Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:46, 18 April 2016

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about "verifiability" as a concept. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about "verifiability" as a concept at the Reference desk.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Questions Where should I ask whether this source supports this statement in an article? At Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Don't forget to tell the editors the full name of the source and the exact sentence it is supposed to support. Do sources have to be free, online and/or conveniently available to me? No. Sources can be expensive, print-only, or available only in certain places. A source does not stop being reliable simply because you personally aren't able to obtain a copy. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/cost. If you need help verifying that a source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange or a relevant WikiProject. Do sources have to be in English? No. Sources can be written in any language. However, if equally good sources in English exist, they will be more useful to our readers. If you need help verifying that a non-English source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Misplaced Pages:Translators available. I personally know that this information is true. Isn't that good enough to include it? No. Misplaced Pages includes only what is verifiable, not what someone believes is true. It must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source that says this. Your personal knowledge or belief is not enough. I personally know that this information is false. Isn't that good enough to remove it? Your personal belief or knowledge that the information is false is not sufficient for removal of verifiable and well-sourced material. Is personal communication from an expert a reliable source? No. It is not good enough for you to talk to an expert in person or by telephone, or to have a written letter, e-mail message, or text message from a source. Reliable sources must be published. Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"? No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual. What if the source is biased? Sources are allowed to be biased or non-neutral; sometimes these are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a controversial subject. However, the resulting Misplaced Pages articles must maintain a neutral point of view. Does every single sentence need to be followed by an inline citation? No. Only four broad categories of material need to be supported by inline citations. Editors need not supply citations for perfectly obvious material. However, it must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source for all material. Are sources required in all articles? Adding sources is the best practice, but prior efforts to officially require at least one source have been rejected by the community. See, e.g., discussions in January 2024 and March 2024. Are reliable sources required to name the author? No. Many reliable sources, such as government and corporate websites, do not name their authors or say only that it was written by staff writers. Although many high-quality sources do name the author, this is not a requirement. Are reliable sources required to provide a list of references? No. Misplaced Pages editors should list any required sources in a references or notes section. However, the sources you are using to write the Misplaced Pages article do not need to provide a bibliography. Most reliable sources, such as newspaper and magazine articles, do not provide a bibliography. Does anyone read the sources? Readers do not use the reference list extensively. This research indicates that readers click somewhere in the list of references approximately three times out of every 1,000 page views.

See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

The Verifiability page is frequently reverted in good faith. Don't be offended if your edit is reverted: try it out on the Workshop page, then offer it for consensus here, before editing the actual project page.

There has been a great deal of discussion about the lead section of the verifiability policy over the years. If you want to discuss changing its wording, please first read the 2012 request for comments and the previous discussion about the first sentence. Thank you for your cooperation.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84

Archives by topic First sentence (Nov 2010–March 2011) First sentence (April–August 2011) 2012 RfC about the lead section

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Research study on "practical" and "technical" verifiability

There is a recent academic paper that may be of interest in the context of this policy. I have written a review for the Wikimedia Research Newsletter aka the Signpost's "recent research" series: "Test of 300k citations: how verifiable is 'verifiable' in practice?" (see also the talk page discussion there). Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I took a quick look at that paper the other day, and was not too impressed. My (somewhat accurate?) impression is that they were concerned about where verification can't be done because (1) the citation lacks suitable identifiers to do automated verification, or (2) some readers cannot verify because the source is behind a paywall. I find such concerns to be somewhat specious: WP:V has no requirements that verification must be automated or universal. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree... The standard is that information be verifiable... Not that it be easily verified. Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2016-03-02/Recent research#Test of 300k citations: how verifiable is .22verifiable.22_in_practice? indicates that the authors of the paper read the opening sentence (which I have suggested changing in the past) in the most impractical possible fashion. It says "In Misplaced Pages, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." They seem to interpret "anyone can check" to mean anyone with an internet connection can read the source itself by clicking on a link (or two), even if they have no time, money, knowledge, or even enough interest to ask their favorite web search engine whether there's a free (gratis) copy of the source lying about on any website except Google Books. They appear to make the mistake of assuming that what's visible to them in Google Books is what's visible to everyone (which isn't true). It sounds like they didn't even consider things like looking for books at Amazon.com, where a lot of books are searchable.

