This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:
Related Sponsors
 |
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic. |
 |
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here. |
Contents |
Independent third-party sources
Why is the word "independent" completely missing from this page, in particular, from WP:SPS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I take "third-party" to mean a disinterested party, and past discussions have suggested that it's easier to define what that means than "independent", but "independent" is certainly most of the sense of what we're going for here, and I personally wouldn't mind adding the word in front of "third-party". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see; third-party is supposed to cover independent? The only place I could find a discussion of independent is at Wikipedia:Independent sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I do not understand it. If I am writing a book about, say, the enzymes - am I a third party or the second or the first one? Also, if a book of the first-hand testimonies about the holocaust era is written - shall we disqualify this book for the sake of coming from an interested-in party???--72.75.24.245 (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- If you are using your own data about enzymes, you not third-party. You're also in a wierd region between secondary and primary sources. If you're analyzing other people's data, you're a third party, and a secondary source. If you're compiling such analyses, you're third party and tertiary. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that every use of "third-party" in this and other policies and guidelines needs to be critically reviewed. In every case the question should be asked: "Who are the first and second parties?"
- From WP:PROVEIT
Who or what would be the first and second parties here? What would be the distinction? PSWG1920 (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
- From WP:SOURCES
The first party presumably would be the author, but who is the second party? PSWG1920 (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
- I am thinking that perhaps "third-party" should be changed to "secondary" in the above two instances. The phrase "reliable secondary sources" is already found in WP:RS. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- From WP:QS
Again, who would be the second party? Maybe "third parties" could be changed to "living persons"? PSWG1920 (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.
- From WP:SPS
So the first party would be the author, but again, who or what would be the second? PSWG1920 (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
- Further from WP:SPS
In this instance it is clear who the first and second parties are. But how is this different from simply saying "Self-published sources should never be used as sources about living persons..."? PSWG1920 (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer;
- From WP:SELFANDQUEST
And what about claims regarding second parties? PSWG1920 (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves, and only if ... the material used ... does not involve claims about third parties;
I'll answer these in order:
- If it's a person, then that person, and his friends, family, coworkers, and lawyers are not third-parties by Wiki standards. If it's a company, then the same for its employees. If it's a scientific theory, then the people who came up with it are also not third parties. Also, there is generally no first or second, there is just third and not third.
- But if you'd like to think of second parties, then I suppose his publisher, his lawyer, his family, his friends...
- Secondary definately should not be substituted in these two cases. A primary source is some manner of raw data, or an original record of an event. A secondary source reports or analyzes the former. This is entirely seperate from third-party, a person can produce a secondary source on his own company, theories, life, etc...But such a source would certainly not be third-party, and we certainly don't want to give the illusion that they are generally reliable.
- Should not be changed to living persons. We already have BLP, as I see you are aware of. But in general, we do not use self-published sources for any negative information about third parties. This applies more broadly than BLPs; we also don't take self-published content to reference criticism of companies, for example.
- Third party actually means something here distinct from in the rest of the guideline. It specifically implies that the publisher is third-party to the author, whereas previously this would not be the case. That is, if an author happens to own the publishing company, then it is considered a self-published work when the company puts out one of his own books.
- Self-published sources can be used for non-contentious information about living persons. This is all just a train of exceptions: Self-published sources are generally not OK outside articles about the author/publisher. Ignore the previous sentence if the author is an expert in the field. Ignore the previous sentence if the content of the source refers to a living person, negatively.
