Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Nonreputable vs. unreputable

I've changed unreputable to nonreputable to conform with definition 3 for non- in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition (Page 841), which states of the prefix that it means "lacking the usual esp. positive characteristics of the thing specified <noncelebration> <nonart>." But of course I am willing to duck the issue by rephrasing the sentence, if one is so minded. Sincerely, and in great good faith, GeorgeLouis 07:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• If you would engage in a little fact and reference checking, you would find that nonreputable isn't a word. Unreputable is.
• Were the word to exist, "lacking the usual esp. positive characteristics of the thing specified" would mean "lacking a good reputation". Which is exactly what unreputable means. The difference being that unreputable is a word.
• We do things by consensus around here. Since you're not a member of this project, perhaps you're unaware of that? In any case, the people who are members tend to feel strongly about checking facts, and using reference works. If you can develop a consensus that feels that we should endorse illiteracy, I'll go along with it, but until you do, let's use actual words, so that project members don't look like laughing stocks, OK? ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 12:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I am not sure how you determined that I did not do any fact or reference checking; do you have a source for that? My Webster's Dictionary, 11th edition, still lies upon my desk, and I have just opened it to Page 841, which gives the definition of non as I copied it above. I am sure you are aware that just about any word can have non attached to it to indicate that the new word means "lacking the usual esp. positive characteristics of the thing specified." Thus, non-U (having none of the positive characteristics of the upper class), nonperson, (having none of the positive characteristics of personhood, non-Wiki, (having none of the positive characteristics of Wikipedia), or nonthreatening (having none of the usual characteristics of a threat). (Frankly, I am a bit embarrassed to be pointing this out, being among a coterie of editors as I am, but I hope you will forgive me for just restating this fact of the English language.) Unreputable generally means disreputable, http://dict.die.net/unreputable/ , and I don't think this is the meaning that this paragraph wishes to convey.

Again, if anybody wants to recast the sentence, I am sure this contretemps can be settled. Yours very sincerely, GeorgeLouis 00:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm....surely neither of these is a real word. I think you mean disreputable. OED only has three archaic quotes from the 1700s for unreputable, whereas disreputable is: 1. The reverse of reputable; such as to bring into disrepute or reflect discredit; discreditable. 2. Having a bad reputation; in bad repute; not of respectable character. Alun 13:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The quotes that OED gives are always for the first instances they know of for the usage of the word. It's there for the same reason the etymology is given: to let you see how the meaning of the word has progressed. However, you will note that the word exists.

The OED does not give a definition for unreputable, it merely gives three archaic quotes. It does give a definition for disreputable as meaning the opposite of reputable. The word unreputable certainly does not exist in British English as far as I am aware, and the OED seems to support this. Alun 10:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I assert that you cannot add non- onto just any word. If you have eight or ten singers performing together, is that a nonnonet? Or do they form an et? Can you find nonnone dictionaries that define the word "nonreputable"?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide says A WikiProject is fundamentally a social construct; its success depends entirely on its ability to function as a cohesive group of editors working towards a common goal. I am not going to vandalize the project page by editing it without consensus, and I will not stand by and watch those who are not members of the project vandalize the page, either. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 05:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know who you are implying is engaging in vandalism? This assumes that other users are acting in bad faith and I'd like to know your reasons for making this claim. Has anyone gone out of their way to distort the meaning of the section or to include inappropriate material? It is disingenious in the extreme to point out that the project is collaborative, while at the same time claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is a vandal. Not only are you not assuming good faith, you are coming close to making personal attacks. There is also ne requirement to join a project before one can contribute, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I may be relatively inexperienced as a contributor, but I've been here for well over a year and hope I have contributed constructively to Wikipedia, no one has ever accused me of vandalism before. I am assuming that you are refering to my edit, but I made this in good faith with the intention of overcoming the use of disputed words. I find your response offensive and overly aggressive. Please try to be less confrontational and judgemental. Alun 10:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with ClairSamoht; yet I have seen no instances of vandalism. Perhaps ClairSamoht could point some out. Also I would like to see anything that indicates that one must "join" a project in order to make changes in it. I certainly am no expert in Wiki-ing (a nonexpert, you might say), but I believe that Samoht's statement that about "members of the project" may be a nonrule. Nevetheless, I would certainly be happy to fill out an application form, if there is one.

