This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bob K31416 (talk | contribs) at 20:55, 1 September 2012 (→Bob K31416 question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:55, 1 September 2012 by Bob K31416 (talk | contribs) (→Bob K31416 question)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Verifiability page. |
|
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about "verifiability" as a concept. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about "verifiability" as a concept at the Reference desk. |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
Questions
|
 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
 | See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages. |
| The Verifiability page is frequently reverted in good faith. Don't be offended if your edit is reverted: try it out on the Workshop page, then offer it for consensus here, before editing the actual project page. |
| There has been a great deal of discussion about the lead section of the verifiability policy over the years. If you want to discuss changing its wording, please first read the 2012 request for comments and the previous discussion about the first sentence. Thank you for your cooperation. |
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83 |
|
Archives by topic First sentence (Nov 2010–March 2011 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Question about photo captions
I see the policy statement: "All the material in Misplaced Pages mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." Question: for photo captions, to what extent do they need a reliable secondary source as opposed to, say, just some level of agreement of the caption with whatever the photographer happens to claim on the Wikimedia file upload page for that photo? N2e (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- If you look at the first two sentences of the second paragraph of the lead (the first of which you just quoted), you will see that verifiability does explicitly apply to captions, but the requirement for an inline citation is a function of the degree to which the caption might be subject to dispute. Verifiability, taken in isolation, does not really say anything about what constitutes a reliable source, only requiring that sourcing exists, and leaving the quality of that sourcing to other policy pages such as RS. So what a Misplaced Pages editor said in uploading an image is WP:OR and not a reliable source when contradicted or called into question by other sources. If the caption information is common sense reasonable and nobody editing the page has any concerns about it, then it's no big deal. But if an editor questions the accuracy of the caption, then they have every right to apply a "citation needed" tag, and the upload information does not automatically constitute an adequate citation. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- That was a very helpful answer Tryptofish. Thanks!
- Of course it does leave millions of photo claims, I suppose mostly WP:OR by definition, unsourced in Misplaced Pages UNLESS some editor happens to want to expend the research time/energy to confirm it, and/or challenge it. My guess, although I have no data on it at all, is that there are likely some small percentage of those photos that are, unfortunately, uploaded by vandals or trolls that then bring down the quality of the encyclopedia we are endeavoring to build. It is fairly easy for them to do it, and if the photo looks "plausible" for the uploader's claim about that photo, I suppose a fabrication can go for a very long time. I don't have any answer for this asymmetry. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- As I recall there is leniency for a straightforward statement of what the contents of the photo is. E.G. "photo of the US capitol building circa 1959." But that does not apply for when more material is put into the caption. North8000 (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is a potential problem (I have a few hypotheticals in mind but won't go into them per WP:BEANS) but basically any image that requires some specialized knowledge to tell whether it is, in fact, what it purports to be (which is really very many of them) is subject to the risk of abuse, misuse, or mistake. On the other hand, because of the nature of most images, the info is, at least theoretically, verifiable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, here's an enigma which is probably why a little slack gets cut. An image where the description truly meets wp:ver is typically not going to get into Misplaced Pages. If it's in a published source the owner isn't involved and probably isn't going to give away all rights to it as Misplaced Pages requires. North8000 (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Bit odd this. In many cases a caption is a description of what and where, both of which are readily verifiable by comparison with other published photos or images. Generally we can assume good faith of the photographer or scanner, but it isn't too hard to verify or indeed question if there's some error. Where the caption goes beyond the obvious, a source should be cited: sometimes that's covered in the article text, or sometimes by an inline link in the caption text. . . dave souza, talk 21:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, here's an enigma which is probably why a little slack gets cut. An image where the description truly meets wp:ver is typically not going to get into Misplaced Pages. If it's in a published source the owner isn't involved and probably isn't going to give away all rights to it as Misplaced Pages requires. North8000 (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is a potential problem (I have a few hypotheticals in mind but won't go into them per WP:BEANS) but basically any image that requires some specialized knowledge to tell whether it is, in fact, what it purports to be (which is really very many of them) is subject to the risk of abuse, misuse, or mistake. On the other hand, because of the nature of most images, the info is, at least theoretically, verifiable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- See WP:PERTINENCE. Images aren't required to be something; they are required to look like something. So the case of something that may or may not be what it purports to be is unimportant, since what matters is whether it looks like what it purports to be. If it doesn't look like ____, then it shouldn't be used to illustrate ____, even if you have a gold-plated reliable source insisting that it really is ____. And conversely, if it looks like ____, even though it isn't, then it's okay to use it to show what ____ looks like.
- Captions should generally not be introducing new material into the article. A typical caption is going to say something like "Look! Here is a picture of ____", not "This picture proves that ____ is a foo that bazzes when bat bars." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Not quite (or only partially correct). If the caption says, "15th century manuscript by Bob, entitled Scholastics Today." It really better be that exact thing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes of course. But the question is, what is the wp:verifiability requirement for that caption? Most image captions could not meet wp:ver. North8000 (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hasn't the discussion here, concluded in "most" cases, they do meet wp:ver? We probably have a sources problem (relying, as we do on the GF of the uploader), but presumably anyone familiar with (or in possession of) Bob's 15th century manuscript, could verify the caption (depending on the quality of the image). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Mostly agree, just clarifying. Except that we're sort of saying that wp:ver doesn't apply to one very narrow aspect, (that a basic image description matches the image) rather than saying it complies fully with wp:ver. For example, if a wp editor took a picture of the 2012 Mardis Gras and wrote the caption "2012 Mardis Gras", there is no way that they could produce a wp:rs that says that their picture is of the 2012 Mardis Gras. That does not mean that it would be removed on wp:ver grounds. If the caption said "John Smith partying with his mistress at the 2102 Mardis Gras" then the rest of the statement would require a wp:rs. North8000 (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hasn't the discussion here, concluded in "most" cases, they do meet wp:ver? We probably have a sources problem (relying, as we do on the GF of the uploader), but presumably anyone familiar with (or in possession of) Bob's 15th century manuscript, could verify the caption (depending on the quality of the image). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes of course. But the question is, what is the wp:verifiability requirement for that caption? Most image captions could not meet wp:ver. North8000 (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Not quite (or only partially correct). If the caption says, "15th century manuscript by Bob, entitled Scholastics Today." It really better be that exact thing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, Alan, that's not what PERTINENCE says. We hashed this out a couple of years ago, and we have a pretty strong consensus behind it. If the image looks like a cupcake, then it's okay to use it to illustrate Cupcake, even to the extent of using a caption like "A cupcake". It is not necessary to give it a caption of "This is a lump of styrofoam covered with spackling compound, carefully designed to look like a cupcake", even if the object in the picture might be one of those fake cupcakes used to decorate bakery windows. The sole requirement is that the image must look like (even "look exactly like") the thing it purports to be. We do not require a published, reliable source to prove that the actual image really is the thing that we're talking about. The purpose is illustration, not providing photographic proof that the thing exists.
- Now if you've got something that looks sort-of-not-exactly-like the object, then you can't use a straightforward caption like that. If the image shows a paper that says "Dear Mom, we are well but wish the Nazis would stop shelling us", then you probably shouldn't be using it at all, and you definitely shouldn't label it as being a 15th century manuscript, because it doesn't look like a 15th century manuscript. But if it is, say, a high-quality replica of the original, such that it looks like a real 15th century manuscript, then that would be okay. Illustration is all about appearance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's what verifiability says. We still attempt to reconcile the competing demands of policy and guideline. We still attempt to carefully publish that which is verifiable. Otherwise, the Pedia looks like fools, when we say something is that which it is not (in your example, it's as simple as adding "Reprint of ..." to the caption. As for your first example, you are correct, there is no point in being ridiculous in the caption, only clear enough, within reason). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- And how do you propose to know that it's a replica, rather than the real thing? There are no WP:V-compliant sources that will tell you whether or not the manuscript is most accurately described as "A 15th century manuscript" or as "A replica of a 15th century manuscript". Our inability to prove that the user who uploaded the file to Commons provided an accurate description is why we require only that an image with a caption of "A 15th century manuscript" look like what we're claiming it is, not that we be able to verify through a published reliable source that the item in the photograph is authentic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- That's what verifiability says. We still attempt to reconcile the competing demands of policy and guideline. We still attempt to carefully publish that which is verifiable. Otherwise, the Pedia looks like fools, when we say something is that which it is not (in your example, it's as simple as adding "Reprint of ..." to the caption. As for your first example, you are correct, there is no point in being ridiculous in the caption, only clear enough, within reason). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- A rule of thumb: the larger a caption is, the more likely it is to be problematic. All too often a large caption is a red flag that someone has used the caption to present problematic information (OR, Unverifiable statements, POV, etc)... if the information isn't problematic, and worth having in the article, it should be worked into the text of the article (where it must follow all of our content guidelines). The image can then be used to illustrate that information, and a short caption serves to connect the two. Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agree, and important point. North8000 (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- A rule of thumb: the larger a caption is, the more likely it is to be problematic. All too often a large caption is a red flag that someone has used the caption to present problematic information (OR, Unverifiable statements, POV, etc)... if the information isn't problematic, and worth having in the article, it should be worked into the text of the article (where it must follow all of our content guidelines). The image can then be used to illustrate that information, and a short caption serves to connect the two. Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Newspaper and magazine blogs
I'm wondering where the idea that any blogs on news sites are subject "the news organization's normal fact checking process" came from? From my experience (and I know this is not worth much) these blogs are set up precisely so journalists can write stuff and the news organization can have plausible deniability. Shouldn't the assumption be that there is no fact checking and a whitelist made for the few places where there is, rather than the other way around? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- IMHO on matters of fact those fact checked and reliable as well as anything that the paper puts out. . But regarding objectivity, those are often just soapboxes and are pretty low. But wp:ver has no metric for objectivity. North8000 (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why do you think they are fact checked? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- You have to look beyond the format for any on-line media source... there was once a time when there was a clear distinction between "blogs" (personal on-line opinion pieces) and legitimate journalism. Today, however, some legitimate journalism is presented in "blog format"... while some websites are really "blogs" dressed up to look like journalism sites. So... You have to examine who the author is... who "runs" the website... is there an editorial staff (and is there a distinction between the editorial staff and the author)... what is the reputation of the site, regardless of the format.