The question for this page is: Shall we finally change that "anyone" to be a little more accurate, e.g., "someone other than the editor who originally added the information" or "any person willing to dedicate sufficient resources"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have long thought we should change the "anyone" in "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" for similar kinds of reasons, but that hasn't gotten anywhere. I think there should be a little more qualification on just what constitutes verification, but until we get a better handle on what that should be I think it is premature to propose specific changes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarification on tagging articles re verifiability issues

Can anyone point me towards a guideline, an essay even, regarding the optimal approach to tagging article text and/or accompanying sources? I've come here after seeing what I consider to be a case of excessive application of tags – auditing rather than editing – at Baroque pop. The same zeal, imo, has been applied at Pet Sounds – specifically, in the three subsections under "Recording and production". Both of those diffs show a range of tags; in the case of Baroque pop, I'm confused about why there would be a banner across the top when each potential transgression is highlighted in the text below. And in both of these articles, the application of a "verification needed" tag following a citation (to a reliable source), or perhaps two citations, concerns me, because the message it gives out to readers is that, despite there being sources supporting a statement, its veracity is automatically questionable. In other words: I can't help wondering what this approach says about everything that appears in mainspace on the encyclopaedia if reliable sources are accompanied by "verification needed". I could understand if it were a case of the statement being contentious or contrary to a widely held view, but I'm talking about when this approach appears to be used almost as standard. (In which case, what about Assume Good Faith?) Add to that the greyed-out span accompanying a "citation needed" tag (in those Pet Sounds subsections), which serves to highlight a problem twice over, when it's quite clear where the issue lies.

My feeling is that this approach reflects badly on Misplaced Pages. Besides, doesn't this sort of zeroing-in on problems and highlighting them twice over and ensuring the top of the article carries a tag and questioning the citations we do have, belong in a sandbox rather than mainspace? In the same way, rather than applying "verification needed" tags if one doesn't have access to the source, should issues not be taken up on the article's talk page; should editors not be looking through the article history to see if an editor who made a previous addition is still active and able to confirm the verifiability of the sourced statement?

Any thoughts on this would be very welcome, in addition to any relevant links. I've certainly read something about avoiding excessive tagging in the past, but it could well have been another editor sounding off … JG66 (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"Verification needed" indicates that while a source has been provided, there is some question as to whether the source actually supports the material (I suppose editors might also use it where they have other concerns). It's logical that that would be placed following a source, and if that calls the statement into question, well, it probably should.

Of course, the most important question, to me, is whether the statements that have been tagged deserve to be tagged. Which is to say, are the editor's concerns valid, or are they perhaps making either no effort or insufficient effort to validate the sources for themselves? Have you made any effort to validate the tagging?

I couldn't really see an issue at Pet Sounds; the tagging there looks reasonable to me. On Baroque pop, it could be argued that tagging the entire article when the specific statements are also tagged may be a bit of overkill. On the other hand, having the article tagged may call greater attention to the issue.

Have you discussed this at all with the tagging editor, or notified them of this conversation? It might be worth getting their perspective, though I would understand if you wanted a "gut reaction" here first. DonIago (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Doniago. I hope others might post here too.

With your comments on "verification needed" tags – I agree with what you're saying ("It's logical that that would be placed following a source"), my point is that the tag seems to be used whenever the editor appears not to have the source at hand. Or put another way: if this editor hasn't personally viewed the source text, then the veracity of a statement is automatically called into question on the page. In that Recording section at Pet Sounds, for instance, the tag appears after statements sourced to the 2003 CD liner notes (and to another, 3rd party source): well, if an editor doesn't have that particular reissue of the album, then surely they should get it somehow instead of applying a tag that effectively says "Could someone just check these liner notes for me, please?" Or, of course, there's the talk page where a discussion can be started (one sees such threads all the time regarding sources). Aside from that, if an editor really wants to zero in on each and every statement in an article – which is great, all power to them – then perhaps much of the work should be carried out in a sandbox, rather than the article becoming something akin to a homework assignment in progress. With Baroque pop, yes, I think it is a case of overkill.

