Wikipedia talk:Confirm queried sources

Opposition

In theory it sounds good. In practice, I'd fear that many valuable things would be lost because the people that added them are no longer around and others aren't willing to look for sources. --SPUI (talk) 02:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since this comment was made the proposal was amended to make it clear that, where, if sourced, information would otherwise remain in the article, it should be removed to the talk page. This way, information would not be lost, just put on "hold", jguk 20:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. However, if those contributors aren't prepared to give sources then how do we know the material is correct? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is more or less an unoffical common practice already. I'm not opposed to the idea (I loves me my citations as much as any good Wikipedian), but I'm not sure we need to formalize it. Trying to enforce a policy like this could be a waste of perfectly good red tape. – ClockworkSoul 07:05, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah? Tell that to all the others who've given me grief when I question what their sources are in their articles. This formal policy would make things a lot easier, and would give a much greater incenitve for those who need a little... push... to cite their sources correctly. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In arguments such as you describe directly above there is no need for a new policy. See Wikipedia:Cite sources, the standard interpretation of which is that in a dispute the side with sources (if the other is without) wins.

There is also no need for this policy because it is really easy to discredit information that is unsourced. Simply find a source which contradicts the unsourced info. That should be policy in my opinion. Hyacinth 17:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have seen cases where the side without the source sees that as no objection to the disputed information remaining. A codification of this principle works.

On the second point, I firmly disagree that the person wishing to remove information should have the burden of proof. The person adding it must have that burden. Also, the idea that there's always a source to discredit unsourced information assumes that every false thing can be disproved. I'm not sure I agree with this. Let me give an example, what if I added the statement "Life exists on Saturn's moon, Titan"?

I appreciate that some Wikipedians may see this proposed policy as unnecessary, but, unless you really do object to what it say, I would ask for your support. Those proposing and supporting the draft policy do see a need. Unfortunate, maybe - but we have the betterment of Wikipedia at heart, jguk 20:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think sources stating that life in this solar system exists only on Earth are common (at least on cable TV where they do endless shows about the topic of alien life). At least I hope so, or that statement would be quickly removed from Wikipedia.

To get my support this policy would need to add and stress that the content is the only consideration appropriate for in a decision to remove text to talk, not the manner in which that content was added, it's form, by who it was added, or for what supposed reasons. Hyacinth 21:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disputing time period

Queried information not backed up by a source should be removed immediately. The idea that disruptive users can make something up, put it into an article, and say, "Hey, it's got to stay there for at least 2 weeks - it's policy" appals me. If it's thought that it may be useful information, and is not libellous, information can always be put on a talk page until a source becomes available.

Also, we need to define what constitutes an acceptable source. In this day and age anyone can start up their website and lob any information on it. A source needs to be reliable, and needs to be written by someone with standing on their subject. If it's an article on a subject that is of academic interest, you'd expect the source to be written by someone of academic standing, and to have been peer reviewed. Articles on other subjects are more difficult, but clearly sources have to have some standing in their particular field to become notable.

However, the idea of having a formal policy that disputed or queried information should be removed from an article until there is a reputable source supporting it does appeal to me. I hate it when I have to give in to persistent users inserting dubious information based on no sources or dodgy sources because there is no policy to point to and I don't want to risk getting into or continuing long edit wars to remove it. I'm sure I'm not the only one. For particularly disputable information, more than one source might be appropriate, jguk 14:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've reworded the proposal to bring it in line with my own thoughts. I now await universal acclamation/condemnation* (* delete as applicable), jguk 19:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you may have misread the proposal. The proposed policy only makes it explicit that things need to be verifiable (which is already policy) and proposes a standard way to put pressure on people to cite sources. Nowhere does it say that bogus claims must stay in articles for two weeks. That would of course be ridiculous, as you point out. This is clearly not an invitation for POV pushers and vandals – if someone were to add POV comments or blatant misinformation, of course those should be removed right away. The policy doesn't grant any rights regarding how long information must be kept; it merely clarifies what can be done by reasonable people to enhance the quality of articles. --MarkSweep 22:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't say that because I changed it. OK, to be fair, it did not explicitly say "keep bogus claims in for 2 weeks", but it did say to remove info that has been queried after 2 weeks. If we have a policy that says to remove something after 2 weeks, it will be interpreted by most as that it should stay in until those 2 weeks have elapsed. There should be no place in the main article namespace for disputed unsourced information. Full stop, jguk 23:38, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yep, it's not so much the two weeks in patrticular, as that a specific time limit is specified at all. This parallels the 3RR problem, where some editors interpret it as an invitation to revert up to 3 times a day, rather than a discouragement to revert if other means are possible. --iMb~Mw 03:37, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The irony here is that now that we have the word "reputable" in the policy, it is no longer specific enough to be enforcable. Where the power needed to be given to those who insist upon sources, now we have issues with sources being "reputable". What exactly does that mean? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe what's really needed is a better way of describing good sources. You're right, "reputable" is definitely one of those pesky weasel words. A better definition is hard too, given the ongoing arguments over what sources should be acceptable (a few people advocate only using paper sources, what makes for a good source varies by the subject matter, etc.). Ow, my head hurts. --iMb~Mw

I have taken on board what has been said here and made clarifications to the intended purpose and scope of what this policy covers. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:24, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Fact and Reference Check

WikiProject: Fact and Reference Check can help with this, by keeping track of all facts and referencing them with multiple sources each. Our current tasks on the project are: 1) try to get the developers of mediawiki to implement autonumbering 'smart' end/footnotes and 2) try to come up with a formatting style for articles we do.