- A newspaper like the New York Times has a relatively good reputation... that reputation extends to the material they place on-line... even if it looks like a "blog". However, we also need to remember that (regardless of whether the material is in print or on-line) some of the NYT's material is subject to editorial control, and some isn't. There is a line we can draw between "News" and "Opinion". The editorial staff fact checks "News" articles... they may not fact check opinion pieces (such as op-ed columns). Thus, opinion pieces have limited reliability on Misplaced Pages (they are certainly reliable for an attributed statement as to what the columnist's opinion is... but whether they are considered reliable for the facts stated in the column is another matter entirely. For that we must look at the specific columnist's reputation for fact checking and accuracy). Blueboar (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand all that. The question is why you (or we) assume the NYT (or anyone else we don't have specific information for) fact checks information that appears in its "blog" section. I think the assumption should be that they don't, unless we know otherwise. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Don't they and the reporter still have a reputation to maintain? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's the presumption of assumption of accuracy: If it's on their site, not marked as reader-submitted, we presume it's under the magazine/paper's editorial control. Jclemens (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- They distance themselves from any inaccuracies by putting it in the "blog" section. That's how they maintain their reputation. Otherwise why not just put it somewhere in the regular online version of the paper? It's the same news org, the same site, and the same journalist, only a different heading. There's a reason they maintain this separation. I think our assumption should be that something is not reliable until proven otherwise, not the other way around. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Don't they and the reporter still have a reputation to maintain? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand all that. The question is why you (or we) assume the NYT (or anyone else we don't have specific information for) fact checks information that appears in its "blog" section. I think the assumption should be that they don't, unless we know otherwise. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why do you think they are fact checked? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- IMHO on matters of fact those fact checked and reliable as well as anything that the paper puts out. . But regarding objectivity, those are often just soapboxes and are pretty low. But wp:ver has no metric for objectivity. North8000 (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think that if they issue corrections for their blog posts, even informally, then you may assume that they're fact-checking the blog posts. This fact-checking might be done after posting, but if they weren't checking, then they wouldn't notice that it needed to be corrected.
- Is there some particular news blog that you're trying to have excluded from an article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing in particular. I come across this every once in a while and it strikes me as a big gaping reliability hole. So I thought I'd come here and ask. Apparently I'm the only one who sees it. Oh well. About the corrections, it's pretty likely that they check only if someone notifies them there's a problem. Again, I know this is the case in a couple of news orgs I'm familiar with FWIW. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Wp:ver is ham-handed in certain areas regarding strength of sourcing and defining strength of sourcing. Including assigning too much weight to certain criteria which have the types of limitation that you noted. I've been working on defining the issue and developing holistic solution idea at wp:Strategic issues with core policies#WP:ver and wp:nor need additional source metrics, and a way to apply them. But, on matters of straightforward FACT, I think that the types of blog situations being discussed here have a pretty good track record, and so the policy works with respect to that. That doesn't mean that those blogs aren't soapboxes or objectively present information, just that they are usually right on matters of fact. North8000 (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing in particular. I come across this every once in a while and it strikes me as a big gaping reliability hole. So I thought I'd come here and ask. Apparently I'm the only one who sees it. Oh well. About the corrections, it's pretty likely that they check only if someone notifies them there's a problem. Again, I know this is the case in a couple of news orgs I'm familiar with FWIW. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN
I am not a cognoscente of the detailed discussions of this policy, so please forgive me if there have been past discussions. But there really seems to be a significant problem with the second sentence of WP:BURDEN. The sentence is: "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." Not sure if that's a writing error or if the natural semantics are intentional. Is it not inconsistent with all of the instructions around it? Just above WP:BURDEN, we have: "When a reliable source is required ... Anything challenged or likely to be challenged". Then, immediately below it: "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." If I can remove anything without a reliable inline citation, then it seems quite clear that everything needs a source, not just challengeable stuff. The intent as far as I can tell is that it's trying to say that "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source eventually", but for the hundreds of people like me who don't actually actually write this policy and only read it, that is not going to be clear by reading "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." Or, perhaps, eventuality is not the intent at all. Either way, something needs to be clarified. As the policy stands, I seem quite justified in removing every single thing I see without a source by citing WP:BURDEN. NTox · talk 01:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's a big topic. The intent in this area is that if it sincerely challenged, and there is a debate/dispute, the policy weighs in on the side of removal if it does not get sourced. North8000 (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- You seem to be referring to the WP:CHALLENGE clause, so I'm going to make a change along those lines to WP:BURDEN. As this is a central content policy, I fully expect that someone will BRD the change, so to that person: please comment here if there is a problem. I'd be happy to discuss. NTox · talk 04:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, unilaterally deleting core wording of of a core policy makes that inevitable and I just reverted. The dilemma is easily remedied, and IMHO you approached it in the wrong direction. If it were procedural to challenge material when tagging / deleting then these elements of the policy would be reconciled. Just raising a concern or question besides the lack of sourcing (NO need to have or win a debate) would be enough to move on the the full weight of wp:burden. Not only would such fix the dilemma/conflict, but it would solve a LOT of other problems. North8000 (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- North: If the change was surprising to you, I apologize. Sorry. I really didn't think it was that big of a deal. Please note that this wasn't me looking at something and saying "meh, that's stupid. i'm changing policy to something I like better." As I wrote above, I really don't think whoever wrote the text was trying to say "remove anything unsourced". Therefore, I wasn't even trying to make a content change, but a writing change. Of course I left it to BRD to get the details straight, but I was not just ignoring everybody and adding my own opinions to policy. NTox · talk 16:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- First one must understand that removal is a form of challenge. It may not be the best form of challenge in a lot of situations, but it is still a form of challenge. With that in mind WP:BURDEN can be understood in the following chronological order ...
- 1) "Editor A" wishes to add material to an article: If s/he honestly believes the material is verifiable, but thinks that the material is unlikely to be challenged - s/he has a choice as to whether to include a citation when initially adding the material. There is no initial burden to include a citation if you don't think one is needed. So, let us assume s/he decides to not include a citation.
- 2) "Editor B" comes along later, and does not believe the material is verifiable: he/she may challenge that material, or may choose not to. Let us assume that B chooses to challenge, and does so in the form of removal. At this point the material has actually been challenged.
- 3) There is now a burden on "Editor A" (or Editor C, D, or E) to supply a citation if s/he wishes to return the material.
- Does this mean that every single unsourced sentence in Misplaced Pages could be challenged and removed?... potentially yes... but in reality no. There are sentences that are so obviously verifiable that no one will ever challenge them.
