Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

	On 21 October 2008, Wikipedia:Verifiability was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Shortcut: WT:V

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33

[edit] conflict of interest causing content removal?

An article can't be a GA if it has unsourced content, and that appears to cause a conflict of interest for those editors wishing to increase their association with GA/FA/&c. or for those who are overzealous about WP policy, favouring appearance and style rather than content. This kind of "corrective" editing is likely to repel primary contributors (← please read that), and without their content, WP consumes itself and withers.

A case in point concerns the article Stalker in which a quote of significant relevance and interest was removed (moved to the talk page) by a WP administrator (!?), along with similar content which was tagged as unsourced. The edit summary merely reads "corrections and fixes throughout". (I only discovered it because I returned to the article, several months after reading it, to find the quote again, but it was gone, so I examined the edit history.)

Naturally, primary contributors are likely to be unfamiliar with WP policy (regarding verifiability, &c.), and it seems foolish to expect them to be otherwise.

WP:Verifiability states:

Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed [...]

[...] you may move the material to the talk page.

however, it also states:

[...] it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them.

I suggest and request that the policy be changed to support content, primary contributors and readers by explicitly deprecating the removal of unsourced content (assuming it appears to be relevant and useful) unless a thorough search for sources has failed. Further, if content is removed (or moved to the talk page), the edit summary should clearly indicate that. Moving content to the talk page has problems because it removes context and the content is likely to be forgotten unless an active discussion is already underway.

It may be difficult for those on the inside, familiar with WP policy, to understand the outer perspectives of primary contributors and readers, but I think that is essential to the healthy development of WP. —Richard Taytor (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this discussion is more appropriate in the reliable sources talk, but I largely agree with you. If I see an unsourced statement, I will try to source it. If I don't have time and I think that the statement is probably/possibly true, I will fact tag it. If the statement strikes me as probable rubbish, I will go ahead and remove it, stating in the edit summary that it can be added back in if sourced.

We should not discourage edits from outside of the more policy-knowledgeable wiki community, but neither is it ok for questionable and unsupported statements to stand unchallenged. One of the things that the off-wiki community will need to come to understand is that wikipedia relies heavily upon citation, and that adding unsourced information is inviting it to be removed. To some extent, challenging unsourced info via removal furthers that goal - though I still would not remove what I considered to be a valuable but as-yet-unsourced contribution. Removing unsourced material is also good for Wikipedia's reputation off-wiki, which I estimate to be lower than we would like. Mishlai (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We need people to remove uncited material because that's how we stop people from sneaking all kinds of actually false claims into the article. If someone is being a bit overzealous about removing content that could easily be sourced, discussing it with that person would be a better idea than going to the policy and creating the false impression that editors don't have to add citations for the claims they add to articles. --causa sui ^talk 04:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to achieve a bit of ballance here... there is a difference between how we deal with unsourced statements in a new article (look for sources ourselves, tag if we can not find one, etc.), and how we deal with unsourced statements in an article that is being considered for GA status (remove to talk page for discussion, or delete completely). We also have to consider how long a statement has remained unsourced after it has been tagged (there comes a point when we can assume it can not be sourced).

There is a happy medium between Inclusion and Exclusion. It is not always easy to achieve, but it does exist. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I do essentially as Mishlai--it depends on the article and the material. In my experience, it is possible to destroy an article by insisting on exact citation for even the obvious pieces, word by word through the article--and then challenging the reliability of every source. This is also a common tactic in dealing with a disliked aspect, or portion that contradicts owns own POV. It is equally possible to turn an article or section into pure promotion (or abuse) by inserting multiple pieces of material that don't actually have any sources. DGG (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Are there any objections to the following?

Unsourced content, which appears to be otherwise relevant and useful, should not be removed unless a reasonable search for sources has failed. If such content is removed (or moved to the talk page), the edit summary should clearly indicate that. —Richard Taytor (talk) 07:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd support the second sentence, but not the first. We don't want people to think they must search for a source before removing something if it strikes them as wrong and it's unsourced. Especially at GA level, which you mentioned above, an article should definitely be well-sourced. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SV here. By all means encourage editors to search for sources rather than just deleting, but the onus needs to be on the person who adds claims. --GenericBob (talk) 10:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that my message has been missed by several who have posted here. I am not advocating the protection of content which appears to be incorrect/irrelevant. Rather, I mean to draw attention to a pernicious pattern: the removal of relevant/useful content simply because it lacks citation. Present policy appears to support the removal of unsourced content regardless of its relevance/utility, and regardless of the availability of potential sources. I simply wish to reduce the loss of relevant/useful content (a pattern which I have observed; one case in point cited above).