I think that makes it clear. Maybe it could still be better worded, though. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- What about the use of "independently published" instead of "third-party published"? That would seem to make it more clear what it means. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- I thought the one unclear thing about "independently published" is that people who don't already know what it means are going to ask, "from what?" Or maybe that would be clear to them, I don't know... Someguy1221 (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- What about "published independently of the author"? PSWG1920 (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- There's also the need for the author to be independent of the topic. Don't get me wrong, "third-party" seems to confuse quite a few people as well...Someguy1221 (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- What about "published independently of the author"? PSWG1920 (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- I thought the one unclear thing about "independently published" is that people who don't already know what it means are going to ask, "from what?" Or maybe that would be clear to them, I don't know... Someguy1221 (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with how it is phrased currently. Also, there have been some discussions where people have concluded that an expert talking about his subject -- and refuting the work of another expert or source -- does not violate BLP. That should probably be discussed here first and put into policy, but it's been said anyway. There was a discussion about this dealing with history over at WP:RS/N a while ago -- here is link. But it seems reasonable to me that a self-published source by an expert can contradict and refute other sources. Otherwise we might as well say an expert is uncitable. II | (t - c) 04:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Listing just what we mean by "third party" on various pages is a good idea, and thanks for that work, but it doesn't mean the party after the first two parties; in Wikipedia policy and guidelines, it seems to me to mean "uninvolved", "independent", "not having any obvious reason to be biased". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Challenged
A short while ago i asked about defining the often referenced but undefined phrase "challenged or likely to be challenged" (its in the archives of this page somewhere) and got some mixed response ranging from "yeah its vague" to "its supposed to be vague" and also "its plain common sense". I went away for a little while and thought about this then came up with what i think is a pretty good idea cuz i dont think common sense alway prevails here, if it did we would probably not need so many gosh darned rulez.
Anyways i want your comments on the following idea to existing policy (my words are just first draft so i welcome any suggestions):
- Any editor may ask for reliable source citations for any material in any article per this policy however such a request (either by talk page or by tag) is not by itself a "challenge" to the material, but rather it is only a request for sources and nothing more. To actually challenge material an editor must state on the article's talk page that in good faith they believe there is an material error in it, and whenever possible give guidance to the other editors as to what they believe that error to be. This will enable other editors to understand what issues may need to be corrected with the material in addition to simply providing required citations.
I think this strikes a nice compromise between those who want to improve wp by getting citations and those who want to actually argue about what is verifiable. It changes no procedures but it does add a level of responsibility to editors who wish to challenge material to actually go to the talk page and talk.
208.43.120.114 (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- As to "only a request for sources": The policy states Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed (after allowing for sufficient time to respond to the request for sources).
- Your proposal would shift the burden of evidence - or at least, the burden of research - completely from those wishing to add material to those wishing to remove material. It also amounts to a bullet-proof protection of well-done hoaxes and fakes, as it is often very hard or impossible to prove (and therefore also to state in good faith) that something does not exist. "I hereby state that I honestly believe that this is false, and am therefore entitled to request a reference" is a statement which is much harder to make than "I am not sure that this is true, please provide a reference".
- Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- There is already "a level of responsibility to editors who wish to challenge material". I'll repeat what I said recently at WP:VPP: the only tool you've got here is the balance between WP:V and WP:POINT: if someone asks you to source something (with an acceptable source, not a wiki page), you have to do it (or else they can remove the material); but if that editor has a habit of asking for things to be sourced that are not "likely to be challenged", whatever that means, and if they're obnoxious enough about it, that's actionable at WP:ANI. I'm not bringing this up to suggest that we start arresting people; I'm saying that that's the only available recourse. WP:V says that you have to provide a cite when challenged. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with HaeB, "challenging" material and waiting before removing it is basically a courtesy, not a requirement. Using similar logic, if people ignore the {{fact}} tag I can interpret that as ignoring a request and they don't care if the material is removed. I really don't see what the substantive difference between a "request" and a "challenge" is. Mr.Z-man 20:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry my internet connection has been very bad the past few day so i am sorry for being late responding. There seems to be a serious misunderstanding that what i am proposing changes the existing process of tagging and removal. That is absolutely false!!!!!
- OMG! I just realized that i never made it clear where this paragraph was supposed to be used. It is NOT going to replace any existing text, i just wanna ADD it under the section on "likely to be challenged" i dont wanna substitute it for anything.