- Are there assholes who challenge obviously verifiable information, and pointedly insist on citations?... yup. The question is, how do you react to them? You can spend hours and hours debating the need to provide a citation ... or... you can mutter "what an asshole" to yourself, spend two minutes tracking down a source and simply return the information with that citation. The second option is far less aggravating in the long run (And, if you really think that including the citation "harms" the perfection of the article, you can always apply WP:IAR, and quietly take it out again once the asshole has moved on to pester some other article... chances are no one will notice or care). Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- That deserves to be an essay. Perhaps Alternatives to removing content, with something about removing content, which makes articles non-sensical, misleading, or grossly uninformative is strongly discouraged. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- We have a policy on that point. See WP:PRESERVE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- That deserves to be an essay. Perhaps Alternatives to removing content, with something about removing content, which makes articles non-sensical, misleading, or grossly uninformative is strongly discouraged. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think the biggest thing about a challenge is that it needs to be a challenge based on "I do not believe that text is accurate" not "that text is not sourced". That is, a "challenge" for the purposes of BURDEN on the basis of lack of sourcing is a circular argument, and renders the "likely to be challenged" clause entirely moot: everything unsourced is therefore challengeable by virtue of being unsourced. Thus, I agree with the addition to the policy that was recently reverted--it doesn't add anything to the overall picture, just clarifies away the wrong understanding of what a challenge must be to trigger BURDEN. Jclemens (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- re I think the biggest thing about a challenge is that it needs to be a challenge based on "I do not believe that text is accurate" not "that text is not sourced". - that is your interpretation - i am not sure that it is the consensus interpretation. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- "Is accurate" might be too narrow a formulation; lack of a citation to check can also contribute to legitimate "challenges" that info is unclear, misplaced, miss-worded, misunderstood, or undue. I don't think "is (not) accurate" unambiguously captures all that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- It isn't just my interpretation... it follows from BURDEN's position immediately following CHALLENGE. Jclemens (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- "Is accurate" might be too narrow a formulation; lack of a citation to check can also contribute to legitimate "challenges" that info is unclear, misplaced, miss-worded, misunderstood, or undue. I don't think "is (not) accurate" unambiguously captures all that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- re I think the biggest thing about a challenge is that it needs to be a challenge based on "I do not believe that text is accurate" not "that text is not sourced". - that is your interpretation - i am not sure that it is the consensus interpretation. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
We can have more discussion on the finer points of the issue if people wish to, but my primary interest here as the person who started all this, is: what is the policy /trying to say/ with the statement, "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." Does it mean that I can literally click the random article button right now and delete everything that's unsourced? If so, let me know, but if that's the case I must have been living in a Misplaced Pages cave for the last year if I didn't know that. Chuckle. It must mean something else. The change I made to the policy page was a preliminary effort to actually change it to /what it is trying to mean/. Who can illuminate what that is? NTox · talk 16:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- The policy makes this clear: Yes... you can (it's called "stubifying" an article)... in fact, you may - if you think removal is the best way to deal with the problem. However, you are cautioned that doing will royally piss people off, and we strongly encourage you to think twice and consider other options. We allow it because sometimes it is the only good way to deal with a problem... but we definitely do not encourage it.
- I may be wrong, but I just don't think that's exactly true. I think it's really close to true, but not exactly true. You're saying that I can remove any unsourced content - that I am justified in doing so by this policy - that there is consensus for my ability to do so - but I should note that it might annoy people. Again, if I hit the random article key and went around doing this everywhere, I would get into some kind of trouble. It wouldn't be: "dang, there's that ntox guy being really annoying", it would be "he is violating policy." Now, I can hear the counter-argument already: that the statement in question needs to be read into context, and I understand that. Can we then write it into context? You know; invisibly, without changing meanings, to clarify this? I just feel uneasy about the current wording, as it stands. I don't think it is clear to the layman. What I would be looking for is just a simple change; perhaps something as easy as "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source, if it is in the best interest of the encyclopedia." I don't know what exactly - that just popped into my head - but it needs some kind of basic qualifier. NTox · talk 17:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Upon re-reading this, I suppose there may also be some confusion about what we mean by "you can". Sometimes in practice what we mean by this is "you have a right to do it always", and other times it means "it is an allowed option if the circumstances warrant it". I think in my comment above I was responding to the former, when now I realize that you seem to be referring to the latter. Still I contend that that very issue could be made more invisibly clear, with some kind of basic qualifier so people like me aren't confused by it. NTox · talk 17:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Responding to Jclemens, I agree with you 100% but think you might have made a typo on your last sentence because you said that you agree with an addition which went against what you just said. Possibly you were viewing my reversion of the deletion to be the addition in which case it is consistent. North8000 (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Regarding knocking out material without even questioning it, one must realize that this is generally not due to lack of guidance. It is due to wikilawyering that gos like: How can I use wp:ver to help me conduct my POV/pissing war and knock out the other guys material? North8000 (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Re: It wouldn't be: "dang, there's that ntox guy being really annoying", it would be "he is violating policy." ... Probably... the question is which policy would you actually be violating? Not WP:V. In all likelihood you would be accused of WP:Disruptive editing. And ultimately that's the distinction. Stubifying one random article might be considered be constructive ... stubifying another might be considered disruptive. Being Wikilawyerish and Pointy is almost guaranteed to be considered disruptive. That is one of the things you should consider before you go off on a random article sweep. If it is clear to others that your goal is to assess articles and stubify those that need it, people will probably construe your actions as being constructive. If your goal is to make some sort of Wikilawyerish point about "WP:V says I can do this", your actions will be construed as disruptive. The policy has to allow people to stubify articles, because sometimes that is a necessary action... but we caution them to think twice before doing so(to think about whether they should stubify the article)... because there may be a better option. Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Right. I consent to that reasoning (and I'm not /actually/ planning on going on this kind of article sweep!) Just hypothetical. ;) I still would like to see the wording tweaked, so to your ordinary reader their understanding will be exactly consistent with your explanation. The spirit of course would not change, but you must tell I am concerned with clarity, and if there is some wording that can make us both happy as the consensus process recommends, I'd feel good today. NTox · talk 18:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Indiscriminate removal of uncited material (material that is probably verifiable, encyclopedic, etc., not material that is probably unverifiable, spammy, etc.) is a violation of the WP:PRESERVE section of the WP:Editing policy. We don't usually enforce it explicitly, because so few editors are tempted to trash articles, but it is a violation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Right. I consent to that reasoning (and I'm not /actually/ planning on going on this kind of article sweep!) Just hypothetical. ;) I still would like to see the wording tweaked, so to your ordinary reader their understanding will be exactly consistent with your explanation. The spirit of course would not change, but you must tell I am concerned with clarity, and if there is some wording that can make us both happy as the consensus process recommends, I'd feel good today. NTox · talk 18:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Here is why I don't think we should tweak the wording... this is a content policy, not a behavior policy. We have to say "you may remove" because that is how we deal with inappropriate content. I suppose we could say "but don't be disruptive about it"... the problem is that Wikilawyers will argue for days and days about whether an edit was disruptive or not. So we would then try to spell out what is and is not considered disruptive... the policy would become bloated as we try to prevent loopholes for the wikilawyers to exploit (because we forgot to mention something). I think it better to keep behavioral issues to behavior policies, and content issues to content polices. Disruptive behavior is covered... just not here in this policy. Blueboar (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Two points:
- Most editors draw a 'line in the sand' between old content and new contents. Misplaced Pages has lots of older content that is unsourced or poorly sourced. Sometimes it gets fixed, but most of the time it doesn't. We don't have deadlines so sources can always be added later. However, if you add something to an article that is unsourced, most editors will expect you (or someone) to find a source.
- See WP:PRESERVE.
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- The last time we discussed this issue was at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/Archive 58#A problem with BURDEN. In my opinion, there was considerable sentiment, if not actual consensus, for making some significant revisions to BURDEN. Basically, the mediation about the lead was going on then, and most of us wanted to wait until that sorted out, and the full-protection of the page had been lifted, before making other large changes. But I think we can seriously discuss such changes now.