"Reputable" sources

I have several problems with this being in this particular policy. Firstly, this is outside of the scope of what this policy is meant to try to combat. The problem that we have been having is that no sources are provided by many authors. This policy is an attempt to clearly break this problem and clearly provide editors with a guideline over what happens to material that cannot be backed up by a source. This policy is to formally explain to editors that we sanction and codone the removal of information that is deemed original research.

Whether that information is "reputable" or not is beside the point. If we include this word, then we leave a loophole for those who wish to disrupt Wikipedia. The point of this policy is not to determine whether sources are reputable or not. That is the job of another policy (if we actually have one). The problem of having it in this policy is that people could add their sources and then have someone, who is pushing their POV that the material should be suppressed, remove the material anyway by stating that the information is not "reputable".

The word "reputable", incidently, is very vague. What consistutes reputable information? I may find Christian theologians reputable, while an atheist may not. A more specific example is that information was added to Historicity of Jesus and the source for the information was Alexander Hislop and his work The Two Babylons. I do not consider this reputable. Those who have added the information do find it reputable. I should not be able to remove the information based on this policy! If I wish to remove the information, I would need to cite a policy that states what reputable sources are, and how to go about removing them from articles.

I do, however, encourage those who wish for us to only use reputable sources to draft up a policy on what exactly this nebulous term means. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:No original research is official policy, right? Could the wording in there somehow be refined to give editors something official to point at when these kinds of disputes come up? --iMb~Mw 07:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it most definitely is. However, this policy has a very limited and narrow scope. It merely ackowledges and gives a mechanism by which an editor may remove unsourced information from an article. It does not:

1. deal with how good that source is
2. deal with how good the actually information is
3. mandate that editors must remove information. It only states how the information can be removed.

I hope that my recent modification of the policy makes this clear. Ta bu shi da yu 07:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is important to consider how reputable the source is, as long as it is listed. If there is some question a particular source might not be credible, the reader should be able to make that decision. I can see this being particularly useful in NPOV. "Sure, many believe this probably not true thing, but the committee of liars and tall tale tellers says it is true." Perhaps that's going overboard, but if the source is famous or otherwise interesting, its lack credibility may or may not be a reason for removing what they claim, and the credibility judgement itself may be POV. --ssd 14:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have observed a few cases where editors remove large sections of an article that they disagree with and then claim any source that supports it is "not reputable". Then you go and find another source to back it up and the process starts over again. They keep asking for more and more sources until it's impossible to find a source. When they for instance claim sources like books by experts in the field and articles in peer-reviewed scientific magazines are "not reputable" it kind of gets impossible to prove anything. Let's say an editor don't like apples and in the article about apple pie removes that it contains apples. Another editor may question that and we get something like:

- I made an apple pie yesterday and I used apples.

- Well, that's original research. You have to find a reputable source that apple pie contains apples.

- Ok, what about this cookbook I have that have a recepie for apple pie with apples?

- It's not available online so it's not possible to use as a source.

- Ok, but here I have found a recepie online, just check this link.

- The one who wrote that recepie is not an expert on apple pies. Besides it's a personal site.

- But this link then. It's for a recepie published in a cooking magazine.

- Anyone could get a recepie published. The magazine isn't peer reviewed, it's not edited by cooking experts and the one who wrote the recepie is not a credible expert...

and so on... Used in this way you can remove anything either by ridiculus requirements or that the other editor simply gives up. // Liftarn

Status quo or rules of evidence?

I tend to follow a peer review sort of style. If I come across something which I believe to be false, I usually remove it from the article, post it to the talk page, and post my objections. Shaky claims are more of a gray area - if I have a strong suspicion that it's a bogus claim, I remove it to the talk page and ask for justification. In many cases, I find claims which are plausible but which aren't well documented and I think they should be. In these cases, I usually just ask for citation on the talk page.

I don't particularly feel there's any need to change policy to empower me to challenge shaky claims. Sometimes when I challenge a claim, people can justify it, usually with a citation. Sometimes they can't, and they admit this, and the questionable material is moved to the talk page until someone can check it out. Sometimes the provided justification is unconvincing, and the page gets tagged for accuracy dispute.