Objections?

Unsourced content, which appears to be correct, relevant and useful, should not be removed simply because it lacks citation, unless a reasonable search for sources has failed. If such content is removed (or moved to the talk page), the edit summary should clearly indicate that. —Richard Taytor (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is usually the right way to go, but I'd still be uncomfortable making it a general rule. I have run into bad-faith editors who take advantage of the fact that it takes less time to make up a 'source' than it does to check it, especially if you make the source inconvenient (e.g. "The British House of Lords, Hansard, Question to Lord Irvine by Lord Spens 2000 April 16", no URL provided); requiring editors to treat unsourced material as innocent until proven guilty would give them even more of an advantage (since you can always find somebody who thinks it looks correct, relevant, and useful, even if that somebody is a sock). 'Assume good faith' should be the default, but there are times when we need to be able to ditch that assumption and limit how far a malicious editor can waste people's time. There's also the question of what to do when unsourced comment looks correct, relevant, and useful, but could also be construed as defamatory - do we really want to default to 'keep'? --GenericBob (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no benefit to adding this. It's also arguably pointless in the sense that any editor wanting to remove unsourced material will simply claim he looked for a source, even if he didn't. And with BLP, unsourced contentious material must be removed immediately. The bottom line is that if editors want to increase the chances of their edits surviving, they need to cite their sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of any change in policy, I think the edit page should include an explicit warning that content must attributed to reliable published sources (external to Wikipedia); otherwise, it is likely to be removed. Presently it reads: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." which is likely to be of little use to primary contributors, especially when it's embedded in text about legal issues. SlimVirgin has proposed that Verifiability be changed to Attribution (and that change seems inevitable; so, it may as well happen sooner rather than later). —Richard Taytor (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Are there are no objections to this suggestion to change the edit form? —Richard Taytor (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Taytor, I object, because the proposal is unclear. Please state the exact exact wording before and after the proposed change. It is hard to pull out of this rambling discussion exactly what the proposal is. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a more detailed proposal:

Remove the following sentence from the paragraph located immediately below the edit textarea:

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.

Prepend the following paragraph (to the paragraph located immediately below the edit textarea); alternatively, Attribution can be changed to Verifiability:

Content must include citations to reliable published sources (otherwise, it may be removed). Please read Attribution for more information.

I don't know how to edit the edit page; please advise on appropriate procedure. —Richard Taytor (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have two basic objections, now that I understand the proposed change. First, at the beginning of this section, Mr. Taytor gave a description of what is required in good articles that is not quite accurate. Mr. Taytor wrote "An article can't be a GA if it has unsourced content" but what the WP:Good article criteria actually say is "[a good article] provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons. So neither the verifiability policy nor the good article criteria require uncontroversial statements that are unlikely to be challenged to be sourced.

Like Mr. Taytor, I don't know how to change the text that appears on the edit page. This discussion is meaningless until the correct forum for discussing changes to the edit page is identified and this discussion is either moved there, or a notice of this discussion is placed there. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

At least one WP administrator apparently believes that the bulk removal of fact-tagged content is correct and appropriate.

A primary contributor adds content, an editor fact-tags it, another editor removes it (neither attempts to find sources; why?...). Primary contributors are not likely to be familiar with WP policy. Editors (who are) ought to recognise that, and I suggest that over-zealous fact-tagging and unsourced-content removal be tempered by explicit statements in WP policy. It may be easier for editors to tag and strip content rather than to locate and cite sources, but an attempt at the latter ought to preceed the former. —Richard Taytor (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] My revert

I reverted the recent edits as they're unclear:

"The burden lies with the editor who adds or restores material even when the material in question regards information that is not known. That is, if an article states that some information is not known, and that assertion is challenged, a source must be provided supporting such statement, or it may be removed."