- I support the change proposed by NTox. I think it makes very good sense. JClemens pointed out, correctly I think, one of the ad absurdum consequences of the current wording, but more simply NTox is correct that the lead itself specifies the consensus about "likely to be challenged" etc., and BURDEN, as currently worded, reaches beyond what the lead says and actually contradicts it. Like Alanscottwalker, I'd like to see Blueboar's behavioral advice in an essay. But the wording proposed here is not behavioral at all, just common sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK... let's explore it... I believe (correct me if I am wrong) the proposal is to say: "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source eventually". The first question a Wikilawyer wishing to remove is going to ask is... how soon is "eventially"? Tomorrow? Next week? Next month? When can I remove the unsourced text? Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, as I understood it, the proposal was this: . And I wouldn't mind looking back to the discussion archived here while we're at it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK... let's explore it... I believe (correct me if I am wrong) the proposal is to say: "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source eventually". The first question a Wikilawyer wishing to remove is going to ask is... how soon is "eventially"? Tomorrow? Next week? Next month? When can I remove the unsourced text? Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I support the change proposed by NTox. I think it makes very good sense. JClemens pointed out, correctly I think, one of the ad absurdum consequences of the current wording, but more simply NTox is correct that the lead itself specifies the consensus about "likely to be challenged" etc., and BURDEN, as currently worded, reaches beyond what the lead says and actually contradicts it. Like Alanscottwalker, I'd like to see Blueboar's behavioral advice in an essay. But the wording proposed here is not behavioral at all, just common sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've often thought that it's a pity WP:Editorial judgment is a redlink. This is yet another place where the problem isn't the policy, so much as editorial judgment about when and how to apply it.—S Marshall T/C 22:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm getting confused. If you are talking about adding "challenged or likely to be challenged" in another place I'm for it, if it's about removing it from a place I'm against it. But I think that using my idea instead would provide a more decisive resolution which would have many other benefits. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hold on... cutting the excess verbage, the links language says "you may remove if the unsourced material is challenged... " but since a removal is a form of challenge, that would mean the act of removal gives permission to remove. I removed, thus I have challenged, ergo I may remove. Blueboar (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what reconciles the two. IMHO not in the most ideal way (most would say that "challenge" means more than that), but it reconciles them. North8000 (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Removal for any good-faith reason other than "it's not sourced!" would indeed be a challenge within the meaning of BURDEN. But if anything removed as unsourced just because it was unsourced, every unsourced statement throughout all of Misplaced Pages could be removed at once without discussion, and not reinserted without a reliable source. That's not at all compatible with the notion that Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Jclemens, I very very very very very strongly agree that what you described is how it should be. And that is the clear spirit and intent of "challenged or likely to be challenged". But that is not how it is. We'd need a few wording tweaks to make it so. North8000 (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agree, it should be something more than just unsourced -- improvement, tempered by judgment, and subject to consensus -- gets somewhat closer (but I don't know if a wording change will help). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Removal for any good-faith reason other than "it's not sourced!" would indeed be a challenge within the meaning of BURDEN. But if anything removed as unsourced just because it was unsourced, every unsourced statement throughout all of Misplaced Pages could be removed at once without discussion, and not reinserted without a reliable source. That's not at all compatible with the notion that Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what reconciles the two. IMHO not in the most ideal way (most would say that "challenge" means more than that), but it reconciles them. North8000 (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- What about:
- "You may remove material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. However, the fact that you are allowed to do so does not mean you necessarily should do so. Whether and how quickly..." (proposed addition in italics)
- This addition would (I think) better link the statement of permission to the cautions and exceptions that follow it. Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Or more tersely, "You may remove material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. "May" does not mean "should". Whether and how quickly..."—S Marshall T/C 13:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hold on... cutting the excess verbage, the links language says "you may remove if the unsourced material is challenged... " but since a removal is a form of challenge, that would mean the act of removal gives permission to remove. I removed, thus I have challenged, ergo I may remove. Blueboar (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
First we should realize that the main issues areas aren't people who are just looking for guidance. They are people who are using wp:ver in wiki-lawyering way to knock out material that they don't even question or doubt. The main two purposes are to wage a POV war and to wage a general pissing war. And usually we aren't talking about unsourced material, they use this on sourced material in synergy with / in a domino effect with requirements about the grade of sourcing. E.G. look for a flaw in the given source fully meting wp:rs and then snowball that into removal of the opponent's material. So, while "guidance" carries some influence in such situations, what is really needed is something to prevent such mis-uses.
My thought would be to require expressing some question about the material (in addition to sourcing) when tagging or deleting. It could be something as simple as "I'm not so sure about this, please provide a source" to fulfill that. It is emphasized that this is just a quick vetting procedural requirement for tagging/deleting; after that wp:burden 100% rules, any discussion on the question raised is completely irrelevant to wp:burden ruling. (So we do not create a monster of debating the question instead of a strong application of wp:burden.) My wording is just describing the underlying structure of a proposed change, it is not suitable wording for one. I have been thinking about this for years wp:strategic issues with core policies and believe that this change, more than any other that I can think of, would provide an immense benefit to Misplaced Pages, so please don't blow this idea off too quickly. North8000 (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I understand the concern, but I don't think your solution does anything to resolve the problem you are attempting to resolve... requiring a statement of explanation won't stop the Wikilawyering POV crusader from deleting... he will simply learn to tack on an edit summary of "doubted - source needed" every time he wants to delete. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- If clarity of language can facilitate dispute resolution, thats good. but from what I have seen described here ( i have not actually looked as the specific incident(s)), it does not seem that a language change here would solve behavioral misapplication (of any wording we might land on) there. changing broadly used policy to attempt to meet specific annecdotal issues is generally bad idea.-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- There is a raison d'etre for the {{citation needed}} and {{verification needed}} tags and their
|date=parameter. Even long-established text can reasonably be challenged in good faith without engaging in or being accused of wp:TE. We should not infer otherwise simply because it is obvious to us: editors have widely divergent backgrounds and this is a very good thing for the encyclopedia. Flagging cases of missing or weak sourcing may sometimes be a bit frustrating to other editors, but it does contribute to a stronger 'pedia. Whilst some wikilawyering POV pushers may abuse such tags, they generally find such actions backfire: the arguments against their pushed viewpoints become better sourced. It's one reason that Misplaced Pages doesn't completely break down in the face of battleground behaviour. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)- I don't think we are discussing tagging, are we? We are discussing the more "drastic" decision on removal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, systematic preemptory deletions in favour of one POV will rapidly draw attention, even if the edit comments are added. With a few key exceptions, such as for potentially libelous BLPs, readding the deleted statement while also adding the necessary dated tags should be seen as a good-faith attempt to wp:preserve content and eventually correct the weak sourcing. Re-deleting such is definitely going to be taken as escalation unless it has been explained on the article talkpage. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Responding to Blueboar. Usually these statements are sky-is-blue types and having to say that they doubt them would be a deterrent for even POV warriors. Incidentally sky-is-blue statements can be harder to source because fewer RS's write restating the obvious. North8000 (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, systematic preemptory deletions in favour of one POV will rapidly draw attention, even if the edit comments are added. With a few key exceptions, such as for potentially libelous BLPs, readding the deleted statement while also adding the necessary dated tags should be seen as a good-faith attempt to wp:preserve content and eventually correct the weak sourcing. Re-deleting such is definitely going to be taken as escalation unless it has been explained on the article talkpage. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we are discussing tagging, are we? We are discussing the more "drastic" decision on removal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- There is a raison d'etre for the {{citation needed}} and {{verification needed}} tags and their
- If clarity of language can facilitate dispute resolution, thats good. but from what I have seen described here ( i have not actually looked as the specific incident(s)), it does not seem that a language change here would solve behavioral misapplication (of any wording we might land on) there. changing broadly used policy to attempt to meet specific annecdotal issues is generally bad idea.-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Responding to LeadSongDog, that's not it happens. In even those cases the deleter quotes wp:burden and the material stays out. North8000 (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have always understood BURDEN as erring on the side of caution... leaning towards not returning the material until a citation can be provided with it. That we should (temporarily) not preserve when a challenge rises to the level removal. I suppose that if someone were to "return with a tag", I would respect it as a request for time to find a source... but I would definitely hold the requesting editor's feet to the fire. I would want a see a source provided fairly quickly, and if one did not appear I would remove again.
- @North... I disagree... "sky is blue" statements are usually very easy to source. And if one isn't, it's probably OR. Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- (added later) OK, can you find me a RS that supports this: "There is no record of any major airliner crashing in New York city on August 27th, 2012"? :-) But I digressed. North8000 (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Been paying some attention to this discussion, and this is one of the statements I can say I agree with entirely. I find it a bit unusual when someone adds information with a "citation needed" tag...it suggests to me that they're expecting someone else to go to the trouble of sourcing their information, while my view is that in theory the person best qualified to provide a source (if not necessarily the citation) should be the person who adds the information to begin with. I'll also admit to being jaded enough that I suspect some editors will/would do that believing, in some cases correctly, that once the information is part of the article other editors will be less inclined to remove it. In other words, it's easier to get the information into the article and leave it for other editors to clean up one way or another, than to do the work of documentating a source oneself at the time of inclusion. Doniago (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Folks, I think that what happens after someone tags or deletes material while sincerely questioning it is a non-issue. I think we all pretty much agree that wp:ver works well in those cases which is leaning towards deletion or leaving it tagged. The place where the policy somewhat conflicts with itself is where somebody tags or deletes it WITHOUT expressing any questions or reservation about the material. Especially where this represents wiki-lawyering to pursue POV wars or pissing wars. North8000 (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I suspect that we will most quickly come to a conclusion if we focus on specific changes in the language, as opposed to discussing things conceptually. (Your mileage may differ.)
- North, you suggested your idea as an alternative to what NTox proposed. I've read through this discussion a couple of times, and I still don't know exactly what your idea is! For the benefit of nitwits like me, please state specifically what language changes you are proposing.
