals, but to take this story as an example, it was quite widely repeated but there was no independent corroboration of the central claims. Betty Logan (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I think part of the problem here is that we're talking about a story ("A funny thing happened on my way to work today..."), rather than a universal fact ("Wonderpam reduces the risk of heart attack, stroke, and hemorrhoids").
In the first instance, sources will repeat stories that they find entertaining or illustrative of someone's character. The point isn't really whether it happened, so they're not trying to assemble evidence that would prove that it happened. They're trying to give an impression, so they're telling stories that illustrate the broader outlines (e.g., "Here's a modern-day Robin Hood, who commits crimes to thwart the powerful and help the oppressed"). Independent confirmation is usually unrealistic and may be presented that way (e.g., "When I was alone in the hospital room with him just before he died, he said..."), and I think the solution for such instances is to follow their lead: "He claimed that Assange confessed to committing computer crimes in Canada" rather than "Wow, what a super-nice dude who's been proven in multiple sources to have help out those oppressed brown people!"
In the second instance, independent confirmation is usually realistic and desirable. Cold fusion that only works in one lab isn't proven, drugs are going to be evaluated by government agencies, etc. One drug company's story being repeated in a dozen news publications is not sufficient evidence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Well we know Assamge was convicted for that twenty years previously. And it makes a good story so is repeated. But should we be repeating stuff like that without the slightest other evidence of at least somebody having done any hacking of anything vaguely relevant to Egypt's telecoms at the time? After all he is facing stiff charges from america for hacking. I'm sure some of both the robbed and the poor given money by Robin Hood would say something. I don't want to go into that business - I think it would require technical assistance - but stories about people can have consequences. Do we just say we don't care, attribute it and we're done? NadVolum (talk) 11:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I think this may be based on a false premise. Regarding "the fact that an exceptional claim—by its nature—may not be widely reported", one might argue that the opposite is the case, where reasonable claims are not widely reported (because they are banal, because they are obvious, because so many different, boring, sources assert them, for whatever reason) while exceptional claims may be very widely reported. See "Jewish space lasers" for example. The focus, rather, should be on independent sources, as raised in several comments below. Mathglot (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Hence the "may". An exceptional claim may or may not be widely reported. A reasonable claim may or may be widely reported. I was arguing against the suggestion that exceptional claims should be supported by many sources, on the basis that an exceptional claim may be strongly corroborated but not widely reported. Am I not partly making the case that the emphasis should be on independent sources, rather than the quantity of sources, by arguing that WP:EXCEPTIONAL should concern itself with corroboration? Sorry if I am misunderstanding your point, but you appear to be suggesting that I am arguing the opposite of what I am. Betty Logan (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
That is clear, but I'm not sure how to square this idea with the principle that we give due (if any) weight based on prevalence in reliable sources. If some claim that is exceptional is barely reported and most sources say something different, then we might not include it at all, even if various editors are convinced it is correct. We'd wait until the preponderance of current source material told us that the real-world consensus (in whatever the applicable field is) has become that it is correct.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Things like WP:DUE, WP:AGEMATTERS and possibly WP:FRINGE would presumably play a role in those case. The scenario you describe commonly arises for ordinary claims all the time. The purpose of this policy is (at least as I interpret it) to establish a threshold/precondition for exceptional claims. Betty Logan (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
  • No, I don't think this is workable. There are people who start to complain if you put more than three sources on a statement, even. And changing it to "multiple" opens the door to wikilawyering in the other direction - declaring that a statement is EXCEPTIONAL is already, to some degree, a value judgment, so if we were ambiguous about how many sources are required then someone could declare any statement they personally find objectionable to be exceptional, and continuously refuse to accept any number of sources as sufficient for it. This can even be done in good faith! If someone genuinely believes that something is simply wrong regardless of what the sources say, they're going to find it exceptional and no reasonable number of sources is ever really going to WP:SATISFY them. In terms of how we want disputes of that nature to go - I think that once multiple high-quality independent sources have been presented, we want people to move on to examining and evaluating those sources, checking to see if there are other sources that dispute them, arguing over WP:DUE and so on. What we don't want is someone repeatedly citing EXCEPTIONAL alone as a reason for removal with no further engagement, which is something that I'd fear could be invited if the sourcing requirement is raised; I don't think it's good for the wiki or for dispute-resolution to have policies that people can beat repeatedly like a drum - outside of trivial disputes, both sides need to engage, which means that once there's multiple sources you have to examine them or start doing the serious legwork of digging up sources of your own, you can't just keep asking for more and more and more forever. However, we could perhaps add a word and have it say multiple high-quality independent sources - citing two sources that aren't independent of each other isn't really better than citing one (and citing a source that isn't independent from the organizations or people being discussed isn't any good at all.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
    Extraordinary statements will normally be due if they're true! And unfortunately if something is not true you can have zero sources that say anything to deny it no matter how silly it is. NadVolum (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
    That's completely extraneous, Aquillion. This has nothing to do with how many citations are put into the article at the same spot, or at all. It's only to do with what proportion of the available reliable sources, that editors examine in determining WP:WEIGHT, actually support the claim when someone cries "I found two sources, thus multiple sources, saying this, so I can make Wikipedia say it".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Has anyone ever been able to use the exceptional clause in circumstances other than WP:FRINGE when a reliable source says something silly but a contributor argues it should be included? NadVolum (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
    I think this comes up mostly when it comes to terms covered by WP:WTW, but I can also see it happening when various generally reliable sources have not aged well on certain points, and are contradicted by newer and presently-better-accepted research (think topics like Race (human categorization), where there is a never-ending stream of randos trying to make our articles say things that are considered scientifically obsolete ideas).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
    I wonder whether the WP:ECREE section was written for the Cold fusion disputes. @Blueboar, do you happen to remember? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The common sense answer would be the more exceptional and questioned the claim is, the stronger the sourcing must be. (and vice versa) And implicitly, the strength of the the sourcing can arise from various factors, with quantity of sources being (only) one of them. If we could come up with something which incorporates some of those principles, IMO that would be good. North8000 (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