I haven't raised this with the editor in question, no (nor looked into the tagged items individually). I thought it best to first find out if I knew what I was talking about. Also worth pointing out that Baroque pop had already moved on from the diff I supplied when raising this here; the reason for choosing the outdated version was (and is) to have a discussion about that level of tagging, rather than how the article might look now. Same with Pet Sounds: although I don't believe it's changed since (but in case it does), it's the version per this diff I'm focusing on. As I say, I have read something on this issue – ensuring that problems are highlighted for readers, sure, but avoiding excessive tagging and generally keeping aesthetics in mind when it comes to article mainspace. Perhaps it was at an article talk page where the thread happened to grow from the specific to cover this point in general terms, not sure … Cheers, JG66 (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to review the sources that were tagged to verify them, unfortunately, but I think unless there's clear evidence that the editor is tagging indiscriminately, we shouldn't assume they are doing so. That said, I would agree that an editor simply not having access to a source doesn't justify applying the tag. I really think we need this editor's perspective on the matter before drawing any conclusions, though.

If the editor genuinely believes that the sources they tagged need to be verified, and particularly if it turns out that one or more of them actually is being used inappropriately, then I'd have a hard time with the argument that they are over-tagging.

TL;DR I think your concerns may be valid, but I also think we need to know a) whether the editor's concerns appear to be valid, and b) what the editor's rationale is for their changes. DonIago (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure. From my original intention, to find whether threes some sort of a guideline, this discussion has grown to become more about two particular articles. I'll ask the editor if they'd care to join the discussion. JG66 (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Almost all of the sources in Baroque pop and Pet Sounds failed verification when I checked them (I then swiftly removed the text). For the ones I couldn't check, I applied the tag. Simple. I'd say there's probably a 90% chance that the sources do not support the information. But I didn't want to remove the text for the 10% chance that maybe it does. For example, in Baroque pop, it's stated that the book Music USA calls In My Life, Wildflowers, Joan, and Baptism some of the "most notable" baroque pop albums. It's highly likely that the only thing written in the book is that the albums have "orchestral, classical inspired arrangements" or something equally as vague.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, hang on, the statement currently attributed to that Rough Guide publication is somewhere between the two. It highlights those albums by Collins and Baez as the most notable examples of folk artists incorporating baroque influences and classical orchestration in their work.

Aside from that – fair enough. But what I'm trying to address here is not just the application of tags on an individual basis, but the overall approach and the overall effect. For instance, whether the banner across the top at Baroque pop is really necessary when every single instance in the article has already been highlighted. Also, say, in Pet Sounds#Recording and production, why the sentence beginning "Thanks to the freedom offered by the recent development" is afforded a cite-needed span when there's no confusion about what the cite-needed tag could be referring to. Same situation with the span covering the phrase "instrumental overdubs only rarely added", later in that section.

And, towards the end of the section (under Unreleased material), there's a verification-needed tag following the statement re Sloop John B. appearing on Wilson's provisional track list, and the significance of that. Yet, in the first source there, we have a link to the liner note text, which supports the statement perfectly (and similarly supports another point carrying the same tag, in the previous sentence). That would seem to be an instance where we can lose two of the tags – I'm mentioning them because they contribute to the overall effect.

Whether it's your work or not at Pet Sounds, btw, I don't know. I'm referring to the effect that's created on the page, both at Baroque pop and in that section at Pet Sounds. I've raised the issue here to see if there is an optimal approach to using the tags and banners, whether in a guideline or essay (it seems not), or whether perhaps we should decide on one. We don't use bold, italics or underlined text to draw emphasis to a point in article mainspace; customising quote boxes and the like with colours of our choice is frowned upon; our fonts are discreet rather than eye-catching or flashy; the tone (obviously) is neutral and objective throughout. So I guess I find it surprising that there appears to be no guidance on limiting the extent and the intrusiveness of tagging. JG66 (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