- NTox's proposal, which is to add the words "if it is challenged or likely to be challenged" at the end of the sentence "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source" continues to be something that I support (whatever else we might do). It has the effects of (1) making BURDEN consistent with what the lead says, and (2) making the reasons for removing material more specific, not less specific. The current wording implies that you can cheerfully remove everything that does not have an inline cite at the end of the sentence; the new wording would limit that to when you consider it to be challenge-able. Blueboar pointed out the logical issue of "I removed it, so de facto it is challenged." That's true. But it isn't a problem. If someone (other than a complete troll) goes to the effort of removing material, then they have challenged it. Maybe you and I agree with them, or maybe we don't, but that's a challenge, and the validity of the challenge is determined by other policies and guidelines, not by verifiability. And if they are a complete troll, the current wording makes it easier for them, not harder. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really understand how adding that wording would substantially change the text other than to make it a bit confusing, given that, as you note, removing text is considered a legitimate form of challenge. To my mind, if we add the additional text, what we'd have would read as, "You may challenge material lacking an inline citation by removing it, if it is challenged." Isn't that a bit redundant? Of course, if we say that an editor shouldn't remove material for lacking a citation unless it is likely to be challenged, I think we're opening the door to an unproductive debate regarding how an editor is supposed to determine whether material is "likely" to be challenged. I guess I'm just not sure what we're trying to fix or how adding that particular text would fix...well, anything. Doniago (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- As I already said, I agree with Blueboar and you that there is a logical flaw. Your rewording emphasizes the flaw to the point of ad absurdum, and sure, it sounds ridiculous that way. But "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source if it is challenged or likely to be challenged" doesn't have the same kind of comical tin ear, unless one sits around over-analyzing it. What I'm trying to fix (can't speak for anyone else) is editors using BURDEN as a blunt instrument to remove or prevent content with which they disagree, beyond the actual intent of the section. It's the difference between "I'm removing every sentence that doesn't have an inline cite because I can" and "I'm removing this because it's uncited and because I challenge the claim that reliable sources really exist." The latter sentence conveys what BURDEN is actually about; the former goes way beyond its intent. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really understand how adding that wording would substantially change the text other than to make it a bit confusing, given that, as you note, removing text is considered a legitimate form of challenge. To my mind, if we add the additional text, what we'd have would read as, "You may challenge material lacking an inline citation by removing it, if it is challenged." Isn't that a bit redundant? Of course, if we say that an editor shouldn't remove material for lacking a citation unless it is likely to be challenged, I think we're opening the door to an unproductive debate regarding how an editor is supposed to determine whether material is "likely" to be challenged. I guess I'm just not sure what we're trying to fix or how adding that particular text would fix...well, anything. Doniago (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. The proposed addition is an attempt to get to the heart of the issue - especially, I would say, for those people who are just scanning this page or are unfamiliar with this policy. NTox · talk 18:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I'm glad we agree it sounds ridiculous the way I phrased it. :p I'm still concerned that this addition would confuse editors rather than clarifying anything though. Anyone who's aware of WP:MINREF, or even just assumes that it's okay to delete unsourced material (which, "best practice" aside, it essentially is, currently), is likely to think, "But...why are they saying I may remove anything likely to be challenged when I'm challenging it by removing it to begin with?" It strikes me as rather paradoxical. Now, if an editor's removing material with an eye on WP:BURDEN without intending it to be construed as a challenge...erm, I'm not sure how that could actually happen.
- I'm a bit troubled by your addition of "I challenge the claim that reliable sources really exist". That's not how BURDEN currently reads to me (i.e. I don't interpret it as saying that that's intended to be the grounds for exercising the policy), and I'm not sure it was ever intended to be taken that way. My interpretation has always been that the point is that the material isn't sourced, not whether or not an editor believes material can be sourced. Of course, if an editor believes material can be sourced there's probably an argument that removal isn't the best course of action. But that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
- I have a feeling I worded this rather badly, but I hope I got my points across in some vaguely articulate manner. Doniago (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. The proposed addition is an attempt to get to the heart of the issue - especially, I would say, for those people who are just scanning this page or are unfamiliar with this policy. NTox · talk 18:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've hesitated a bit to be too involved here, because, well, I am not privy to the fine-tuned meanings that this policy is using (I don't have the historical context to know what they exactly are), but I suppose some of disagreement on this point (at least on my end) is that we are understanding 'likely to be challenged' differently. I suppose it is because I believe it involves evaluating the merit of challenges through the lens of consensus; i.e., there are good challenges and bad challenges. If someone comes in and puts a CN tag after every single sentence in an article, I won't consider many of them legitimate challenges. A legitimate challenge to me is reasoned, and is (theoretically) agreed to be legitimate by the community. Therefore, I would not consider it necessary to provide an inline citation for something even if I know if will be challenged by someone, if I have reason to believe that that challenge would be labeled ridiculous by the community. To put this simply: something to me is 'likely to be challenged' if the community is likely to challenge it, not just one person. But maybe this is not the intention of the section and that is something I am open to. NTox · talk 20:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- WP:LIKELY is defined. You don't have to wonder about the secret meaning; just go read the page. Or just read this simple summary: something is "likely to be challenged" if you (using your Best Judgment based on your Editorial Experience) believe that it has a ≥50% chance of getting fact-tagged/disputed on the talk page/otherwise challenged. Feel free to assume that's ≥50% chance during a reasonable time period, like a year, rather than ≥50% chance between now and the heat death of the universe. You may also feel free to ignore the likelihood of random or vandalistic "challenges", like the joker who fact-tagged the statement about how many fingers most humans have on their hands. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've hesitated a bit to be too involved here, because, well, I am not privy to the fine-tuned meanings that this policy is using (I don't have the historical context to know what they exactly are), but I suppose some of disagreement on this point (at least on my end) is that we are understanding 'likely to be challenged' differently. I suppose it is because I believe it involves evaluating the merit of challenges through the lens of consensus; i.e., there are good challenges and bad challenges. If someone comes in and puts a CN tag after every single sentence in an article, I won't consider many of them legitimate challenges. A legitimate challenge to me is reasoned, and is (theoretically) agreed to be legitimate by the community. Therefore, I would not consider it necessary to provide an inline citation for something even if I know if will be challenged by someone, if I have reason to believe that that challenge would be labeled ridiculous by the community. To put this simply: something to me is 'likely to be challenged' if the community is likely to challenge it, not just one person. But maybe this is not the intention of the section and that is something I am open to. NTox · talk 20:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- You know, I think I actually saw a diff like that once. Humorous. Anyway: yeah, I've read WP:LIKELY before. My point merely is that a text like BURDEN often has more to it than it is capable of expressing. Usually you need some historical context to get the whole picture. e.g., you just brought up the concepts of timelines, and ignoring vandalistic challenges, re LIKELY. That is not expressed there, nor in this policy. It naturally leads a person to wonder what else there is under the surface. But more on topic, I think that all of us understand one thing about BURDEN in particular: don't just mindlessly revert people who don't cite sources, and that's really all I'm interested in crystallizing here. Sure we have PRESERVE and that jazz but still I think BURDEN per se implies to newbies that they are free to revert anything unsourced. They're going to read it out of context, whether purposefully or not. Why not make a tweak to avoid misleading people like this, as long as it maintains the integrity of the policy? I think in theory the '...if it is challenged or likely to be challenged' addition makes this work, but I recognize that that might not be clear in practice. It's just a matter of encouraging people to think reasonably, which I think we are all on the same page about. NTox · talk 06:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Doniago, the whole point (as I see it) of not only BURDEN but all of WP:V is that content must be verifiable. So if someone is challenging something on the basis of BURDEN, it is only valid to do so because they believe it is not verifiable. In other words, if the challenge is saying that it is not verifiable, the challenge is saying that reliable sources really don't exist. If they are removing content simply because there is no inline cite, even though they don't have doubts about verifiability (ie, they don't doubt that sources exist), they should not be citing BURDEN as the reason. And yet I frequently see editors, often ones who are pushing a POV, who remove stuff they don't like using exactly that rationale. Please see also the comment I make to PBS and Bob, below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think part of the issue is that editors tend to interpret "verifiable" in (at least) two significantly different ways- 1) Someone could do independent research to verify the information (i.e. no reference has been provided, but they do exist), or 2) a citation or other acceptable form of reference is provided so that a reader can verify the information through an explicitly-stated source. I'll admit I've always felt that (2) was the better way to handle things. I don't think WP is nearly as good a tool if all readers are given is "well, you can look this up...somewhere". You seem to be leaning towards (1), and obviously if we differ in our understanding of what "verifiable" means then we're going to end up with differing views of what BURDEN should say or is supposed to mean.