We could just stick that in. It is quite succinct in cutting through to the heart of the issue. Betty Logan (talk) 03:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I'd like it to say independent sources. But I'm not sure we can agree what an independent source is if people think having a second reliable source quoting the same source is confirmation that it is true. NadVolum (talk) 11:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I think that independence of the source is one of many factors that that go into gauging the strength of the sourcing. Others might include the expertise, knowledge and objectivity of the source with respect to the item which cited it and the extent that the source has been established to have those qualities. But I that is too much and too universal to try to put into this change. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Jytdog used to pound on the idea of intellectual independence. I've seen this abused (e.g., if the company is famous for its financial situation, then it's not notable, because all financial information ultimately traces back to the company/someone affiliated with the company, and that's 'not independent' – see also churches known for their attendance, list of largest employers, etc.), and I'm not sure that it's a good idea in the first place (because taking information from other sources is an important form of endorsing and elevating what's most important – it's impossible to do a systematic review or a meta-analysis that is, in this strict sense, fully 'intellectually independent' of the sources you're citing), but that would be the language people have used to describe this idea. Again, I have my doubts about the utility, practicality, and desirability of this concept; I only mention it for the name that's been given to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Are people saying company reports, church attendance figures, or largest employers would be cases of dispute under EXCEPTIONAL? They don't sound like the things mentioned there. NadVolum (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that these are commonly taken to be extraordinary claims, though given that editors are people living in their own little filter bubbles, we do get the occasional odd remark. People who don't attend church and don't know many people are occasionally surprised to discover that a sizeable minority of Americans do, for example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Sure, and I like where this is going. I'm often not too particular in exactly how a loophole gets patched, as long as it does (without creating new ones in the process). But a simple sentence along these lines, which is consonant with other policies and guidelines, seems to be a good way to go.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure that we really have a loophole. GNG says "multiple", but that's doesn't mean "exactly two gives you the right to demand inclusion". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, except I see that argument all the time at AfD. Something has one cite that seems to qualify as non-trivial coverage, but it's not enough by itself. Someone adds another, then !votes keep because "multiple" has been satisfied. If we mean to say "lots" in one wording or another, then we need to find some way to say it instead of the ambiguous/gameable "multiple" – especially when it comes to the WP:V matter, where the credibility stakes are much higher than whether we do or don't have an article on some random band or actor or squash player.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Except that we don't need "lots" of high-quality sources. Chances are that if two high-quality sources have come to the same determination on a particular claim, then there will be a significant number of lower-quality sources parroting this claim as well. Are there a lot of real-world situations where that's not the case? Would it just be easier to inject a reminder that EXCEPTIONAL claims must still adhere to DUE? GoneIn60 (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
If we don't have sources opposing it is very easy for something exceptional to be due. It is quite easy for mistakes to arise. I've noticed lots in newspapers nearly always it isn't worth bothering about. Even in maths you can have mistakes, I've just noticed in the article on Abraham de Moivre in the section on De Moivre's formula it says Euler proved the formula for any real n. Which is wrong as described in De Moivre's formula#Failure for non-integer powers, and generalization and the talk page is filled with arguments about this as it is a high school formula and the mistake was in a widely used textbook. And of course there aren't textbooks saying it is wrong! NadVolum (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Sure, people sometimes advocate for that at AFD (but only when I think it should be kept, and never when I think the subject should be excluded). That doesn't mean that their argument is accepted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