That raises this question: Was it reasonable to assume that the remaining sources were suspect without checking to see if they were added by the same editor or editors who added the bad sources? Taking both the low importance of tagging and whether it can reasonably be expected of editors to dig through a page history to discover that, my opinion is that it was acceptable. (And if Ilovetopaint did check that, but simply failed to mention it here, and it was the same editor or editors, then I think that it was perfectly acceptable to add the tags.) All the instructions to the {{verification needed}} tag say is that you should have some doubt that the source supports the text and what Ilovetopaint had discovered would certainly support some reasonable doubt. JG66 in his/her initial post, above raises the question of whether we should AGF about the sources. But the mere existence of the {{verification needed}} tag, not to mention its instructions, suggests that there only needs to be some reasonable doubt. Moreover when someone does tag material with the tag we should, as DonIago says, also AGF that without other evidence to the contrary that the addition of the tag was done properly. Let me end by saying that I recognize that JG66 attempted to bring this question here in the abstract without blaming or otherwise questioning Ilovetopaint — s/he was indeed attempting to AGF by determining the ground rules before going ahead — and I see no AGF failure on JG66's part for doing so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Combining articles without re-verifying sources

Please have a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth. I have raised the issue of whether it is OK to combine material from three different Misplaced Pages articles without re-verifying the sources. It seems to me that is treating the precursor Misplaced Pages articles as reliable sources for the claim that the stated sources really do support the associated claims in the article, but other editors disagree. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

We should do periodic re-checks on sources anyway, even in established articles. A merger or spin-off seems like a great time to do so.

That said, a lack of re-checking is not grounds for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rechecking sources from time to time, and perhaps particularly at the time of a merger may be a good idea. Using AfD to try to force such rechecks is not; see Misplaced Pages:Deletion is not cleanup. Still less is it OK to seriously propose deletion of the merged article because such checks were not done -- rechecking all cites on a merge is not currently common practice, still less is it mandated. DES 13:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Importing WikiData at Infobox telescope

The automatic importation of WikiData by Infobox telescope is being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Avoid importing Wikidata at Infobox Telescope? Jc3s5h (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Preserving a burden

I've been watching an editor claim that the BURDEN to source removed and CHALLENGED material is not solely on the editor who restores it, because if providing a source is solely the reverting/restoring editor's burden, then WP:PRESERVE is meaningless and toothless.

Far more time has been spent arguing about who ought to spend 60 seconds finding sources (the suspected OR is all trivially verifiable – but, of course, not every editor would know that) than doing a quick search and spamming in a few. I want to not see this type of discussion again. So I wonder: should we change BURDEN to include the word "solely", just for clarity? I'm a little concerned that this would discourage "bystanders" from helping out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: WhatamIdoing is referring to this discussion I had with Spacecowboy420; that discussion is now over, but I will leave a note there that the discussion has been continued here. What I stated in that discussion is due to what I have seen stated here at this talk page for years and at other parts of Misplaced Pages. When it comes to this talk page, see, for example, Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/Archive 56#If WP:PRESERVE is "best practice" should it be mentioned somewhere?, Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/Archive 61#The "provide an inline citation yourself" wording should be changed back to the original wording and Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/Archive 62#More Burden stuff. And my point in the latest dispute with regard to the interpretations of WP:Burden is that WP:Preserve is indeed best practice, WP:Preserve makes it clear that editors should do their research on what they are removing before removing it (in other words, make sure that it is not important to the article...unless it clearly should be removed), and WP:Preserve is endorsed by WP:Burden. WP:Preserve is ignored often enough, and the fact that it is so commonly ignored has been detrimental to Misplaced Pages. Editors do not pay attention to the fact that WP:Burden endorses WP:Preserve; all they pay attention to is "Ooh, you can freely remove any unsourced material that you challenge." This is despite the fact that unsourced material is often ridiculously challenged and then ridiculously removed. Do read those above linked archived discussions for exactly what I mean (assuming you don't already know exactly what I mean). WhatamIdoing doesn't want to see this type of discussion again; neither do I. But these type of discussions happen all the time on Misplaced Pages, in some form or another. And by that, I mean the discussions involving editors removing easily verifiable content that belongs in the article and others strongly and rightfully objecting. Editors should not be allowed to come in and recklessly remove content, especially by citing WP:OR if the content is not WP:OR. And on that note, too many of our editors think that WP:OR means "unsourced." That is not what it means. And my exact words to WhatamIdoing about WP:Preserve being meaningless and toothless was the following: "If we want editors to follow the highly ignored WP:Preserve policy, we should be taking the time to explain to them why it is important. Otherwise, that policy should be scrapped." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