- Even if you read WP:V, it's left ambiguous. "In Misplaced Pages, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source." But is this supposed to mean that a reader can check that the information comes from an RS because one has been provided...or merely that one could go to the library and find an RS on their own? Again, my understanding is that "verifiable" information is verifiable because there's a citation or other form of reference directing the reader to an actual source for the information, but clearly other editors interpret it differently. Doniago (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think you've pinpointed exactly where we are seeing things differently. My reaction to your interpretation of WP:V is something akin to "Yikes!". You are right that I've been thinking more the other way. But if I parse it carefully, it's actually something in between. I don't think that V is satisfied simply by saying something akin to "I don't have any sourcing for this, but I figure someone else could go and find a source", which is what (1) is kind of like. But I don't think it's (2), either. I guess it's either: (a) a reliable source is cited on the page, (b) there is consensus amongst editors that it would be possible to find such a source, or (c) there is consensus amongst editors that the material is so obviously true that it would be silly to cite one. Any one of (a), (b), or (c) satisfies WP:V, speaking practically. But if anyone challenges the consensus for (b) or (c), then WP:V considers the material to be "challenged". My thinking about the wording we have been discussing is that I want anyone making such a challenge to, explicitly, question the assertion that the material could be sourced or doesn't need to be sourced. That's not the same thing as saying that there isn't an inline cite so I'm removing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with this assessment. The challenger should have done some of the footwork and failed to find verification. The challenger should be prevented from unthinking or trivial deletion. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think you've pinpointed exactly where we are seeing things differently. My reaction to your interpretation of WP:V is something akin to "Yikes!". You are right that I've been thinking more the other way. But if I parse it carefully, it's actually something in between. I don't think that V is satisfied simply by saying something akin to "I don't have any sourcing for this, but I figure someone else could go and find a source", which is what (1) is kind of like. But I don't think it's (2), either. I guess it's either: (a) a reliable source is cited on the page, (b) there is consensus amongst editors that it would be possible to find such a source, or (c) there is consensus amongst editors that the material is so obviously true that it would be silly to cite one. Any one of (a), (b), or (c) satisfies WP:V, speaking practically. But if anyone challenges the consensus for (b) or (c), then WP:V considers the material to be "challenged". My thinking about the wording we have been discussing is that I want anyone making such a challenge to, explicitly, question the assertion that the material could be sourced or doesn't need to be sourced. That's not the same thing as saying that there isn't an inline cite so I'm removing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
NTox, I think this is the source of your confusion: "If I can remove anything without a reliable inline citation, then it seems quite clear that everything needs a source, not just challengeable stuff."
What does "just challengeable stuff" mean to you? Everything could be challenged. Everything is challengeable.
The policy requires inline citations if, and only if, the material:
- is a direct quotation
- has already been challenged, or
- is WP:LIKELY to be challenged.
Anything could be challenged, but BURDEN does not apply until it has been challenged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Right. What I meant by 'challengeable', was: any material that 'has already been challenged' (with removal, cn tag, etc.), and any material that 'is likely to be challenged' (has a great probability of removal, a cn tag, etc.). Forgive my shoddy use of the word. According to my change to the policy that people are discussing, I would think that BURDEN does/would in fact apply before something is challenged, because it involves material that is likely to be challenged, but has not been challenged yet. NTox · talk 16:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment - I think the original wording of BURDEN is fine: "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." It is a brief statement that is consistent with WP policy. Of course, the sentence has to be interpreted in context, and the surrounding paragraph & section provide the key guidance that a challenge - actual or likely - must be involved. The word "may" is key: if it said "should" instead, then I agree it should be changed; but "may" is an accurate representation of the policy. BURDEN, in practice, is only invoked in situations when material is being challenged, true? --Noleander (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- A deletion without an edit comment is not clearly intended as a sourcing challenge, it could be an editing error, vandalism, POV rejection, or simply a reasonable editorial consideration that the deleted matter didn't belong in the article. Many editors consistently fail to use edit comments. If an edit comment does make it clear that it was a challenge for inadequate sourcing then clearly BURDEN is and should be invoked. The presumption that deletion is a sourcing challenge has never seemed entirely reasonable to me. That said, I'm inclined the other way: that attribution should be provide even for "the sky is blue", since it often is black (with bright spots) or grey, sometimes orange, red, or even green. There's no real reason editors shouldn't cite sources before inserting content on the strength of those sources. We just haven't chosen to mandate that discipline.
LeadSongDog come howl! 17:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I added "but" to the subject part of Burden. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Responding to Tryptofish, I didn't have good final wording but here's my current best shot: Add the following: "When tagging or removing material for being uncited or insufficiently sourced, please indicate that you have a concern or question aside from citing and sourcing." Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, that seems to me to come down to saying that one should provide a good reason for removing material, something I'm broadly receptive to in principle. But the problem is defining a "good" reason. Your preliminary wording seems to say that if you're removing material for these reasons, you also have to say that you have another reason, which I find confusing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I am reverting the edit "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." There is no but about it. If you want to change the next sentence to says "Instead of deletion consider ..." as an option then OK, but the first two sentences ought not be compromised so that someone can wikilawyer that the burden and deletion can be worked around with a qualification which placing a "but" at the end introduces. -- PBS (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- (Here's PBS's revert.)
- PBS, I didn't understand your above reason for reverting. Here's the sentence before you reverted the change, i.e. before you deleted "but" and restored it to two sentences.
- "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source but whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step."
- Could you explain with a hypothetical example your reason for reverting, i.e. "...the first two sentences ought not be compromised so that someone can wikilawyer that the burden and deletion can be worked around with a qualification which placing a "but" at the end introduces." Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Bob, I'm OK with leaving it reverted until we work out all the other issues being discussed here. For example, your edit would make it logistically difficult to make the edit that NTox and I are suggesting, and I don't think that your edit would really satisfy the concerns that we expressed. On the other hand, I partially disagree with PBS's reasons, because I think that PBS is actually advocating for the kind of misinterpretation of BURDEN that I described to Doniago above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- So far, I see it's a simple edit that's being blocked for no good reason. You and PBS can do that; I certainly can't stop you. But it doesn't look good. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I would not have reverted it myself. I just meant that while it's been reverted, we should consider all the alternatives that are being discussed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, why don't you now list all the alternatives that are being discussed, and include the edit I made that was reverted. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I readily agree that this discussion section has turned into a wall-o-text, but I don't think that my paygrade includes being class secretary. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, why don't you now list all the alternatives that are being discussed, and include the edit I made that was reverted. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I would not have reverted it myself. I just meant that while it's been reverted, we should consider all the alternatives that are being discussed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- So far, I see it's a simple edit that's being blocked for no good reason. You and PBS can do that; I certainly can't stop you. But it doesn't look good. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Responding to Tryptofish, that goes a bit beyond my intent. My intent was just a quick procedural one in order to tag or delete. It doesn't even have to be a "good" reason, just merely a statement like "I question that statement, please provide a source" with no further need to support/debate it would be enough. This may seem like a trivial easily-blown-through requirement, but, long story short, after two years of noodling on it, I think that it it would have a HUGE good effect. I can think of many many situations which even that trivial requirement would have helped. North8000 (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Bob, I'm OK with leaving it reverted until we work out all the other issues being discussed here. For example, your edit would make it logistically difficult to make the edit that NTox and I are suggesting, and I don't think that your edit would really satisfy the concerns that we expressed. On the other hand, I partially disagree with PBS's reasons, because I think that PBS is actually advocating for the kind of misinterpretation of BURDEN that I described to Doniago above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
From the debaters here worrying about this issue primarily as the wording encouraging deleting in bad faith they clearly have not come across "editors" like the G.-M. Cupertino who inserts subtle unsourced nonsense which can be hard to spot until one see the pattern. Asking his socks to prove it, is the first step on the road to producing evidence that it is yet another sock. So let us put aside issues of bad faith and frame the debate in terms of good faith.
I said at the time that splitting the original section into two ("Anything challenged or likely to be challenged", and "Burden of evidence") was a mistake and I still think it is. It is much better if the two sections are read together and that splitting them would lead people to want to expand them. I personally am still be in favour of recombining them.
What here is being described as BURDEN has an old redirect called WP:PROVIT the point being that if someone does not believe something to be "obvious" then the person making unsubstantiated claims should either prove it (with a reliable source) or leave it out (to use pun on a London expression). It is better to have nothing than to have incorrect text on a subject -- I agree with footnote 3.
I also do not agree with the point that some editors are making about old text and new text. It is often useful for those articles that were written before the quality/quantity debate of 2006 and have not been substantially updated since which often contain the most blatant examples of text that falls within PROVIT.