I do feel that Wikipedia needs more people to go around and ask, "How do you know that?", especially for shaky-sounding claims. If this policy simply documents (what I hope is) the common practice I described above, that's fine.

People can't really start going through the encyclopedia demanding that absolutely every sentence have a source, or else they are going to remove it. It's simply not practical to document everything that quickly, and some people may take offense if someone is claiming that an official policy justifies such a confrontational approach. There is also a huge difference between needing documentation for a specific claim, and needing documentation for a summary or an overview.

There are also many facts which aren't sole-source original research, per se, but which don't need to be citation-documented. Like, say, the list of albums that a particular band has published. It's not necessary, and it may be less reliable, to cite an external source for such a list, than it would be for the residents of Wikipedia to simply check their record collections to see if they have anything which is not listed or which they can find in the store. In this case, it might also be prudent to do a Google search or check a CD database to see if there are any albums which were missed. But it's only necessary to cite such a third-party source if no Wikipedian can personally verify the information that's there. There are plenty of facts which people acquire through personal experience, which many people don't know about. As long as these claims are supported by multiple people and there is little or no substantial doubt or substantive contrary evidence, I think they are a valuable addition to the encyclopedia.

Even sources we consider reliable, like published books, scientific journals, newspaper reports, carefully constructed databases, etc., have lots of mistakes in them, for all sorts of reasons. In these cases, being able to do direct verification is quite preferable to constructing a picture of the universe solely by reading about it.

I think the "No original research" policy is good to keep Wikipedia from turning into an unorganized academic journal (which would interfere with its encyclopedic mission), and a good way to keep enthusiastic but deeply misled people from keeping material in the encyclopedia because they can cite themselves as authorities. But collectively cross-checked summaries of direct experience without citation to third parties is perfectly fine, if you ask me. We just need to be aware of the limits of our direct experience.

Perhaps what we really need is a "no hearsay" policy. (And perhaps other elements similar to the rules of evidence that reputable courts of law use.) Like I said, I think corroborated personal experiences should be admissable. When things start to get problematic is when people put in things that they remember hearing or reading - then we start playing a game of telephone. That's when you ask, "How do you know?" and start going back up the chain until you find someone whose reason for knowing is as direct and reliable as possible. In the very long term, this means that the sources that Wikipedia cites should be mostly primary sources, with (hopefully trustworthy) secondary sources used only for overviews, "for further reading" bibliographies, or when no primary sources exist. -- Beland 07:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

These are interesting points, and here is my response:

1. Your first point on how you remove material is why I created this policy. Most revert wars happen because of this: the author adds controversial info that they know to be true, but sounds like something they are making up to others who edit the article. So someone takes it out, the original author puts it back in, and so on we go till someone hits their limit on the three revert rule and either can't keep the information out of the article without reverting again, or can't keep good information in the article for the same reason. Or, they revert the information out again due to a perfectly reasonable expectation that a source will be provided and then admins are forced to block them for 24 hours, even though they might be the party who is in the right! This policy prevents all this as there is now a set way of asking for sources and enforcing their citation: if after two weeks the information will be removed. It is then up to the original author to provide the source (doubtful as it may be): discussion on whether the source is reputable can be discussed from hereon. So you can see, there is actually a need to empower people to remove shaky information, and this policy attempts to make it as fair and reasonable as possible for both sides of article source disputes.
2. You say "There are also many facts which aren't sole-source original research, per se, but which don't need to be citation-documented." Yes, I agree. Hence I have clarified the policy to take into account self-evident material. The problem, however, with self-evident material is that it may not in fact be self-evident to someone else. In this case, they need a way of verifying that information, and a source must be provided. However, this policy now takes that into account as I have the text "anyone should be able to remove it from the article" and the subsequent text that makes it clear that this wording is deliberate and gives reasons why I have written it this way.
3. The issues with lists, etc, I have not taken into consideration. However, I can't see why this shouldn't apply to such things. If you make a list of something, you must have taken that list from some source of information. This policy allows for the list to exist without a source, but if a dispute does arise then sources will need to be provided (in exactly the same way that a normal article needs sources when material is added that is disputed). The policy does still allow for information to be self-evident.
4. You state "Even sources we consider reliable, like published books, scientific journals, newspaper reports, carefully constructed databases, etc., have lots of mistakes in them, for all sorts of reasons." This is not within the scope of this policy. Whether a source is dubious or not is not for this policy to decide. This policy deals with disputes over what sources have been used to add facts and opinions to the article. It gives a clear and fair mechanism for people to remove unsourced information. If the sources are inaccurate, then this should be cleared up in the article and on the talk page. If the source is disreputable, then another policy should cover this problem, not the one you are looking at here.
5. Your comments on the "No original research" policy are welcomed, however this policy is a supplement to that policy. It would be best to leave comments on the no original research on that policy's page, not on this one as this page is not form debating original research.