Anyway, back to my trusty Webster's Dictionary, 11th edition, (page 24a): Lists of Undefined Words Lists of undefined words occur after the entries of these prefixes and combining forms: and then there is a list of 18 prefixes, including non-. ... The lists are not exhaustive of all the words that might be, or actually have been, formed with these prefixes and combining forms. The dictionary has room for only the most common or important examples.

If one does not have access to a dead-trees version of a dictionary, one can find many examples of nonreputable being used on the Internet. Just go to this link: [1]

Although some might consider this exchange of views to be a nonevent, I have found it invigorating and challenging. And I particularly thank Wobble, who rose to the challenge of finding a better way of saying what we all agree should be said anyway.

Yours very sincerely, GeorgeLouis 06:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Active?

If this project is active, then would someone please give us a run-down of the collaborative works in progress? Editors come to this page expecting to find some activity, some list of task they can join in to help the encyclopedia. To be confronted with the "Current work" section, listing pages on which work has long since ceased, and the massive unsourced article categories is very unhelpful. This project page is a waste of editor's time, effort, and goodwill; they arrive here wanting to do some work in a very critical area for Wikipedia, and most likely leave very disappointed with what they find.EricR 21:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear EricR — No, this page does not look like it is active. ShaunMacPherson began it on 1 Sept. 2004,[2] but Shaun has not been here since 26 Feb. 2005. [3]Of course you could suggest a project and see how many people here take you up on it, but, as I read the history through the comments above you may not find many people willing to cooperate. I suppose we could submit this page to an administrator for possible extinction, but I am not sure how to do that. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 01:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion this project suffers by having ill-defined or contested goals:

1. How to reference Template:Unreferenced (a huge number of articles) links to this project page. Would a new editor, seeing the template at the top of an article and wishing to fix the problem, be likely to find any help on this page? Most of the "How to reference" section is taken up by format proposals that look to be dated.
2. Reference cleanup The "Wikipedia references cleanup" category is listed under "Current work"
3. Articles that lack sources The categories: "Articles with usourced quotes", "Articles with unsourced statements", and "Articles lacking sources" are listed under "Current work", but this is just an illustration of the problem with no suggestions of how to fix it. If one of the goals of the project is to reduce the number of articles in those categories, then the project page should outline a plan for some concerted effort to do so. What should be done with {{fact}} and {{citequote}} tags? How do you actually get an {{unreferenced}} template off the top of an article?
4. Biweekly special article Helping out with likely featured article or good article candidates by adding and formating references is a great idea, but the process needs to be kept up to date. How are the articles chosen? What makes Indiana a good article to expend some effort on?
5. Fact-checking This is the area i'm interested in, taking the core articles, ones which are already featured articles, and doing some fact-checking. I'm currently working at: Talk:Isaac Newton/Facts and would appreciate some feedback. What's the best way to go about this to provide the most benefit to the encyclopedia?

Maybe this project is too broad in scope, would it help to break it up into sub-projects? At the very least there needs to be some clarification of the "Current work". Wikiprojects are about collaboration—increasing the ratio of results to expended effort by working in concert with other editors—something that seems to be missing here.EricR 15:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of Eric's suggestions above seem very reasonable, and I agree that it is too broad at the moment to take on all of the above. It seems to me that, as with the ill-fated Article assessment, what is needed is a Wikipedia-wide system (in this case for fact checking). Fact-checking one article might take a week for a dedicated team of subject experts, but (a) we have over one million articles to get through (one more created while I wrote this) and (b) we have a handful of people who are not knowledgable about every area - nuclear physics, ontology, Zoroastroanism. It would also be easy for us to put in lots of work to get one article up to snuff, then see someone new come in and add a bunch of new unsourced content, and the integrity of the entire article had once again been compromised. I think once m:Wikicite becomes available, we might be able to set up a system for Wikipedia:Pushing to validation, and at THAT time this project might evolve into a major hub on Wikipedia. Till then, I think checking the odd random article for factual accuracy is not very useful.