There are many editors out there who rely on the catchphrase "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" to justify their actions without meaningful dialog by saying "the material has been removed therefore it is challenged and wp:v says challenged material cant be restored without sources". Search through the talkpages and you will find that argument over and over again (as I said at the beginning this phrase is used over 2000 times here, often along this line of argumentation). This has become in practice an unhelpful "canned response" to good faith editors trying to understand how wikipedia works and why the tag was added in the first place. It often leaves them with a (wrong) impression that the material was tagged just because the editor "felt like it".
This canned argument leaves the definition as "challenged==removed" and "removed==challenged" which means that when the policy says
Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.
it really means
Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is removed or is likely to be removed, or the material may be removed.
Tell me that aint stupid!
Good faith editors deserve some minimal guidance on what material is "likely" to require a source. Right now that guidance is "source it or lose it" which is not informative or helpful. If i am working on calendars on a subsection called "workweeks" and i write "The traditional workweek in the USA is Monday through Friday" ... do i really need to spend hours looking for a an obscure source to support that obvious and non contentious statement? Hours that could be spent on more significant ways to improve articles. (See my examples later below)
Adding this simple definition of challenged does not prevent an editor from adding a fact or unsourced tag, it simply prevents the editor from saying "because i added the tag that makes this material challenged". Instead what happens is the tag still goes on, the editor who wants to keep the material still needs to find a source, but the editor who added the tag loses a "canned response" and when asked "why did you tag/remove it?" might (note i dont say must) actually have to explain what their issue with the material is. The burden of proof is still on the editor who wants the material included.
Let me give some examples (all of these examples assume good faith that the editors are not being needlessly argumentative or deliberately editwarring). Imagine i am a new user at wikipedia:
Example A (as things are now, the hard way):
- I am working on calendars on a subsection called "workweeks" and i write "The traditional workweek is Monday through Friday". Finishing this and some other work i log off.
- An editor comes along the next day and adds a fact tag to this statement.
- A couple weeks later (i am not on wikipedia all the time) i come back and find my statement removed.
- I look at the history and see an editsummary saying "no refs - removed". I look at the talk pages and see nothing.
- I think to myself (wrongly) "that statement didn't need refs" so i restore it with an editsummary of "obvious fact, no refs needed".
- Now the other editor comes to my talkpage and accuses me of violating wp:v for restoring "challenged" material and undoes my restore so i find myself in a potential edit-war.
- I go to an admin looking for help and he says "The other editor was just following policy, he challenged your material so now you have to source it. I know it's a really dumb thing to have to source but thats the rules."
- I look for hours until i find an old college textbook saying exactly what i said. I add the citation and restore the material, wp:v satisfied.
- The other editor comes along and writes in the talkpages "your view of the workweek is too usa-centric, in some other countries the workweek is very different" and then adds a POV-section tag to the material.
- 9 steps
Example B (as things could be, the easier way):
- I am working on calendars on a subsection called "workweeks" and i write "The traditional workweek is Monday through Friday". Finishing this and some other work i log off.
- An editor comes along the next day and adds a fact tag to this statement.
- A couple weeks later (i am not on wikipedia all the time) i come back and find my statement removed.
- I look at the history and see an editsummary saying "no refs - removed". I look at the talk pages and see nothing.
- I think to myself (wrongly) "that statement didn't need refs" so i restore it with an editsummary of "obvious fact, no refs needed".
- The other editor comes along and reverts my edit with an editsummary that says "CHALLENGE: see talk page".
- I look at the talk pages and see "your view of the workweek is too usa-centric, in some other countries the workweek is very different".
- Now i understand why the statement is a problem and not only that but also i realize that the section can be greatly expanded to include discussions of the many different kinds of workweek traditions around the world. Now i can begin to really add value to the article at last.
- 8 steps, a little better
Example C (as things could be, the best way):
- I am working on calendars on a subsection called "workweeks" and i write "The traditional workweek is Monday through Friday". Finishing this and some other work i log off.
- An editor comes along the next day and adds a fact tag to this statement. He also adds an editsummary that says "CHALLENGE: see talk page".
- A couple weeks later (i am not on wikipedia all the time) i come back and find my statement removed. I see the editsummary so i look at the talk pages and see both my removed text and "your view of the workweek is too usa-centric, in some other countries the workweek is very different".