And do take notice how my view has changed over the years. See, for example, Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/Archive 62#More Burden stuff, which shows that I was quite annoyed by the idea of sourcing others' material because I challenged it. Experience changed me. But even then I acknowledged that it is "best not to remove material that you think or know is verifiable." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that WP:Preserve itself says that unverifiable information should not be preserved... and WP:V is clear on who is responsible for demonstrating that information is actually verifiable ... Once unsourced information has been challenged, the burden to supply a source to support it does indeed rest on those who wish to preserve the information... and not on those who challenge it. Blueboar (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Blueboar, and, as made clear lower by S Marshall, what was removed is not unverifiable information in the least. In cases like these, WP:Preserve and WP:Burden butt heads because we have editors who cite WP:Preserve when content is recklessly removed or otherwise carelessly removed from an article, and editors defending such reckless removals because they think WP:Burden gives them a license to be so reckless and careless. If WP:Preserve states that editors should check and see that what they are removing belongs in an article before they remove it, then that is a policy placing a form of burden on that editor; it's the policy stating, "Do your homework first." And that editor should be adhering to that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've long argued that the tension between PRESERVE and BURDEN is a positive thing because when you put them together, the combination reads: finding sources is everyone's job. Whether it's PRESERVE or BURDEN that's being argued, putting the onus on other people to source easily-verified material is usually a characteristic of a Wikipedian who is in need of support and direction, and in my opinion we have far too many editors who are happy to send other people off chasing sources but get all huffy when they're asked to do so themselves. There are literally millions of {{cn}} templates on Misplaced Pages that are totally needless because the templating editor could easily have done it themselves. In my view editors who don't like searching for sources should find another hobby. But with that said BURDEN is the one that makes me more uneasy because as currently worded, it puts the heavy artillery in the hands of griefers. I personally have had the experience of seeing my whole watchlist light up when an editor with whom I had come into conflict went through everything I'd ever written systematically tagging it, adding several tags per minute.—S Marshall T/C 12:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

It comes down to this: Which is more reasonable, asking those who wish to preserve the information to spend five minutes finding a source, and placing it in the article (thus ending the challenge and improving the article)... Or asking those who challenge the information to spend hours trying to "prove the negative" (that a source does not exist)? The community has repeatedly come down in favor of the first ... That asking those who want to keep the information to supply a source more far more reasonable than asking those who challenge to "prove" there isn't one. This is one of the strongest and oldest consensuses of the project. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• • In the case of the discussion we're actually reviewing here, it took me literally seconds to source the disputed sentence. It was literally at the top of the first page of the search results.—S Marshall T/C 13:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Blueboar has this right, but let me be a little more express. PRESERVE says, "Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research." (Emphasis added.) PRESERVE, therefore, always yields to satisfaction of BURDEN. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Let me be a little more express in response. In this case, the discussion is about a user who went to Child grooming and removed a paragraph which said: "Child grooming is an activity done to gain the child's trust as well as the trust of those responsible for the child's well-being. Additionally, a trusting relationship with the family means the child's parents are less likely to believe potential accusations." He used the edit summary "Seems like a lot of original research". Now, when I google "Child grooming" the very first page on the search results ---- above even the Misplaced Pages result ---- is the NSPCC, a long-established, highly respected organisation that's closely involved in child protection in the UK. Click that link and one (1) link to drill down, and you get this page which fully supports the removed paragraph. He and another editor then spent hours wrangling backwards and forwards about whose job it was to source the paragraph.