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Do you get what I'm trying to say? Did you read the discussion above about it? Any ideas on how to say this clearly and succinctly? Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a need to change anything. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source. We do mean "all." We can't start a list saying, "and that includes this type, and that type, of information," because it would be endless. In the case you were dealing with, "X is illegal everywhere but California," clearly needs a source according to the current policy; there's no need to reword it to accommodate that example. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin that trying to list everything that needs a source is futile. However, Born2cycle's point isn't that "X is illegal everywhere but California" needs a source. I think the point is the statement "X is legal in California, but the legality is unclear elsewhere" also needs a source, because it implies some qualified person studied the issue and concluded the legality can't be readily decided. What was really meant was "X is legal in California (Smith 2001), illegal in A, B, ... and J (Jones 2002), and Wikipedia editors are unable to find clear information about the legality elsewhere."

It isn't customary for what we call editors to make reference to themselves in the text of an article. This custom is not universal; Scientific American authors do it all the time. In this kind of situation, it may be the best way to indicate the true status of the research. --Jc3s5h (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I can gather (from multiple discussions about this at multiple policy talk pages), this seems to be a clear case of Original research.... from advocates on both sides of the argument. It seems that no reliable source has ever discussed the issue of where Lane Splitting is legal and where it is illegal. If this is indeed the case, having Wikipedia discuss it makes Wikipedia the first place to do such a review... that is the very definition of OR. My suggestion is to simply not discuss the issue of Legality at all. Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

On the lane-splitting issue, there are two sources here (David Hough and Cycle world) who suggest it's only legal in California, so they can be used. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, I agree with your point, but the danger of allowing editors to (in effect) refer to themselves by saying, "X is unclear," when what they mean is, "I can't find more information about X," is that research efforts would differ greatly. We'd no doubt sometimes end up saying things like, "Whether Paris is actually in France remains unclear," when what was really meant was, "I couldn't be bothered to look this up." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what SlimVirgin is getting at. I think if something remains unclear after research, there should be a statement about who did the research. If the conclusion about lack of clarity is in a reliable source, the conclusion should be included and cited. If the research was done by Wikipedia editors, it might be possible to phrase the article to avoid making any statement about the unclear area. If this is too awkward, it should be explicitly stated that it was Wikipedia editors who were unable to find a clear answer; readers know or ought to know what Wikipedia editors are like, and should understand they should give little weight to the Wikipedia editors inability to clarify the matter. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a minor point: most readers do not know what Wikipedia editors are like. The NY Times just ran a story about the Arbitration Committee because most people have no idea how Wikipedia works. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to indicate in the phrasing of a passage that just because something is stated as being in a particular set does not mean that it is exclusively so? Compare: "In Switzerland and Malta, cheese-stealing is a capital crime" with "There are countries, including Switzerland and Malta, where cheese-stealing is a capital crime". The first implies that the countries listed are all those which could be, whereas the second makes it clear that they are selected examples. 92.234.8.173 (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Josh

SlimVirgin, I'm just saying that the argument can be made that material of the form "X is not known" should reverse the burden to the challenger because such an assertion cannot be proven; but it should be easy to disprove by anyone who believe X is known. Such a argument can cite WP:COMMON or even WP:IAR to say this is a reasonable minor deviation from WP:BURDEN. Now, I'm not making that argument here, so please let's not debate that. I'm just saying that that argument can be made, and that it would be helpful to add something that clarifies that even for material of this form, the burden is with the editor who adds or defends the material; that a reliable source that says that must be found. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be a good clarification. Unlike most things we could list as coming under "all" things needing a source, most on that unbounded list are of an obvious nature: "of course that comes under the burden." I think this does not so intuitively. Probably the place where this comes up most often is when an article says "very little is know about his/her/its early history/childhood/origins"; "the origin of X is shrouded in mystery" and so on. This is not uncommon in articles and it always strikes me as original research when not sourced. I had this issue come up on a GA review, here where I stated I would not say the origins were obscure without a source so stating. Lo and behold, I later found sources for the origins, thus showing why we shouldn't allow such anti-statements in the absence of a source.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Television documentaries and RS

A user objected to using an episode of a television documentary series (in this case the Canadian documentary series Mayday) as a source for statement in an article (if a text transcript is not available). His reasons for objecting the usage of audio/video television are documented in this userpage discussion: User_talk:Crum375#Television_and_citations - I feel that Wikipedians can, and ought to be able to analyze a television documentary program (in other words judge who said what, whether Person X or the narratory really said Statement W - In other words carefully watching the source and attributing statements to the proper people interviewed in the program) and make sourced statements based on what is said on the program as long as users properly attribute what is said on the program itself. Crum feels that users should not be trusted to use television programs as sourcing as they may misinterpret the content of the programs. How should Wikipedia handle using television documentaries as sources? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be concerned about a televeison show as a source if there was no way for readers to obtain either a transcript or a copy. But as for the ability of the editor who watched a show to extract information from it, it is no more difficult than many written sources. Written sources about a court case, for example, may contain quotes from the accused which certainly must be attributed to the accused (as quoted in source X) rather than put forward as simple statements of fact.