I hope this clarifies and answers any questions you have about this policy. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, if someone feels so strongly about keeping some questionable material in the article, then I mark it as disputed so readers are aware of the issue. Then we can take our time doing the back-and-forth of questioning and justifying. The most problematic instances are when the person making a questionable claim actually does point to a source which others consider bogus. In the cases where someone cannot even cite a bogus source, I'd rather say, "well, if this is disputed hearsay, it should be removed because it is not reliably accurate" than "well, if you can't footnote this, I have the right to remove it until you can provide one".

I think that users of this policy should be advised to flag any questionable material left in the article at any time as potentially inaccurate.

Two weeks is a long time. If no one responds to my request to attribute a questionable claim after, say, two days, I move it to the talk page. Sometimes I just do so unilaterally because I find it unlikely that it can be substantiated (though I am sometimes surprised). If someone says, yes, it's true, hold on while I look it up, then I'm perfectly happy to either leave it in the article (flagged) or let them put it back if it's already been removed. Two weeks is long enough to completely forget that an article is having problems in the first place (which is part of the reason I leave a flag behind.) -- Beland 09:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Firstly: though the policy is for everyone, obvious editors like yourselves would not be affected, due to the fact that you are actually good and reasonable editors :-) The policy I've suggested has come about because there are editors out there who like to put in weasel words and unsourced claims. The policy has really come about because of them.

I can see (now that I've taken a short wikibreak) that the time period objections have some merit. Like jguk and yourself have stated, maybe I need to think this through. The reason I've put a time period in is because I think that material should stay in the article because: a) we need to give people time to respond and organise/add their references, and b) their have been some objections that there are self-evident facts that need to references. Really, the first point is not so much of a problem: I can live with removing information to the talk page until it can be sourced and making part of an official policy, but the second point is far trickier to deal with. Firstly, are there such things as self-evident facts? Secondly, doesn't this conflict directly with Wikipedia:No original research? If we could clarify what this means, then I think we will be on our way to modifying my ideas on this policy. If that could be resolved then I would remove all mention of a time frame, and just state what jguk has said all along: remvoe all the material into the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, TBSDY's proposal would have the opposite effect to the one he wants. Those who want to keep the dispute information in the article will look for loopholes. And the loopholes in the policy are clear:

1. they allow disputed information to remain in the article namespace for 2 weeks.

2. if a source is cited, the information can remain, regardless of whether it is a proper source.

3. not all sourced information should appear in any given one article. Some information may be irrelevant, and the inclusion of some information may disrupt the balance of the article. For instance, we don't need 50 quotes approving or disapproving of George Bush's policies.

Unfortunately there are too many loopholes - TBDSY, remember that people will read the policy the opposite to the way you want them to. Also I know that if I am browsing and see something I dispute I may remove it/leave a note on the talk page - and then within a fortnight I'll have forgotten all about it! I therefore strongly oppose the proposal as currently written.

I do, however, agree with TBSDY that there is a need to tighten up policy in this area. I am also coming to the view that a proposal along these lines needs to be merged with an updated Wikipedia:Cite sources policy. Some features of a policy are clear, though coming up with tight definitions will be difficult:

1. It must allow for immediate removal of material that is disputed (provided the user disputing the material is acting in good faith)

2. Disputed material that, if adequately sourced, and if not libellous, should be removed to the talk page so that the information is not lost

3. All material should be adequately sourced. However, this is an ideal - at present it is better to only demand that disputed or sensational material is sourced.

4. Not all sources are equal. Some have little or no value. I agree the word "adequately" (or "reputable" or whatever) in 3 needs to be tightened up. But without some qualification to define what an acceptable source is, we would leave a policy loophole that those wishing to trot out the sort of thing that TBSDY is referring to vis-a-vis CD will exploit. Note that at present they can just argue "well, I've supplied you with a source" - if we're not careful they will argue "well, policy says it can stay as I've supplied you with a source - policy says nothing about what that source may be".

5. Just because information had been adequately sourced does not mean that it should appear in any given article.

Thoughts? jguk 09:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that because the policy carves out a specific right to remove after 2 weeks, it implies that removal not following this procedure is not good. I would change it to say that unsourced material which an editor deems questionable can be removed to the talk page immediately, and that this may be immediately reverted if a dispute tag is added. After this, I would say that 1.) the parties to the dispute should discuss the issue, and hopefully reach an agreement. 2.) If the dispute is inactive for two week or more, the questionable material may be moved to the talk page so that the dispute tag can be removed. -- Beland 09:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Time frame removed

I can see that there is a lot of merit to removing the time frame from the policy, mainly due to the large potential loophole it gives POV pushers and disruptive editors (even though this clearly goes against the general spirit of my policy). As such, I have modified the procedure to allow editors to immediately move the material to the talk page, otherwise this will be unworkable. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quality of source

I agree with Ta bu shi da yu that this is not the place to address source quality or lack of quality. Maurreen 17:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Widely-believed but unreferenced facts