- Now i understand why the statement is a problem and not only that but also i realize that the section can be greatly expanded to include discussions of the many different kinds of workweek traditions around the world. With this focus i begin to quickly add value to the article.
- 4 steps total, much better
As Z-man said "challenge & wait" is a courtesy, not a requirement, and that does not change. Obviously what I am proposing editors could (and some do) already do now, but there is no motivation to do so versus just slapping a tag with a pathetic battle cry of "per wp:v". By clarifying that "a tag is just a tag" and "a removal is just a removal" and that "a challenge is something more than just a tag or removal" we encourage editors to continue requesting citations and removing unsourced material but to also explain the issues that make them feel a source is needed. This leads to better sources being found the first time and lowers the frustration level and edit wars.
208.43.120.114 (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Something's missing: reliability of a source sometimes depends on what you are citing it for.
It has been a while since I've read this page, and think it is coming along well, but something is still missing: You get the impression reading this page that you cannot ever cite unreliable sources. Actually, you can--you just can't use them for the purpose of supporting the claims and propositions set forth in the article. You can, however, use totally unreliable sources for the purpose of showing what the sources say, which may be totally uncontroversial. For example, it is perfectly acceptable to cite the text of a notable hoax, such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, to discuss details about the hoax, such as what the hoax said, examples of racism found within it, etc. I think we need to make that clear, because I think some editors might go astray, thinking that some sources simply cannot be cited for any reason in Wikipedia.
On a related note, that fact that something is a reliable source does not mean that citing it complies with Verifiability. Sometimes, perfectly reliable sources simply parrot or quote totally unreliable sources. Sometimes, an otherwise-reliable is totally off-the-wall on the point you are citing. Sometimes, seemingly-reliable research is later shown to be uncontroversially-false (e.g., Pons & Fleishman, whose cold fusion article was published in an otherwise-reliable source). Sometimes, scientific journals accept hoaxes. Just because it appears in an extremely reliable source does not mean you have complied with Verifiability. In these cases, where you are citing a source for a point on which that source is unreliable, you should treat it as unreliable. (If, on the other hand, the subject of your article is how some otherwise-reliable professor was bamboozled by a hoax, then you can cite her article, because for that purpose, the source is reliable.) COGDEN 01:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
problem with the basic sourcing policy
This point is not new -- most likely -- but it's been long enough for the current policy to demonstrate that it doesn't work in significant ways. The current policy requires sourcing of factual statements. Obviously not a problem, as any statement that the Moon is made of green cheese is obviously the sort of thing that should be sourced. Though I'm sure somewhere there is a printed source which says just that. Perhaps best removed if not sourced, but on the other hand, if sourced, it's still wrong. But the present policy also requires the following to be sourced: Iron is a solid at room temperatures. It's a factual statement and so should be sourced. But this is silly as it's an obvious fact to anyone who has ever seen, touched, experienced, an iron object. But, for those on patrol for policy violations, this is an eminently taggable item. Some good sense on the part of those patrolling would obviate the problem, but a change in the policy would work better. The present policy results in much wrangling, irritation, and waste of time when misused with abandon. Wikipedians, though numerous, are not an infinite resource and should be 'used' to best advantage in the interest of a better Wikipedia.
Proposed change: Factual statements, except those obviously true or common knowledge, require source citation.
Comment from others on a serious point causing trouble throughout the Wikipedia? ww (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Check out wp:Common knowledge. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Also, wp:FACTS. L0b0t (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've looked into both, thank you, and neither addresses the issue, quite. Common Knowledge is a gloss on the citation policy, and no need to cite the sky is blue is a (perhaps carefully chosen) bad example of something very obvious, with assorted gotchas if treated as obvious.
-
- The problem I've been seeing is with those who wield cite sources without common sense; it seems for purposes other than merely increasing Wikipedias's reliability and reducing the guff level. . I've not used actual examples to preclude offense, and the "iron is a solid" example above was as simple as I can contrive to more or less illustrate the issue.