  This was, obviously, a failure of judgment in a number of ways, but the WP:BURDEN absolutism that you and Blueboar are espousing is condoning and empowering editors who'll edit-war to remove easily-sourceable content from articles about child sexual exploitation. I urge you to read the discussion that gave rise to this.—S Marshall T/C 20:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

BURDEN is what burden is, but there's no 3RR or EW edit war exception for enforcing BURDEN. If someone violates 3RR or engages in a slow-motion edit war, they should be reported for that, regardless of which side of the issue they're editing on. If they're restoring unsourced material still unsourced, they can also be reported for that, especially if they do it after being warned. There's no reason to argue over it. If we make exceptions because of hard or sympathetic cases, they'll soon overrule the general rule. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC) PS: And this is just a cavil: I'm not sure that the NSPCC page is a reliable source, as it looks like a SPS on first blush. However, I don't doubt the general point that you're illustrating, namely that the material could be easily sourced. — TM 21:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with TransporterMan here. There is lots to more I could say but this nails it. I strongly disagree with S Marshall's take. People come to Misplaced Pages for all kinds of reasons -- people who come here in good faith to realize the mission of presenting the public with summaries of accepted knowledge, and people who are ignorant of the mission and our policies but are really trying in their view to improve WP, to vandals of various kinds, including people who add hoax material just to make fun of us, and then crow about it. Every member of the community (meaning people who understand the mission and policies and have been around a while) has content we want to build and content we maintain. The demand in S Marshall's conception that I would PRESERVE every bit of content, no matter how UNDUE or blatantly wrong, is not a Misplaced Pages I want to live in (nor one that I imagine you actually live in, S Marshall). Removing unsourced content with a note "feel free to re-introduce with a reliable source" or moving it to Talk with the same note is completely, 100% OK. I do see the value, if some unsourced bit content seems potentially useful - -to collaborate and find sources and FIXIT it, and I do that sometimes. But saying that I have an obligation to do that, and even further that this obligation overrides BURDEN, makes no sense to me. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Who is this absolutist S Marshall who demanded that you PRESERVE every bit of content no matter how UNDUE or blatantly wrong? I want him caught and shot as an imposter. What I said was that there's a tension between PRESERVE and BURDEN, and that finding sources is everyone's job.—S Marshall T/C 21:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Laughing. That is how I read your stance. If you agree with what I wrote above, that's great.  :) Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Well, to the extent that your post supports removing easily-verified content, I'm afraid I don't. I think that any editor who's considering removing a reasonably plausible paragraph from an article about child protection ought to have the nous to google it first, and that if our policies don't require that then our policies are defective.—S Marshall T/C 23:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with some points from everyone here, but I especially agree with S Marshall. The thing about WP:Burden that I take issue with in cases like this is the following: It is so often misused to remove easily verifiable content that belongs in our articles, and that is a major problem. To Jytdog's point, I'm not talking about preserving content that does not belong in our articles; S Marshall wasn't arguing that either. We're talking about what WP:Preserve states, which is that "as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the 'finished' article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research." WP:Preserve is a policy, just like WP:Burden is, and it tells us to make sure that what we are removing should be removed. Unsourced content can still be good content. And if an editor is removing unsourced but good content all because the content is unsourced, that is not helping Misplaced Pages at all...unless the content is removed because of some other guideline or policy (like formatting issues or WP:Undue weight). But even then, the editor should consider preserving the content on the talk page. Jytdog commonly preserves text he removes; he does this by moving it to the talk page and explaining why he removed it and/or his concerns about it. Like I noted at the Child grooming talk page, if I had not been there to revert and source the content, valuable information would have been lost...which is a detriment to Misplaced Pages. Above, Blueboar stated, "It comes down to this: Which is more reasonable, asking those who wish to preserve the information to spend five minutes finding a source, and placing it in the article (thus ending the challenge and improving the article)... Or asking those who challenge the information to spend hours trying to "prove the negative" (that a source does not exist)?" But what about those who are not there to revert or otherwise challenge the editors who removed the content? What about easily verifiable content, which will only take a few minutes to source? What about adhering to the WP:Preserve policy? The community has repeatedly challenged reckless removals of content, including large-scale, disruptive blanking of content, no matter the good-faith nature behind it. And if we are not going to expect, or encourage, editors to do their homework on the content they are removing before they remove it (except, of course, for the content that should obviously be discarded), I really don't see the point of the WP:Preserve policy, especially if editors can just ignore it and hold up the WP:Burden sign in response. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