So, if a troll says "Please cite a source for the claim that 'A' is the first letter of the english alphabet", or "Please cite a source for the claim that Earth is the home planet for Humans", and nobody does so, then the troll may remove that claim from the article. I don't think this would be a desirable. I think the policy needs to allow "general knowledge" to be incorporated without having citable sources. —AlanBarrett 18:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We are assuming that the user disputing the fact is doing so in good faith. I also think that removing information that is obvious to all is clear vandalism - and if it happens over a number of pages that is enough for a user to be blocked. Perhaps some words to that effect should be added, jguk 19:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You know, there is a major problem here. Please define "general knowledge", and how it relates to Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Cite sources! This is not the first time I've encountered this argument, and so far noone has given me a satisfactory answer. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to define "general knowledge" - after all, it would be impossible: a fact about a British soap star may be general knowledge in the UK, with no-one in the rest of the world even knowing who the soap star is. Users deliberately removing lots of generally accepted knowledge soon get banned for vandalism - and that's how it should stay. One or two one-off queries by users that ask them in good faith, will not get branded a vandal either - they remove info, asking for support, and receive it. We could add a note to this effect, but I wouldn't go further, jguk 21:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So in other words, that is not general knowledge at all. No offence, but if someone from the U.S. said this, they'd get told they are elitist or an imperialist. It's really not acceptable to have such a nebulous term in the policy, as this is possibly the widest loophole I've seen for those who are determined to push their POV into an article. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Define "general knowledge"? I don't have a good definition, but fortunately I don't need one. The proposer of the policy needs to edit the policy to earn my vote (or not edit the policy, and have me vote against it), but there is no need for the edited policy to include the phrase "general knowledge". For example, it could simply outlaw bad-faith requests for sources, and it could define a way of having a poll to decide whether facts were so obvious or well known that a request for sources would be classified as bad faith. I suspect that sources could be found for almost all items of general knowledge, but I do not believe that it is a productive use of editors' time to track down sources for claims like "rain is composed chiefly of water", or "animals can die of starvation", or "the nose is an organ associated with the sense of smell", or "the round orange thing visible in the sky is called the sun", or any other item of undisputed general knowledge. It's fine if some editors want to spend their time tracking down sources for general knowledge. I do not want a policy that would allow trolls to hold editors to ransom: "If nobody tracks down sources for these items of general knowledge, then I will remove them from the article, and you can't punish me for it". —AlanBarrett 16:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's just the examples, but those strike me as being really easy facts to back up with citations. In fact, Alphabet does have references, and linking to that article (which would be natural for another article that discussed it) would cover the references requirement. Likewise, existing refs for Human look like they cover the Earth angle. --iMb~Mw 05:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Those were examples of general knowledge, not examples of facts for which sources are hard to find. —AlanBarrett 16:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Direct overlap with Wikipedia:Verifiability

So there is a suggested procedure for removing unverified material from articles at Wikipedia:Verifiability. It contains lots of conditions, advice, and intermediate and alternative steps not explored here. These two pages have to be reconciled or else there will be inconsistent guidance. Anyone have any thoughts on how best to do that (content-wise)? -- Beland 23:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I think there should be a guide on how to identify reliable sources. In fact, I just started one. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Beland 08:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

I think some people, including myself, would feel more comfortable with the proposed policy if it were put in more context about when it's actually a good idea to invoke one's Wiki-given right to remove statements to a talk page. It's not just a question of documentation; there are also some social considerations. A more comprehensive statement might also better fit into Wikipedia:Verification. I would propose the following. -- Beland 03:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

So you've found what looks like a dubious statement in a Wikipedia article. What should you do?

1.) Check existing documentation.

• Check the bottom of the article for references.
• Check the talk page.
• Check other articles that the statement links to.
• It would be embarrassing if you could have confirmed the fact you are disputing with a quick Google search, a peek in the dictionary, or similar trivial research.

If the existing documentation or references aren't clear, improve the article for the benefit of future fact checkers and readers.

2.) Notify others.

You have several different choices. Before deciding what to do, consider the following:

• Whether or not the article is controversial, and whether or not the change you are making is likely to stir up controversy. You might want to check the talk page and history to get a better idea.
• Whether or not the majority of editors watching the article would agree with your input at first glance.
• Whether or not the factual and personal motivation for the input is obvious.
• Whether or not your input will cause the person(s) who put the statement there in the first place to disagree, or to be offended.
• Whether or not you can cite a reliable source to justify your change.
• Whether you want to make an incremental improvement (for example, making a dubious statement more accurate by making it more specific), have a specific claim that contradicts the existing text, or want to claim that a statement is false and should just be removed.
• How certain you are that your claim is correct, or that the disputed claim is wrong. (Is it vaguely fishy, somewhat questionable, arguably wrong, or indisputably incorrect?)
• Whether or not the original statement is documented, and whether or not the sources it references are reliable.
• Whether or not you have any biases which may color your opinion.
• Whether or not you can follow up in a few days.