What could be done for now is to work with the Core topics Collaboration of the Fortnight, we are short-staffed there as it is. Having some people work on references and fact-checking in this would achieve the goals of #4 and #5 (above) in a coordinated way. Walkerma 15:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh, if you're gonna organize things, count me in too. I'm busy working on eleventy-eleven papers right now, but can be active off and on and think this is a useful project. --Ling.Nut 00:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Goldwater's

Provided sources. Can remove message about no sources? Also, could we please call the article Goldwater's Department Store Thank you very much Alfred Legrand 00:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alfred,

If you feel very confident of your sources, and if you sourced the vast majority of suspicious facts, then remove the template yourself. If you don't like the name of the article... you can move it.... but check its history first to see if it is new or is actively edited.. if so, put something on its Talk page before moving it, and see if people object. But -- within reason -- you can usually be WP:BOLD, esp. with small non-notable pages.. and speaking of non-notable.. is Goldwater's Department Store a major chain etc., or a one-off in some city? Having seen too many pages about local High School chess clubs and Chinese grocery stores, I am growing increasingly fond of the idea of becoming a deletionist....

--Ling.Nut 00:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

PS -- just looked at the page -- I see references listed, but no citations in the text of the article that matches facts with references... mmm, that isn't the proper form.... need help? There are tons of articles... I'll track them down --Ling.Nut 00:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Source

In the academic world there seems to be a consensus on what a "source" is, but this concept seems to be completely unknown in the WP world. Am I missing something or should I start a "Source" article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fourtildas (talk • contribs) .

HI Fourtildas, you forgot your four tildas (just kidding...). Also, there's already an article on Reliable sources, but if you think it is insufficient, you may consider adding to it. However, since it's a guideline page, I wouldn't change anything without discussing it on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources first. Cheers --Ling.Nut 06:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

References/ Citations of an opinion

Questions on what are the requirements to cite an opinion? Particularly a political opinion? I am in a long discussions with someone on the other side of the political spectrum that I believe is incorrectly using WP:RS to remove critics stating their opinions of a work because he disagrees with them. What are the policies? How to does one establish notability for political opinion? TV Appearances? Books published? PPGMD 01:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no hard and fast rule, except that an article should strive not to give any one view undue weight.

Books from major presses are generally citable, but there are limits (e.g. on most political topics, it would probably not be appropriate to cite Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh, who are clearly gadflies rather than scholars). Organizations focused on an issue are usually citable as examples of their side's arguments: again, on most controversial issues, balance is important. Major journals of opinion are certainly citable (in the U.S., for example, National Review, Commentary, New Republic, The Nation, to give a right-to-left spectrum).

I personally wouldn't say that showing up on TV counts for much, but others might disagree. - Jmabel | Talk 00:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well this is for the Bowling for Columbine article, an editor removed sources such as Kopel (published by a variety of houses, none of the big ones though), and Hardy (pubished by a variety of smaller houses, plus one book on Moore published by HarperCollins). Both are noted and respected Pro-Gun authors, and noted Moore critics. But an editor disagrees, demanding that any Pro-gun critics of Moore or the movie must be a noted in the film industry. PPGMD 00:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

First off, I'm going to say that your question is greatly misleading. You ask for the requirements to cite "a political opinion," with no mention of the actual context in your original post (e.g., commenting on a documentary filmmaking techniques.). Stating that Moore blatantly attempts to mislead viewers or that he's been caught in an outright lie due is not a political opinion. That's an attack on the filmmaker's character, using subjective opinions on his filmmaking techique to support you. Secondly, your comment that "I believe is incorrectly using WP:RS to remove critics stating their opinions of a work because he disagrees with them" is an attack on me. I am not removing critics because they disagree with me, I am removing critics because they don't meet established standards. If you had examples where I defended equally non-notable defenders, then you could accuse me of bias. You haven't done this.