Perhaps we can rewrite the second sentence to include the word "reasonable" as that should address the issues of bad faith being raised here. -- PBS (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not following. My idea is that you shouldn't have to have or win a debate to invoke wp:burden tag/take out unsourced material, but should have to say that you have a question/concern about the material itself. And that such would reduce mis-use of wp:burden, but not affect legitimate use of wp:burden. North8000 (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:Burden arbitrary break 1
I didn't make this arbitrary break, but I'm glad that North did. At this point, I suspect we're going from "wall-o-text" to "no consensus". Maybe we should start posting a series of drafts for a revised BURDEN section, sort of like the way the recent process made a series of drafts for the lead section. I suspect that, unless we focus on concrete content, we aren't going to be able to agree on a way of writing it – or even understand what each of us is arguing for! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- The core topic is that "challenged or likely to be challenged" can be (arguably) seen as being in conflict with wp:burden. May I suggest we focus on that? North8000 (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Then how about reintegrating the two sections. The initial separation was made on 22 October 2010 here is how it looked just before it was separated. Reading it in the format that existed before October 2010 shows that the two where not then considered to be in conflict. I suspect it is reading it as two separate sections that may make you think that they are. -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm starting to be very much persuaded by that. I like the idea of looking at that pre-October version, and working from there. Something that really stands out to me is that it did not have the current language about "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source", which is a very big part of what I have seen as a source of problems, and yet it conveyed the idea of what "you may remove" much better than the current page does. For me, that right there would be a strong argument for going back to a single section. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think like this idea as well... "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed" was a much better word choice than "You may removed any material...". While the old language could be construed as granting editors permission to remove problematic material, it mainly served as a warning (telling editors that problematic material might be removed). Blueboar (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- I like it too. We should clarify here exactly what the change would be the wait a couple days for other comments, and it it looks positive put it in. North8000 (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, maybe someone could copy the text from that version of the page to here on this talk page. Then, we could discuss any revisions to that that we would like to make, and then we go with it if there is consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I like it too. We should clarify here exactly what the change would be the wait a couple days for other comments, and it it looks positive put it in. North8000 (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think like this idea as well... "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed" was a much better word choice than "You may removed any material...". While the old language could be construed as granting editors permission to remove problematic material, it mainly served as a warning (telling editors that problematic material might be removed). Blueboar (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm starting to be very much persuaded by that. I like the idea of looking at that pre-October version, and working from there. Something that really stands out to me is that it did not have the current language about "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source", which is a very big part of what I have seen as a source of problems, and yet it conveyed the idea of what "you may remove" much better than the current page does. For me, that right there would be a strong argument for going back to a single section. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Then how about reintegrating the two sections. The initial separation was made on 22 October 2010 here is how it looked just before it was separated. Reading it in the format that existed before October 2010 shows that the two where not then considered to be in conflict. I suspect it is reading it as two separate sections that may make you think that they are. -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Proposed change?
Change the following two sections under "When a reliable source is required":
- ====Anything challenged or likely to be challenged====
All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. The citation should fully identify the source, and the location within the source (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate) where the material is to be found. See Citing sources for details of how to do this.
- ====Burden of evidence====
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source, but whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; you should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.
To the circa 10:15 October 22 2010 version which is:
Shortcuts- For how to write citations, see Misplaced Pages:Citing sources
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the no original research policy. If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it.
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page.
Except the "notes" cited in this section (removed from both of the above) would not change.
Is this right? North8000 (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Now, how is this supposed to be an improvement? --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's discussed in the talk sub-section immediately above. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I am just trying to be specific about what someone else proposed. There have been some discussion on this above. But the main goal is to reduce what many would call a conflict between "challenged or likely to be challenged" and wp:burden. North8000 (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- The sentence starting "If no reliable third-party" should be removed as it was move over to NOR. Likewise the sentence that starts "Drawing inferences from multiple sources" is a summary of WP:SYN is not needed here. Both sentences bloat this section, are better left to the NOR as including them here can cause confusion for inexperienced editors over which policy to follow for this specific advise. -- PBS (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Those two sentences are not in the present version of WP:V, so why work with an old version that has problems. BTW, have you considered simply removing the subsection section titles from the present version and start working from there to get what you want? In any case, suggest keeping in mind the overriding section title ""When a reliable source is required" so that what goes in the section fits the title. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I took them out.North8000 (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please restore and use strikeouts instead of removal, per talk page guideline. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- If it will make you happy. :-). North8000 (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please restore and use strikeouts instead of removal, per talk page guideline. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I took them out.North8000 (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Those two sentences are not in the present version of WP:V, so why work with an old version that has problems. BTW, have you considered simply removing the subsection section titles from the present version and start working from there to get what you want? In any case, suggest keeping in mind the overriding section title ""When a reliable source is required" so that what goes in the section fits the title. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Suggested revisions
Seeing the old and new versions side-by-side, let me suggest this as the To:
- ====Burden of evidence====
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate) and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. See Citing sources for details of how to do this.
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.
I've copied into it what I can see as better in the current version than in the old one, including some of the wording, and also a shortcut. I also took into account the comments in this discussion so far, including about the header. As I've said above, for me, the key thing that is a big improvement here is the way that it talks about when material may be removed: it doesn't frame it in terms of merely the absence of an inline citation. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I noticed that you didn't use "but" to connect the first two sentences in the second paragraph, as is done for the somewhat similar first two sentences in the present version of WP:V. If you did use "but" it would look like the following:
- "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article."
- By connecting the two sentences with "but", this reduces the chance that the first sentence will be interpreted alone or quoted out of context. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be fine with me personally. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've just added "Whether" to that sentence, per discussion lower down on this page. I'm fine with merging the two sentences, with "...may be removed, but whether and how quickly...", but I don't see it as something I would fight over. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Suggested footnote
I want to make another suggestion. Because it can really be considered as a separate question, I made a separate discussion sub-header. Please look back at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/Archive 58#A problem with BURDEN. That was a pretty recent discussion that got sidetracked by the discussion about the lead section, but there were good ideas there, and I don't want to see them get lost. In particular, the sub-section about Footnote had something that I think might perhaps get consensus. I'll update it here, as a proposal to add a new footnote at the end of the first sentence, about "burden of evidence". It would only be a footnote, no change to the main text:
Footnote: The burden of evidence is the initial obligation of an editor to provide reliable sources that directly support the material being added. If a good-faith effort has been made to provide such sources, it is then the obligation of editors who do not wish to include the material to articulate problems that would justify its exclusion from Misplaced Pages. All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, so that any potential problems with the text or sourcing are fixed.
The archived discussion was largely about the issue of cases where BURDEN is over-emphasized, as though all of the burden always remains on only one side, and the other side has no obligation to discuss anything. There was sentiment then against actually weakening the requirement, but I think there may be consensus that this footnote would be a helpful clarification. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I like the idea behind this, but think the requirement on those who wish to keep challenged material is a bit higher than simply making a good faith effort to find a source... that effort actually has to succeed... a source actually has to be provided. Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- By "a good-faith effort has been made to provide such sources" I presume you mean a good faith effort to find such sources. If that's the case, the failure to find sources would suggest that the material is less likely to be verifiable and shouldn't be included, unless there is reason to include it using WP:IAR. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I see this as a bit of a complex "walking the edge". On one hand, we have widespread mis-use by people who use it to knowck out material that they don't even question to pursue POV wars and pissing wars. On the other hand, we don't want to fundamentally weaken wp:burden to where removal of sincerely questioned unsourced material requires winning a debate to remove it. I think that the closer integration of "challenged or likely to be challenged" with wp:burden safely helps this a bit. I think that my other proposal would help it more without weakening wp:burden. But structurally I don't understand this new idea. Much material (e.g. not challenged or likely to be challenged) does not need to be sourced. North8000 (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think Blueboar and Bob are right about that. How about changing "If a good-faith effort has been made to provide such sources" to "If sources that an editor believes in good faith to be sufficient have been provided"? That takes it out of the realm of "effort", I think.
- Similarly, I could also see changing the last sentence to "All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any potential problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added." That also moves the burden back in the direction of not including material without verifiability.
- (North, I think you have to make your other proposal specific.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Trypto's change would resolve my concern. We might also work in something about being reasonable if someone asks for more time to find a source. Blueboar (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- (North, I think you have to make your other proposal specific.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, Regarding the situation that you described in your last message, where an editor has provided an inline citation but another editor disputes that the ref supports the material — In this case, it seems that you are suggesting that the material should stay in the article until the disputing editor has gained consensus to remove it. I don't think that is good because an editor could provide in good faith an inline citation, which turns out to be part of a violation of WP:Synth, and the material couldn't be removed without consensus. That seems backwards. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- When an editor supplies a source in good faith, they have complied with WP:BURDEN. There may still be problems with the material or with the source, but once a source has been provided WP:BURDEN no longer applies. Indeed, the burden of evidence shifts ... it is now up to the challenger to explain what the problem actually is. Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- You mentioned that "it is now up to the challenger to explain what the problem actually is." Does this mean that only an explanation is required, or does the challenger have to get consensus before removal?