2A.) Make a note on the talk page.
2B.) Change the article itself.

It's recommended that you leave a note on the talk page if the rationale for your edit doesn't fit in the edit summary, or if it's likely that others will reply. The answers to the "Before you decide, consider.." questions above are also good talk page fodder.

If no one answers, it may be that the page is neglected, that participants haven't logged on to Wikipedia recently, or that no one has a substantive reply to offer.

It's always a good idea to cite specific parts of the article in any criticism. Which facts are of dubious accuracy? If you think something is biased, explain how.

Some situations clearly call for being bold and just fixing the articles (e.g. non-controversial improvements that you can cite a reliable source for); others clearly would benefit from being proposed on the talk page at least a day or so before being implemented (e.g. removal of fishy-sounding statements that you aren't too certain are actually wrong). There is a lot of gray area in between.

From one end of the spectrum to the other, you might:

• Copy a statement to the talk page to ask for sources or note possible bias or inaccuracy.
• Copy a statement to the talk page to ask for sources or note possible bias or inaccuracy, and in the article itself, tag it as dubious or disputed (see below).
• Move a statement to the talk page and criticize it there.
• Remove a statement without a note on the talk page. (Not recommended unless it's clearly a redundant statement.)

2C.) Tag the statement or page as dubious or disputed.

If you are reasonably certain that an article is factually inaccurate, biased, or both, you should tag it so that readers are aware of the question. See Wikipedia:Cleanup resources for help with tags. Obviously, there's no need to put in such a tag if you fix the article yourself, and it is preferable to do so unless the changes should be discussed first. If you don't change the article, it's best to propose specific language on the talk page if you can, rather than make a vague suggestion that something should be improved. This will help show you are willing to help out and not just criticize, and will hopefully help move toward consensus and implementation more quickly.

If you do add such a tag, you'll almost certainly want to post a note on the talk page giving specifics.

2D.) Write a personal note to the author of a specific edit or the primary author of the page (if any).

You might do this to draw attention to a question you've asked on a talk page, to ask a question you think only this person will know the answer to (for example, to clarify a statement they made, or to ask if they were drawing on a specific source), to ask for help, or to make a comment that's not for public consumption.

Keep in mind that not everyone logs on to Wikipedia as often or as infrequently as you do, so you might not get an immediate response.

2E.) List the edit on Wikipedia:RC patrol.

Only for recent changes. See the page itself for inclusion criteria.

2F.) Tag the page for cleanup.
2G.) Tag the page for expert attention.
2H.) Tag the page for merger with another page.
2H.) Tag the page for deletion.

See Wikipedia:Cleanup resources for help with tags.

Keep in mind that tagging for deletion is a strong statement. You will definitely want to check the article's talk page and history. Consider whether or not there should eventually be an article with this name, even if it needs to be re-written from scratch. Especially if you are new to Wikipedia, read Wikipedia:Votes for deletion and related policies to get a feel for site conventions on deletion. Be extra careful to explain your reasoning.

3.) Cope with the aftermath.

If you've edited the article directly and your change is immediately reverted, then it's time to stop and discuss the situation. Instead of re-implementing the change, tag the statement or page as disputed (so readers aren't misled), make a polite post to the talk page, and wait a while to see what happens.

Whether you are making an article change, posting a note to the talk page, or adding a tag, someone may ask you a question in reply. If you care about getting your proposal implemented, you may need to participate in the ensuing discussion. To facilitate this, you might want to add the page(s) involved to your watchlist when you make changes, nominations, or comments. Then you can just check your watchlist on subsequent visits to see if anything has happened.

Comments

Strewth. I don't mind (1), but if I have to do any of the other stuff I'll just let false information stay - it just wouldn't be worth the effort to remove it. "Unverified" or "unsupported" means there are no sources quoted on the article or talk pages to support it - I don't mind clarifying that. But the onus must be on those adding information to support it, not on those removing information to disprove it, jguk 07:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is "strewth"? Maurreen 09:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I prefer Beland's proposal to the original. Beland's is more friendly, more of how to improve and still get along.

I'm not sure either is needed. If something is needed and the original is preferred, it could just be combined with Wikipedia:Cite sources or somesuch. Maurreen 09:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Jguk has a point. Perhaps I should say:

If you are short on time, it's more important that you let others know that you have found a problem than it is to pick the optimal method for doing so; just pick one of the actions listed below and do it. But if you can take a few moments, or you would like to improve your chances of getting along with other Wikipedians and making constructive, productive criticism, you might want to consider the following.