-
- But I'll try again with a somewhat disguised actual example. I made an edit to an article in which I wished to help the reader see that there were several conceptual cases. The article in question mixed technical and ordinary user content to some extent and so I was at pains to disentangle the feet of Readers inclined to trip over technical content. One case, artificially simple, was x, and certain unfortunate things followed from using x. Another case, tempting from some perspectives, was y, but certain things also unfortunate followed from y, making y an unsatisfactory choice as well. Thus we can see that neither option x nor y are satisfactory for the purpose intended. And we blah blah, rest of article content... Another editor objected that I had not sourced the example I'd used (in this case y). I sense 3RR in the road ahead.
-
- It may be said that this editor is so exceptional that one must merely cope, general rules not being capable of covering outliers. But I've come across this in other contexts as well of late. Another real though disguised example is the following. An editor looked into a medical article I monitor, left two fact tags (for well established clinical realities), neglected to tag other equally unsourced well-known clinical realities, and left. I queried that editor about this, and received a comment that being unfamiliar with medicine, I thought these needed tagging for fact. I strongly believe in the citation rule and live by it, ... Drive by tagging as it were!
-
- Citations are a Good Thing, but as we all know, a Good Thing can be carried too far. I am suggesting that we revise our definition of citation need to preclude at least some kinds of excess in the use of this Good Thing. I'm sadly wise enough to expect that no such change will eliminate all excess and misuse. Maybe a note that things can Go Too Far? Something, please, folks....
- In the interest of full disclosure I must confess that I firmly believe every single declarative statement or statement of fact should have an inline citation. I do, however, feel your pain. It brings to mind the time I was tagging some WP:OR and WP:SYN in a trivia section on a television episode article and was chastised that I "...would demand a source for the ocean being blue." Well of course I would, the ocean isn't blue. What seems patently obvious to some might be mysterious and strange to someone else. I would tend to think that if the claim is being made about the subject of the article then a cite would be appropriate, if the claim is being made about something tangential to the subject of the article then a wikilink to an article about the tangential item would fine, using your example, iron is a solid at room temperatures would need a cited source in the article about iron (I don't think I've ever seen a general undergrad chemistry, or even a junior-high science, textbook without a mention of iron as a solid and mercury a liquid at room temperatures.) but an article about something made from iron would just wikilink iron (I hope that makes sense). On the other hand, there are articles that were tagged for sources back in 2006 that have yet to be fixed, so I don't see the tags accomplishing much. I agree this could use some discussion. Anyone? L0b0t (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
"The threshold for inclusion..."
Hi.
It keeps bugging me: I see that phrase "The threshold for inclusion" is verifiability, not truth. But I don't like this because it suggests that anything over this threshold may be includable, which is obviously not the case. In order for something to be included on Wikipedia it must meet all the relevant content policies and guidelines: not just WP:V, but WP:NOT, WP:NOTE, WP:NOR, and others. I'd suggest this be changed to something like "One of Wikipedia's primary criteria for inclusion...", "A necessary condition for inclusion in Wikipedia..." etc. but not the current phrasing. If one wants to argue that the current phrasing is good because if something does not pass WP:V it cannot be included, one could claim this argument also justifies similar wordings to be included in WP:NOR, WP:NOT, etc. as the same applies to them. But that would be confusiong: which one is "the" threshold for inclusion? Well, the answer is: they all are! They all define and refine the bar of inclusion on Wikipedia. Together, they establish a bar for inclusion, not any one of them on its own. mike4ty4 (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Appropriate sources
Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such.
The fact that as a rule only reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals should be used as sources for statements about scientific theories should be spelled out explicitely. More easily accessible sources in addition to peer reviewed journals or textbooks can also be given, of course. But what we should avoid at all costs are statements in wiki articles about some novel scientific claims made in some newspaper when there are no peer reviewed journals to back up such claims. Count Iblis (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia content modification information:
- This page was last modified on 6 July 2008, at 22:48.
Wikipedia Authorship and Review
Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.
Wikipedia Usage Guidelines
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia talk:Verifiability".
The URL for this specific entry is:
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.