It would be a good practice for any editor who wants to use a tv program as a source to record it on a VHS or digital video recorder, so the first impression from watching the program can be confirmed. Of course, the editor should also make a note of how readers can gain access to the program. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am always warry of citations to TV shows, but just as with print or electronic media, there is a range of reliability to consider... Some TV documentaries are quality sources, others are complete "infotainment" rubbish, most are some where in between. Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The variability in quality is true for any type source, printed or recorded. The problem I see in broadcast material is that there is no easy way for a reader to verify it. If it is a high quality documentary, there should hopefully be a transcript available, and that would solve the problem. Otherwise, if there is a way to purchase or borrow the DVD from a library, then we should include that information in the same way we specify a book's ISBN, title, author, publisher, year, page number, etc., so the reader can go to the library and borrow it, or Amazon and purchase it, and verify the reference. If it's just a broadcast, with no DVD available and no transcript, then I would have a problem with it, because it wouldn't be verifiable by an average reader. Crum375 (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify another point regarding broadcast material: if there is an online version of it, of reasonable reliability, I would consider that verifiable, no less than a transcript. Crum375 (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There are copies of every single Mayday/ACI episode floating online, but I don't know where Mayday is legally uploaded, so therefore I haven't linked to any copies of Mayday. It is very easy to find Mayday episodes on a certain video broadcasting site, but Wikipedia cannot link to them as they are all copyright violations. If either Discovery Channel Canada or National Geographic (in various countries) has copies of Mayday episodes, and those copies are scheduled to remain online for a long period of time, we could link to those ones. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way/place to download the videos for personal use for a fee? If so, that would be equivalent to buying a book, assuming the price is reasonable, and hence "verifiable". Crum375 (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain which websites offer legal pay-to-download video services. Those sites exist, but I'll have to see which ones have Mayday episodes. BTW, effective on 6:30 AM Central U.S. time on June 27, 2009 I will be on a trip for a few days and will be unable to post on Wikipedia during that time. EDIT: I checked Vuze, and I cannot find episodes under any of the English names used (Mayday, Air Emergency, Air Crash Investigation(s)) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] MusicMight

Musicmight is a reliable source? (JoaquimMetalhead (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

JoaquimMetalhead, please take this inquiry to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. (JoaquimMetalhead (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

[edit] Using Wikipedia articles as sources

The Wikipedia and sources that mirror or source information from Wikipedia section says:

Wikipedia itself is self-published. Therefore articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, may not be used as sources. In addition, sources that present information known to originate from Wikipedia should not be used for that information, as this may create circular sourcing.

The "Therefore" is not at all obvious, since this section immediately follows two other sections that describe some cases where self-published sources may in some circumstances be acceptable.

I also suggest that the de facto standard in Wikipedia is that embedded links in non-controversial statements serve to verify statements.

For example, the Wikipedia Good Article Brown v. Board of Education says in its Background section, "For much of the ninety years preceding the Brown case, race relations in the U.S. had been dominated by racial segregation." The date of this case combined with the Wikipedia article on racial segregation easily verifies the statement.

Similarly in the same article, the next statement has no citation but is easily verified by reference to Plessy v. Ferguson.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of citationless statements in Good Articles are easily verified by reference to Wikipedia articles.

I suggest the policy be reworded to something like the following.

Wikipedia is self-published. Therefore, when using Wikipedia articles as sources, great care must be taken to ensure reliability and avoid circular sourcing. Toward this end, a Wikipedia article must never be used as a referenced citation. This supports the reputation referenced citations have for reliability and lack of circular sourcing. Embedded links to Wikipedia articles may be the verification for citationless statements, provided the linked article relies on external citations for its sources, and the citationless statement is not controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidForthoffer (talk • contribs) 10:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree: Wikipedia or mirrors should never be used as sources. If a Wikipedia article has sources, which hopefully it does, then those sources can be used. In the example given above, the first google hit I found was {http://brownvboard.org/summary/} which looks like a pretty good source to me. Using Wikipedia as a source would just be plain laziness. If good sources can't be found then the information shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it seems (especially from my experience reviewing Good articles) that far too many editors can't be bothered to get out and find sources, preferring blogs, wiki mirrors, fan sites, etc.. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