Should I add this alternative to the project page, or would it be in the way? -- Beland 10:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whilst what you seek to add is good advice, I am concerned that if it was added as part of a policy, trolls and other disruptive users would try to use the paragraph against a user who did not follow the stronger recommendations. So I'd rather it weren't there, jguk 20:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm proposing that this just be incorporated directly into Wikipedia:Verifiability. See Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. -- Beland 02:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Surely Beland's Alternate Proposal is the way any responsible Wikipedian with any manners at all would behave. I trust Wikipedians in general will be allowed to look at it as well as the appalling draft currently on the project page. --Wetman 18:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Other policies" on source quality

The page now says: "This policy takes no stance on the reputability of the sources given, and other policies should be used to determine whether any source quoted is good enough to support the use of information in an article."

This implies that there are other such policies. If so, I've missed them. Maurreen 10:08, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mmmmm, fair point. There may be other such policies (through practice), but I haven't seen them written down. Maybe replace "policies" with "factors" or "principles"? jguk 10:23, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about this? "This policy takes no stance on the reputability of the sources given. Users should consider the credibility of sources." Maurreen 10:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if the sentences were reversed (ie "Users should also consider the credibility of sources. This policy takes no stance on the reputability of the sources given."), and if the word "credible" or "reputable" were inserted before "source(s)" wherever it appears in the draft policy, jguk 10:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That works for me. We can split the changes: I will take that paragraph. Maurreen 11:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, there is (I only just found this myself!) See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:14, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I wouldn't call that a policy. It's younger than this page. Maurreen 13:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's because I started that page in response to the discussion here and the lack of any guidance on the issue. I'm adding it to WP:RFC so it can start to mature. If guidance does exist, it should be pointed to by this policy, even if it's only to an unsettled discussion. -- Beland 01:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I read that and thought "wow, that's just what I was thinking about!" I wondered why I'd never seen it before... - Ta bu shi da yu 03:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Voting

Do people think this is now stable enough to send to a vote? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Policy does not have to be decided by a vote - just consensus. A vote would just polarise views - do you like how this is worded, or not? (when in practice, those supporting it would be happy with some tweaks to the wording) Or alternatively there may be "oppose" votes by people who do not see a need for this to be policy, but are, in fact, quite happy with the principles behind it. Maybe republicise it on the village pump and RfC with a proposal that - absent major objections, it will be reclassified as a policy in a fortnight's time (say)? jguk 20:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Excluded

• This policy refers to the questioning and removal of a source based only upon the accuracy of content of the removed text.
• Reasons for removals which are not included in this policy include:
  • The form or quality of the text
  • The user who added the text
  • The supposed motivations of the user who added the text

This whole section needs to go. It's obvious, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith already cover this. It also leaves a HUGE loophole for editors to get through. I'm going to remove it. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Form and quality is not covered by Wikipedia:Assume good faith and the last two are not explicit on that page. Hyacinth 16:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The proposed policy refers to "good faith" and does not (quite purposefully) refer to the Wikipedia:Assume good faith page. "Good faith" should be interpreted as having its usual meaning in English.

Based on this, I do not see a need for Hyacinth's proposed amendment - which replaces the normal English definition of "good faith" with something else. I am conscious that where something is policy, trolls will latch on to loopholes in it. So, if someone adds dubious bits of info into 20 articles - I will consider carefully the first three or four before reverting. But if, looking at the user's contributions, it appears the user is adding doubtful material across a large number of articles in a short space of time, I would revert that user pretty much on sight. Unfortunately my action would then, under Hyacinth's wording, be taken as bad faith on my part, jguk 20:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this section opens up loopholes. The movitations of editors often are taken into account in judging a source's value, and as Jguk points out, once an editor has made a number of dodgy edits, it's fair enough to start deleting their edits without careful consideration each time. When a user name "Adolf" makes a questionable edit based on a website that might be a Holocaust-denial site, I don't want to have to spend half an hour carefully reading the material before I can revert in good faith. SlimVirgin 20:36, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

This policy (Confirm queried sources) does not apply to reverts. It applies to the removal of text to a talk page with discussion. Any other problems? Hyacinth 21:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I have removed "good faith"/"bad faith". Cripes.

Ta bu shi da yu, it appears to be less obvious than even I thought! Hyacinth 22:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what Hyacinth's concerns really are. Could you expand a little (or are you ok now with the present draft)? jguk 22:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would strongly reject this policy unless "good faith" ("honesty or lawfulness of purpose"? [1]) as currently used in the policy is defined.

To explain (again?): I would not support a policy which says one may simply remove all unsourced text for any reason or for none.

One must consider the content of that unsourced text as including a blatant inaccuracy based on that text alone.