As I see it, PRESERVE addresses best practice for what should (ideally) happen prior to a challenge, while BURDEN addressed what must happen after a challenge. Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• No, PRESERVE is not optional. It's a very old and longstanding part of the editing policy which enjoys widespread consensus. If you're editing in the mainspace then you have a basic responsibility to check that your edit improves the encyclopaedia before you click "save". Please don't misinterpret this as some kind of optional best practice step because it is not and has never been optional.—S Marshall T/C 13:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course PRESERVE is optional. It repeatedly says "consider" doing X, Y or Z... Which implies that you have the option not to do X, Y or Z. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes: sometimes you come across something in the encyclopaedia which is stupid, or obvious vandalism, and needs to be removed at once. If you find "George W. Bush is a chimpanzee" in an article, then there's no ambiguity there and forcing editors to google it achieves nothing. But removing verifiable content from an article about child protection is quite a different matter, isn't it? WP:PRESERVE applies to content that's plausible. But when it does apply, I think it's absolute. If you do go around removing verifiable content from articles about child protection, then you probably should be blocked on grounds of WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NOTHERE.—S Marshall T/C 16:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I fail to see how WP:Preserve is optional simply because it states "consider" in a few parts; it states "consider" because it gives a variety of ways to preserve the content. There is no one way. It clearly states, "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the 'finished' article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I struggle with so strongly challenging this removal. The most insidiously wrong content in Misplaced Pages is the kind that has "truthiness". We are not about "truthiness" here. And this topic in particular is one where i would imagine there are a lot of myths flying around and the importance of content being well sourced to high-quality sources, is all the more important. I often agree with Flyer22 but in this case I don't; the right thing to do in the face of that challenge would be to find sources, add them, and really importantly - copyedit based on what the sources actually say. That said, it would have been better for Spacecowboy420 to move that to the Talk page to highlight the need for sourcing rather than removing it. There is a public health/child safety issue there. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, in this case, we had an editor not only remove easily verifiable content that he did not take the time to do a quick search on, but an editor who removed the content as possible WP:OR. In other words, he removed important, easily verifiable content on an illogical basis. That is reckless editing. As made clear, I sourced the content and tweaked the wording, but it was very important to make it clear how careless and detrimental that edit was. Furthermore, once content is removed from our articles, it commonly stays removed. Editors (especially newbies or other less experienced editors) don't usually go into the edit history to see how how the article looked a few days or weeks ago (unless suspecting vandalism or other disruptive editing), or in a certain year; that's usually an occasional thing. This is why it's often good to preserve content on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Generally, well said Flyer22 reborn, it's usually a problem when any rule is fetishsized (See, WP:IAR). The one that bothers me, is when someone removes content from an (non-BLP) article, when it is sourced, just not where they think the citation needs to be, and because they have not bothered to even look at the sources already in the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Alan, when something like that occurs, simply return the information with an edit summary saying "already sourced - see reference number X." This quietly lets the challenger know that WP: BURDEN has, in fact, been complied with... And almost always ends the challenge without it escalating into a huge drama. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I will make my contribution short and sweet, as I'm more involved with articles, than policies.

I don't really want to be specific about the article in question (even though, I was the editor removing content) - however, I will try to explain why feelings that apply equally to all articles.

If you have added content, then you should be knowledgeable about the content. That seems like common sense. You either have experience with the subject, or you have a reliable source in front of you. If you are in that position, then it should be a very simple procedure to cite that content. If you don't want to add a source (for whatever reason) you should be prepared to explain why it isn't required, or at least add it when requested.

I would suggest that all of the above applies equally to any editor who wishes to restore content that has been removed due to a lack of sources. You deem the content to be essential to the article? Then either explain why it doesn't need a source, or cite it yourself.