How to resolve theory versus practice? If Wikipedia articles should never be used as sources, why do so many Good Articles have so many citationless statements? I do see that verifiability is a requirement in Wikipedia:Good article criteria. I perceive a conflict between theory and practice. DavidForthoffer (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, currently all GAs passed before September 2007 are undergoing review at GA Sweeps - you could always help out there. Otherwise if you find such article, you can search out citations, put tags on, take them to WP:GAR. You don't have to just pass on by. In answr to your question, How to resolve theory versus practice?, the answer is simple. Get stuck in - this is a collaborative project. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Statements that are unlikely to be challenged, and which in fact have not been challenged, do not require a citation. At the same time, there is no reason not to include a wikilink in such a statement for the benefit of readers who want to learn more about it. DavidFortoffer's presumption that such links are for verification rather than further information is not necessarily correct. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

For me, this issue came up when I added "Furthermore, arresting citizens are not protected by qualified immunity, so if they are mistaken, they may face a civil lawsuit or charges of battery or false imprisonment" to the Fourth Amendment article. That statement seemed unlikely to be challenged, and easily verified by following the Wikipedia links to other articles that cited several relevant cases. However, it was challenged. Note: I was not presuming that such links were for verification rather than further information. I was presuming both, since I thought all statements should be verifiable. DavidForthoffer (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) All statements should be verifiable, but in the case of statements that have not been challenged, and are unlikely to be challenged, verification is so easy that readers can be left to their own devices to verify them, without the aid of any citation. --Jc3s5h (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. So for the case of statements that ought not be challenged and verification is so easy that readers can be left to their own devices to verify them without the aid of any citation (though perhaps with the aid of a linked Wikipedia article), yet are challenged, I'll go ahead and add (external) citations. DavidForthoffer (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fallacy of Peer Reviewed Journals

Eventually I could probably rediscover the source, but for the moment you'll just have to trust me. I am not making this up.

In late 1980s I was digging around MIT/Sloan for research on software maintenance. I found an article abstract that sounded spot-on. I paid the $15. When the full article arrived, the full abstract said that while the original intent of the research was to study software maintenance issues, they found there was such a low incidence of peer reviewed articles about software maintenance that their article was going to describe how object oriented programming would eliminate/greatly reduce the need for software maintenance. Total fantasy, but spot on for how the academic world looks at software.

So much for peer reviewed articles being the ultimate source of truth.

Personally I file this under: "Since my eyes can see visible light, this is PROOF that x-rays, gamma rays, & all sorts of non-visible light do not exist." DEddy (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand - you found an early abstact that did not agree with the published article? This is why people don't cite abstracts. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

He found a peer-reviewed article that argued for a position of wild-eyed optimism, and which some Wikidiot would cite as proof (Proof, do you hear me? PROOF) of the wild-eyed fantasy.

Quite seriously, we do have a problem with people who cite journal articles as evidence that some argument is the Truth, ignoring the academic incentive to write a one-sided article for a novel position. (That way you get cited, even if the position is radically unsound.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps journals like this should also be used as sources, then? Count Iblis (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

While probably a useful project for those who can discount exaggerated claims, I would expect it to be more tendentious than normal journals (consider the clause on squaring the circle in the mission statement).

No, this is an inherent problem with many of our sources; we need to be aware of it, and do more to discourage the POV-pushers, who take advantage of the situation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Journal articles? There are whole books of that sort, e.g. Super-recursive algorithm. It's just another reason editors need to know the topics they write about. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about the reliance by some editors on peer-reviewed articles, which is often primary-source material, because they can contain nonsense just as anything else can. As with anything contentious, relying on secondary sources often fixes the problem. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Relying on a poor secondary source is just as bad as relying on a poor primary source. It may be worse, if one is more trusting of the bad secondary source. Wikipedia is not an exercise in writing fifth-grade book reports, in which one copies material one does not understand. Editors here need to know the areas they write in well enough to be able to evaluate which opinions are broadly held in the literature and which are not. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not just a question of whether the source is poor. Relying on good primary sources is problematic too for people who don't know what they're doing. I agree with your final point, but there's nothing we can do about it, unfortunately. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)