Any other considerations either warrant simple edits to improve the text and possibly content (format, spelling or grammar, slight inaccuracy), or are precluded by Wikipedia:Assume good faith (an editor's assumed bias) where they are not covered by policies against vandalism (numerous edits which deny the holocaust by "User:I'm a Nazi"). Hyacinth 23:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the proposed policy, acting in good faith means acting honestly and with good intentions. (Lawfulness of purpose clearly isn't applicable here.) I'm not sure why you have any doubts about this. Perhaps if you could explain what problems you think there may be if we don't develop on what "good faith" is, it would help us to change the proposal to meet your concerns. Kind regards, jguk 21:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, what are honest and good intentions? Hyacinth 19:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're driving at - perhaps you could explain your concerns with an example. I'd have thought it's relatively easy to distinguish a reader who politely asks for information to be sourced once in a while and a troll who goes through lots of articles raising silly points, jguk 20:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please state in policy how this is done. Hyacinth 01:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. A good faith user is only likely to question things from time to time, to do so politely, and will probably be proven right on occasion. A bad faith user will question loads and loads of things, mostly straightforward ones, and be a right pain in the neck when things are being resolved. I can't see a case where it would be difficult to distinguish between someone who is trolling and someone who is not. If you can foresee an instance to the contrary, please explain it - but, as I note above, I do not know what menace you have in mind, so I can't amend the proposal to deal with it. I should be grateful if you provide an example of how the current wording could cause problems, jguk 07:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Or an otherwise exemplary editor will occasionally, on issues near and dear to the heart, use the policy to remove POV they disagree with only because they do. What is the difference between the unsourced things that need removal, and all the many many other unsourced statements and assertions on Wikipedia? Hyacinth 08:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank for your example. My take would be that POV should be removed - and the request for a source is likely to help, rather than hinder. Suppose a statement such as "John Doe was an inspirational leader" or "Some say John Doe was an insprirational leader" is questioned - with one editor wanting it in, another disagreeing with it. Under the proposal, a source is required. To my mind this can only help. The warring parties will always disagree on whether Doe was or was not an inspirational leader, but could agree that "The Joe Bloggs Institute, in a report written in 2003, said that John Doe was an inspirational leader".

In short, I see no problem here - indeed it is healthy that contentious articles are put through an intellectual rigour mill, jguk 10:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Common knowledge

FYI, Wikipedia:Common knowledge has just sprouted up. -- Beland 05:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And is objected to because it contradicts Wikipedia:No original research. SlimVirgin 05:30, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Are we ready to make this page policy?

I think the proposal looks good and watertight from trolls now. I also think it is necessary - as it is important that editors in good faith can point to a written policy when removing unsourced information; it gives them an upperhand in any source dispute.

Before I ask for formal support/oppose statements, are there any proposed tweaks? jguk 17:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Incredulous

I must be reading the wrong text. Is Beland's Alternate Proposal being ignored? The text on the project page seems to suggest that the plan is that any editor, logged in or not, who considers that any statement is insufficiently sourced will be encouraged to simply erase it? That can't be the current plan. Or can it? There are some editors who do behave this way, but they are not among the better sort. I can't believe the ten or so contributors here think that this is socially acceptable behavior, and are ready to press it as policy. Add a query in brackets [?], perhaps. Or put the unsourced statement in double brackets, so that queried statements are in a warning red, like this. Or do what every sensible Wikipedian does: remove it to Discussion, to be edited up to standard. --Wetman 18:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you've misread the proposal, as it already states that information that is disputed but, if sourced, would be suitable for the article, should be put on the article's talk page, jguk 20:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's reassuring. I thought it said If there is a fact or an opinion in a Wikipedia article, and it has no source, then anyone may remove the material from the article. Imagine the mayhem such a policy would produce! --Wetman 20:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Third paragraph

I've tweaked the third paragraph, to: "Disputed statements that are not attributed may be removed from Wikipedia articles. The material should generally be placed on the talk page, to give more opportunity to editors to find and indicate a source for the material." Maurreen 20:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Issue regarding credibility of sources/links on another page

I am in the middle of an ongoing dispute on another page over whether we should link to a website that is little better than a blog (as it mostly contains essays by one man on a subject in which he has no standing). If anyone is willing to go to Talk:Common Era and offer their fourpenn'orth, it would be welcome. The dispute is entirely over the efficacy of the link, jguk 09:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced statement moved here

For disputes concerning sourced information and text, especially the credibility of sources, users should consult the article Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

I see no source for this. --SPUI (talk) 11:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted your change, because you failed to provide a reference indicating that it was unsourced. --iMb~Meow 11:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You shouldn't move him back then; you should move her to [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Confirm queried sources]]. Or would they be Wikipedia talk:Talk:Confirm queried sources? --SPUI (talk) 11:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I dispute the use of "it" in the above entry. Please provide a peer-reviewed source for this usage or retract. --iMb~Meow 11:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have changed my wording to use weasel terms. I hope you're happy. --SPUI (talk) 11:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Seeing that Weasel itself is devoid of sources, I now have no recourse but to bring this dispute to arbcom and demand that you be permanently banned from using pronouns. --iMb~Meow 12:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, fuck you and the ground you walk on! Hah! --SPUI (talk) 12:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All right, that's the last straw. I'm telling my mom. --iMb~Meow 12:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)