- When an editor supplies a source in good faith, they have complied with WP:BURDEN. There may still be problems with the material or with the source, but once a source has been provided WP:BURDEN no longer applies. Indeed, the burden of evidence shifts ... it is now up to the challenger to explain what the problem actually is. Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, Regarding the situation that you described in your last message, where an editor has provided an inline citation but another editor disputes that the ref supports the material — In this case, it seems that you are suggesting that the material should stay in the article until the disputing editor has gained consensus to remove it. I don't think that is good because an editor could provide in good faith an inline citation, which turns out to be part of a violation of WP:Synth, and the material couldn't be removed without consensus. That seems backwards. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- If consensus is required for removal when it wasn't required for the addition of material with a questionable source, it seems that a greater burden is being placed on the challenger. This doesn't seem right that an editor can add questionable material with a source that doesn't directly support the material, and there has to be consensus before it can be removed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment by North moved by me to a separate section below. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
If someone needs more time to find a source, there is no reason why the unsourced material needs to stay in article space. "If a good-faith effort has been made to provide such sources" I am having a discussion about this at the moment elsewhere! Suppose that a good faith attempt has been made to provide a source, but the source does not meet reliability standards. The debate may go to WP:RS/N but while it is debated there is no reason that the text has to stay in the article. The point made about this is that well known information does not need sourcing, but if it is well known then it will be relatively easy to find a reliable source it is more likely to be obscure information that is difficult to source and in which case it is not unreasonable to ask for a reliable source to be provided. -- PBS (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- That's another way of looking at it which seems consistent with my 14:07, 1 September message above. In your case the source may not be reliable, and in the case I mentioned the source does not directly support the material. (BTW none of this seems very relevant to your edit warring on the project page, where you claim it is.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Footnote: The burden of evidence is the initial obligation of an editor to provide reliable sources that directly support the material being added. If sources that an editor believes in good faith to be sufficient have been provided, it is then the obligation of editors who do not wish to include the material to articulate problems that would justify its exclusion from Misplaced Pages. All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any potential problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added.
Here's a revised draft, reflecting what I suggested and what Blueboar said would satisfy his concerns. I think that both Bob and PBS are raising valid points, and I think that the change I made to the last sentence should address that, because it says "before the material is added". In other words, an editor adds material, with a source. Another editor removes it, challenging the source. The first editor makes a good-faith argument that the source satisfies WP:V. The second editor now cannot simply stonewall, but is expected to take part in consensus building. Discussion follows, before the material is added back. (Should we italicize "before" in the last sentence?) Does that work? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
North's proposal
I moved this comment here, so that it can be discussed more fully, in its own right. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Responding to Tryptofish, my proposal is to add the following sentence, (or a better written one to the same effect) "When tagging or removing material for being uncited or insufficiently sourced, please indicate that you have a concern or question aside from citing and sourcing." This would thin out the people mis-using wp:ver to conduct warfare, while leaving wp:burden at full strength. North8000 (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Where would you add the sentence? I don't know, I'm not really comfortable with this idea. It seems to me that one should have the option of challenging material exactly because of citing and sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you know that the material is good, and the only problem is the source, why would you want to challenge/remove the material?
I understand why you'd be unhappy to have "The brain is part of the central nervous system" followed by a citation to Joe's Fishing Blog, but why would you challenge "The brain is part of the central nervous system" in that instance? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)- (edit conflict) Oh! So the issue is of material that is thought to be good, but it's just a matter of there being no source or a wrong source. I didn't understand that before. OK! Then let me suggest this: "When tagging or removing material for being uncited or insufficiently sourced, please indicate that you have a concern that the material itself is unverifiable. If you believe the material to be verifiable, then it is better to provide sourcing yourself, instead of removing the material." --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you know that the material is good, and the only problem is the source, why would you want to challenge/remove the material?
- North, I think that this is just a bureaucratic step. We need something that can't be accomplished by setting AWB or Twinkle to automatically add a standard edit summary any time a fact-tag gets added. It would be more pointful to say, "You may not challenge any material for which you personally believe a high-quality reliable source could be supplied by anyone who took the time and effort to search for one." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Bob K31416 question
From the history of the policy.
- 15:04, 1 September 2012 Bob K31416 (+4) . . (Rv PBS. I don't see the connection. Please discuss at Talk. And I'm still waiting for your response to my message 4 days ago at Talk. Your reverting without good reason and refusal to discuss at Talk is edit warring.)
I am reverting to the stable version. It is you who is proposing a change, so to call a revert to a stable version when simultaneously stating there are open questions is a misuse of the term "edit warring". As far as I know I have not refused to discuss anything. So:
- What question has not been answered?
- "And I'm still waiting for your response to my message 4 days ago at Talk" what message? A few diffs would help.
-- PBS (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Re " 'And I'm still waiting for your response to my message 4 days ago at Talk' what message? A few diffs would help." — diff 28 Aug --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I though I had answered it with a long reply and more specifically:
- What here is being described as BURDEN has an old redirect called WP:PROVIT the point being that if someone does not believe something to be "obvious" then the person making unsubstantiated claims should either prove it (with a reliable source) or leave it out (to use pun on a London expression ). It is better to have nothing than to have incorrect text on a subject -- I agree with footnote 3
- I though I had answered it with a long reply and more specifically:
- But to give an example. This edit with the comment "Commissioners)". Let us suppose the revert of that edit had been reverted, and then reverted with a comment of WP:PROVIT. Using your wording "but" wording it could have been reverted yet again with the comment See PROVIT "but ... the overall state of the article" allows me time to find a citation. The debate is then framed around the the state of the article and the time needed to find a citation rather than the validity of the information in the first place. Without the qualification of "but" the policy debate ends with PROVIT. -- PBS (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- However, the editor could have reverted it just as well with the comment
- See PROVIT “Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article;” allows me time to find a citation.
- Seems like the issue you are raising is with the above phrase, which remains after your revert, not with the word "but". --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. Please note that the first sentence in the version you reverted to,
- "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source."
- is qualified by the second sentence,
- "Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article;...".
- even without the "but". The purpose of the "but" connecting the first and second sentences is to reduce the chance that the first sentence is interpreted alone or taken out of context. Here is what it looks like with the "but".
- "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source, but whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article;..."
- --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- However, the editor could have reverted it just as well with the comment
- But to give an example. This edit with the comment "Commissioners)". Let us suppose the revert of that edit had been reverted, and then reverted with a comment of WP:PROVIT. Using your wording "but" wording it could have been reverted yet again with the comment See PROVIT "but ... the overall state of the article" allows me time to find a citation. The debate is then framed around the the state of the article and the time needed to find a citation rather than the validity of the information in the first place. Without the qualification of "but" the policy debate ends with PROVIT. -- PBS (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your argument is precisely why the but should not be there. The difference is that as two sentences the first gives a clear statement of what PROVIT means. The second sentence is advise on whether it ought to be done. Combining the sentences qualifies the first clause it does not advise. -- PBS (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- The second sentence is stronger than just advice since it uses the words "should" and "depends". It's a qualification of the first sentence. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your argument is precisely why the but should not be there. The difference is that as two sentences the first gives a clear statement of what PROVIT means. The second sentence is advise on whether it ought to be done. Combining the sentences qualifies the first clause it does not advise. -- PBS (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- As I've said directly below, this issue isn't a big deal to me, but I want to caution both of you that you are both in violation of the spirit, and maybe or maybe not the letter, of WP:3RR. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Proposal re connecting two sentences with “but”
Please see the discussion in the above section and comment on whether two sentences in WP:Burden should be connected with “but”. In other words, whether the following change should be made in WP:Burden
- from
- "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; ... “
- to
- "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source, but whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; ... “
The purpose of the change is to reduce the chance that the first sentence is interpreted alone or taken out of context. Thanks, --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Comments:
- I'd lean in favor of connecting with a comma, but I don't feel strongly about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't much care about whether this is one sentence or two. I very much care that we continue to say "whether and how quickly" instead of just "how quickly". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree about "whether". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Minor grammar errors
Under "Self-published sources": "on the topic of the article" belongs in parenthesis, as it is a parenthetical clause, and the sentence is properly understood only with the requisite parenthesis. Offsetting that clause with commas would likely only lead to further confusion.
In the "Notes" section, footnote number 5 needs an "s" after "material" in order for the sentence's structure to agree with the following "those".
I was all set to "boldly edit", but the page is protected.
67.91.184.187 (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing those two things out. I made edits to (hopefully) address each of them, although I did it slightly differently than what you suggested. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)