On these tricky areas where Wikipedia "usually works", I've always thought that if you put the actual "common sense" process that occurs for "usually works" into words that you have a good plan. Nearly always this involve multiple people weighing multiple variables and deciding. (Wikipedia:How editing decisions are made) While individual policies and guidelines usually have "binary flow chart / combinational logic" provisions that are counter to this they also includes softer language which allows the Wikipedia to work at the larger scale level. My post here was just suggesting using this concept for this particular question. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Common sense bah! There's editors around who investigate every last thing about the topic and are determined to stick everything in. If a reliable source writes up something it has to go in even if they are totally naive and ignorant about what they say. If an expert makes a mistake it has to go in because nobody has written anything saying they made a mistake. Maybe we are all missing some common sense but it seems to fly out the window on Wikipedia when confronted by a reliable source and EXCEPTIONAL does not currently seem to be any defence except in the FRINGE project which I think sometimes acts like a flash mob of canvassed like minded editors. We need something better in policy rather than something so desperate. NadVolum (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Remember that “Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion”. Per WP:VNOT, Consensus can determine that some bit of information should be omitted, even when that bit of information is not considered extraordinary.
So, when some Wikilawyer argues “I have multiple sources for this - it must be included” they are simply wrong… while having lots of sources makes it more likely that there will be a consensus for inclusion, there is no special threshold of sources that mandates inclusion. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Do you think I'd eb bothering here if EXCEPTIONAL was redundant like you seem to be saying? It is not redundant. An extraordinary thing is quite liable to be interesting and worthy of inclusion in an article if it is actually true. The problem is that they very often are not and we need a better definition of what is exceptional and requires some better verification than the same original source being duplicated. Even just attributing something can be too much - often these extra cites are just extra attributions rather than sources saying it in their own voice and there's no reason for us to give extra weight by doing that as well. NadVolum (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
This behavior is one that makes me think we need a policy called Wikipedia:Write an encyclopedia article. "I have multiple sources" – "So? Including that would be a violation of the 'Write an encyclopedia article' policy". If we could have conversations instead of throwing WP:UPPERCASE at each other, it wouldn't ever be necessary or useful, but... WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Sounds like a good essay at the least.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish, I'm thinking that this idea might be usefully added to WP:BALASP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
What sort of wording? What I've been angling for (subsection below) is a simple tweak to the "Any exception claim" wording to require independent and reliable sources not just "multiple sources", but I'm open to other ways to approach the issue, even if I think the blow is easy and sensible (for one thing, it's not a change to policy but a reflection of extant policy, just wording in a way that make it clear there is no loophole to exploit).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Specific revision idea

From the above discussion, I distilled this:

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality, independent, reliable sources. The more exceptional the claim, the stronger the sourcing must be.