Would you explain to us how Hardy and Kopel don't qualify as "gadflies," as Jmabel put it, seeing as how Michael Moore himself would quualify under this standard? And if Hardy and Kopel are notable for being pro-gun authors, then you should try placing their views on the gun control page. After all, if the sole reason that Hardy and Kopel are relevant is due to their politics, then why not leave them to the political discussion, and keep them out of discussions on filmmaking? Jmabel also mentions the issue of balance. One of the big problems is, there is absolutely no balance in these criticisms, specifically because most major publications don't find this issue notable to begin with (Again, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nikodemos/Asymmetric_controversy), thus making balance impossible. You're not going to find many people who are going to dedicate entire websites and publish entire books dedicated to debunking Hardy's claims. However, that does not mean that we should give David Hardy undue weight. The problem is, these incidents were never really "news" to begin with, thus preventing balance from ever occuring. -Schrodinger82 20:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me clue you in on a technique that often gets a better response, don't right 2 pages of crap when looking for answers. It's better to ask a general question, and then to follow up with more specific queries after getting an interested party. Yes I do believe that you are bias you have refereed to Hardy and Kopel as right wing hacks, and then try to say that it's an accurate description. I believe you are intimately biased, at least on this subject. Finally Nikodemos page is not a guideline, nor is it a policy, it's doesn't even have the Good Idea tag, and is unlikely to get any official recognition in the future.PPGMD 05:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

So anyone who believes that Kopel and Hardy are less than godly is being biased? Good to know. Now can you explain again how they don't meet the standards of being "Gadflies"? -Schrodinger82 20:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I love arguing the same thing on 3-4 different pages. I never said that they were godly I simply said that they are notable as critics on BFC, and here and else where I was attempting to get outside opinions that aren't tainted by believing one way or the other in the subject, which is why I kept my intail subject vague. PPGMD 20:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel stated "on most political topics, it would probably not be appropriate to cite Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh, who are clearly gadflies rather than scholars." What I asked you is how Hardy and Kopel do not fit under that description. To which you reply... nothing. Good to know. -Schrodinger82 03:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You take my silence as agreement, if Moore's a gadfly, that would make Hardy and Kopel a fly swatter if you follow the analogy. On a serious note you are taking it out of context, he is simply saying that you don't quote subjects like Moore, and Rush on a serious page that doesn't invovle them. Hardy and Kopel are directly related to BFC, and are as close to scholars as you are going to get on a subject like BFC. PPGMD 03:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Referencing Drive

Hey, just to let you know, there's a Article Referencing Drive now. —this is messedrocker (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'm planning on using their choices for our biweekly special articles. -Frazzydee|✍ 13:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging biweekly special article with Wikipedia:Article Referencing Drive

The goal of the biweekly special article with the article referencing drive seems identical, and having them seperate hurts more than it helps, in my opinion. Unless there are major disagreements, I'll be copying the ARD article here starting with the next one.

For now, we will use the articles chosen at WP:ARD on a biweekly basis (i.e. we will take every other article). My rationale for this is that we have historically favoured referencing as much as possible. Although we have enough members to handle one article per week, it seems to me that this project has been fairly inactive for the past while, so it may take time for old members to realize that we're back in action (get the word out!). We can always change to one article per week later on.