As has been stated already, it's far easier to cite something, than to prove that there are no reliable sources for a citation.

Losing content is the lesser of two evils, when compared to have POV/fringe/incorrect content. If content is removed due to the lack of a source, it can always be restored when a source is located.

Also, consider it a lesson learned. When people start losing content they they think is essential to "their" article, because they were too lazy to follow the general norm and provide a citation, perhaps they will take the time to cite the next content they add to an article. If the lack of sources is ignored and accepted, people will not bother looking for sources in the future. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Since I already made myself very clear about how you acted in this case, and that I can never accept such an action, I will reiterate that my responses are at the Child grooming talk page and that I stand by them. And like I just stated above to Jytdog: "Editors (especially newbies or other less experienced editors) don't usually go into the edit history to see how how the article looked a few days or weeks ago (unless suspecting vandalism or other disruptive editing), or in a certain year; that's usually an occasional thing. This is why it's often good to preserve content on the talk page." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Moving forward

• Proposed addition to WP:BURDEN: If the content you are thinking about removing is not vandalism or obviously wrong, then WP:PRESERVE applies. Please take a few moments to check that your edit improves the encyclopaedia before clicking "save".—S Marshall T/C 07:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Re: your comment above "No, PRESERVE is not optional". Perserve is optional, do you know what's not? WP:V. WP:PRESERVE says we "should" do something. WP:V says we "must" do something. Clear as day.--v/r - TP 08:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• No, no, no. It is not the editor removing content's responsibility to find a source. They dispute the existence of the source. They don't have a responsibility to prove a negative. That would take an infinite amount of time. It's on the editor who adds or restores content to prove the source exists, because proving it exists shouldn't take an infinite amount of time. WP:V is a core content policy. All content must be verifiable. If it's not verifiable, it must be removed. If I doubt a piece of content is verifiable, I have no obligation but to remove it. Period, dot.--v/r - TP 08:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• No addition required. We are not talking about the removal of blatantly correct content that most laymen would be familiar and in agreement with. Keep it as it is, and point it out to editors adding content, that they should also be adding sources if there is any realistic chance of it being challenged. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• That was blatantly correct content, easily verified by anyone with a one-minute internet search. Anyone editing in the mainspace ought to have performed the search before clicking save. I'm puzzled by your total refusal to accept any responsibility at all for that edit, and I'm worried by TParis' attitude which I think is unbecoming of a sysop.—S Marshall T/C 17:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  I don't agree S Marshall. I agree it expressed commonly held notions about what child molesters do, but I am not at all sure that this is what they actually do. This kind of content is particularly important to actually VERIFY. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  • It's a simple reading of the policy. Misplaced Pages is a reference for millions of people worldwide and it's important that our content is verifiable. If you want to say that an editor should spend the 30 seconds to google something before removing it - then fair enough. But what I'm not prepared to accept is that an editor must search indefinitely for a source. The editor removing content does not have that level of responsibility.--v/r - TP 19:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    • The proposed edit says "Please take a few moments." It doesn't say "You are absolutely obliged to perform a philosophically impossible task before you're permitted to remove any content."—S Marshall T/C 19:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
      • But it's not required. WP:Preserve says "should". For this change to WP:V to match the "should" language of WP:PRESERVE, it should say "...or obviously wrong, then consider WP:PRESERVE beforehand." Because, despite what you and Flyer22 Reborn have said, WP:Preserve is optional. You'll need to change that policy to make it a requirement. This is not the right policy to try to force that change through.--v/r - TP 20:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I agree that WP:Preserve is not optional. There are various ways to preserve content; it is not simply about having an editor source the content. And I think that an editor should spend at least 30 seconds to Google something before removing it...unless it obviously should be removed or is best temporarily removed. For example, there can be formatting issues, WP:Due weight issues, or even WP:Consensus issues. Either way, it is high time that we put an end to the reckless removals of content in our Misplaced Pages articles. I also suggest that S Marshall turn this matter into a WP:RfC and advertise it at the appropriate forums, such as WP:Village pump (policy). I would help advertise it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)