What do we think about this? It's not a huge change from Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources, and I don't think it's actually a substantive change (it's just drawing on extant policy), but would have a strong clarifying effect, and make the "multiple" issue I opened with effectively moot. I think this is more important to say than several other things already in the section, like the mention of conspiracy theories, and of statements that seem out of character.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The 'independent' is what's really good there, where hopefully independent means the original sources are independent like two reporters at an event rather than two independent newspapers reporting the same reporter at the event! A lot of editors have been arguing that since two different newspapers report the same original source that's good enough. NadVolum (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
What if the 'exceptional' claim is that Donald Trump tweeted something shocking (again)? Sometimes the non-independent source is authoritative. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not certain what your point is. If it is tweeted it is easy to check. And shocking (again) isn't exceptional. How about if according to a reporter Trump said he realized he was unfit for office and that was printed as fact in the Washinton Post the Hill and the New York Times? Should we put it down as fact? NadVolum (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
"Easy to check" has nothing to do with Wikipedia:Independent sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Trump saying something shocking "(again)" is by definition not an exceptional claim, but a very normal one. Is there some example of an actually exceptional claim for which we would not require independent sources?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

"Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" section name

Latest comment: 4 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Someone changed this (better known as WP:ABOUTSELF) to say or instead of the original and. As these rules, laying out an exception case, address self-published material only and not other kinds of questionable sources, this change is a pretty bad or versus and meaning confusion. "Questionable sources" are covered in a section above this material and are a differently defined category from "self-published sources" (best viewed as a subset of the former). So, at bare minimum, this section heading should be fixed back to and wording. It would be a little better to change it to "Self-published, questionable sources as sources on themselves", so we make clear that "self-published" is being treated as a subset of questionable, and that we do not mean "sources that are both self-published and which also qualify as questionable for other reasons" (much less "or" in that kind of construction!).

However, the entire heading is actually rather repetitive and also very unclear, as it implies (through using "themselves" with a referent of "sources") something like "A self-published source, like a book or film, used self-referentially as a source for that work itself". While that is included within the scope, the rule is really more focused on biographical and organizational subjects and us using sources self-published by them.

So, something much clearer could be used, like: Self-published sources for claims about themselves or their authors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 18:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Self-published sources for claims about the self-published sources or their authors? (It might help to give examples.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
See entire thread below, really. And why would we need examples? The HTML Living Standard [14] (WHATWG's HTML5 spec) is a reliable enough source for the claim that the HTML Living Standard (as of this access date) says "This is the Living Standard. Those interested in the patent-review version should view the Living Standard Review Draft." It is also a reliable enough source for the uncontroverial about-organizational-author basic self-claim that WHATWG is a consortium consisting of Apple, Google, Mozilla, and Microsoft. Why would we need examples here when two policy pages and one guideline with essentially the same rule have never needed examples? The only issues raised in this thread are about the clarity and accuracy of the heading, which presently indicates, with "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves", that this section is about a source that either is self-published or is questionable in some other way being used as a source about itself (only, not about its author). This is not what the policy says at all, which is that a self-published source (it does not address any other kind of questionable sources in this section, by design) can be used as a source for uncontroversial self-claims by the author and can also be used for basic claims about the content of the work itself. (However, grammatical inclarity in the opening sentence of this section also makes this dual applicability unclear and sometimes subject to wikilawyering; this is covered in the thread below.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm thinking about examples because Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source says the word source has four related meanings (each of which is given in an individual and a generic sense), and it might not be clear which is relevant here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Any confusion about that would be resolved by the syntactic revision discussed below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_79&oldid=1206190411"