This also addresses some previous complaints that we don't have a system in place for picking biweekly special articles. When the project just started out, I picked articles pretty much at random, and it seems like that's the way it's being done now. WP:ARD, on the other hand, has a voting system in place. I encourage you all to check that out and vote for the next one there. -Frazzydee|✍ 04:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Secondary sources and citing journals

In Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori, I've raised a problem that I believe there is with the use of references in that article. The key events in the timeline often have references that are the key papers associated with the event. However, the actual references used by the editor are books and review papers, not those historical papers. As such, I don't think they belong in the references section. Can someone on this project help. Are my concerns valid? Any ideas on how to modify things? I appreciate that it is useful to mention those key papers as a historical point of fact so I am keen that they be maintained in the article somehow. Thanks. Colin°^Talk 16:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 13:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

New layout

I have created a new layout for the WikiProject, located temporarily at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check/new. Please give any comments. If there are no objections, I will copy this over when the next article for WP:ARD comes up. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Layout updated, as well as new Biweekly Special Article chosen by WP:ARD. -Frazzydee|✍ 14:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Most inline references

I'm curious as to what article we have encountered has the most in-line references. What is the most in-line references that anyone has seen in any one article? Johntex\^talk 23:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Radio

What do you guys think about radio as a means for citation? There's a user trying to back up a claim in the article on Gemma Atkinson. My opinion is that it's not a verifiable source, only a published transcript of the show would be... but it would be good to get an opinion here, particularly so as I don't want to fall foul of WP:3RR. Thanks. robwingfield ^(talk) 12:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If its an accurate citation then theres nothing (to my knowledge) to say a user cannot cite radio.. if your worried about verifiability i am sure that your local radio station would be willing for a fee to loan/give you a copy of the show. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I was asking for independent comment, not comment from the person with I disagree... robwingfield ^(talk) 15:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."

Since "any reader" can't hear the program anymore, it's not a reliable source - delete the unverifiable reference, and if it's the only source delete and what it's serving as source for.

If a transcript is published, and the program is reliable, then it can be used. -- Jeandré, 2006-11-04t12:42z

Thanks. That's exactly the thoughts I was having as well. robwingfield ^(talk) 00:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

And there's this, the very first sentence of the reliable sources guideline: Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources. I don't think any broadcast medium can constitute a published source. Now if the radio programme was downloadable in a playable medium, like mp3 or vorbis then it might be a different matter, one might argue that it has been published on a website. I wonder how one would cite such a source? Alun 12:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles by month

A little backstory: There's a proposal at Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles to remove (new) articles that lack sources after a certain period of time, like the {{nsd}} tag does for images. Despite my opposition to that idea, I think a better system of encouraging references to be added to articles would be beneficial to the project. What do you think of subdividing Category:Articles lacking sources into Category:Unreferenced as of October 2006, Category:Unreferenced as of November 2006, etc? This would be similar to how Category: Orphaned articles or Category: Articles that need to be wikified are broken out, allowing us to marshall our efforts toward the longest-standing problems first, when needed. Thoughts, criticisms, tomatoes? I'm not tied to the subcat naming structure, but it made the most sense after looking at the way other maintenance subcategories are named. -- nae'blis 23:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Done; please see Category:Articles lacking sources by month to help out. -- nae'blis 20:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

References to Unreliable or Biased Sources

"If this project succeeds, then people on the lookout for vandalism only need to compare current information with the references listed."

This is only partly correct. Frequently articles need to make it clear what type of reference is being provided, and this must also be verified. References to Encyclopedia Britannica are not usually a problem. References to Scientology literature are a big problem unless they are clearly labelled as claims or opinions, as the case may be, and not as facts. This will particularly be the case for articles where bias is a problem. Ed Cherlin 01:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Facts by topic

Hi all. Is there a good way to tag or sort articles that need fact-checking by a particular subject area, e.g. articles in electrical engineering that need to be fact-checked? That is, is there a way to do a search across categories? The best (clunky) solution I can come up with is using google to search the template language plus the keywords from the category, e.g. this search for unreferenced articles in category:Aerospace engineering, which doesn't entirely work. Other ideas? Figuring out a way to sort unreferenced by topic would perhaps help encourage outside professionals to work on these topics. --phoebe 18:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

We could imaginably do something bot-based (maybe running once a week?) that would make a report of articles marked as unreferenced, by category. I'm sure there are refinements of this idea that would improve it. - Jmabel | Talk 20:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewarding people who reference their articles

Out of curiousity, do we have any processes/awards/whatever to reward editors who properly source the articles they write? JYolkowski // talk 00:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)