| Revision as of 02:05, 28 December 2016 edit67.14.236.50 (talk) →How can or should we verify claims of deletion?: Exactly← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:20, 28 December 2016 edit undoJ. Johnson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions19,647 edits →What's a valid challenge: commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
| :::What you describe as “griefing” sounds like ]. However, what you describe could also be, from the same page: {{tq|Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) correcting related problems on multiple articles.}} It depends wholly on the editor’s intent. If you had a tendency to routinely make some problematic error in your editing, and some other editor noticed this pattern and lit up your watchlist in an attempt to fix (or at least draw attention to) that systemic problem, would you consider that “griefing”? —] (]) 03:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC) | :::What you describe as “griefing” sounds like ]. However, what you describe could also be, from the same page: {{tq|Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) correcting related problems on multiple articles.}} It depends wholly on the editor’s intent. If you had a tendency to routinely make some problematic error in your editing, and some other editor noticed this pattern and lit up your watchlist in an attempt to fix (or at least draw attention to) that systemic problem, would you consider that “griefing”? —] (]) 03:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Oh, I'm sure that in that particular editor's mind, it was that he'd noticed a problem in my editing. He thinks every couple of sentences there needs to be a little superscript number pointing to a reference; whereas I think that as long as I've provided my sources in the bibliography, then I only need the little superscript number for direct quotations or material that's likely to be challenged. Therefore in his opinion my edits were problematic and he was drawing attention to that problem. But there were some red flags for griefing there, such as the fact that it started after I'd challenged one of his non-admin closes and brought it to DRV, or the fact that he was tagging or butchering articles I'd created at the rate of about four a minute, so there was no way he was evaluating the articles before editing. AN/I came to the typical fudge that AN/I comes to when none of the editors involved are newbies; I summarily restored all the removed content and deleted the tags, added a couple of sources where the user did seem to have some basis in fact. This was five years ago and nobody's tagged any of those articles since, so I suppose I was in the right... which is of course part of the definition of griefing: it has to be (a) retaliatory or vexatious, and (b) wrong.—] <small>]/]</small> 14:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC) | ::::Oh, I'm sure that in that particular editor's mind, it was that he'd noticed a problem in my editing. He thinks every couple of sentences there needs to be a little superscript number pointing to a reference; whereas I think that as long as I've provided my sources in the bibliography, then I only need the little superscript number for direct quotations or material that's likely to be challenged. Therefore in his opinion my edits were problematic and he was drawing attention to that problem. But there were some red flags for griefing there, such as the fact that it started after I'd challenged one of his non-admin closes and brought it to DRV, or the fact that he was tagging or butchering articles I'd created at the rate of about four a minute, so there was no way he was evaluating the articles before editing. AN/I came to the typical fudge that AN/I comes to when none of the editors involved are newbies; I summarily restored all the removed content and deleted the tags, added a couple of sources where the user did seem to have some basis in fact. This was five years ago and nobody's tagged any of those articles since, so I suppose I was in the right... which is of course part of the definition of griefing: it has to be (a) retaliatory or vexatious, and (b) wrong.—] <small>]/]</small> 14:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Perhaps "griefing" is where those with views variant to mine are allowed to edit Misplaced Pages? :0 ~ ] (]) 23:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2016 == | == Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2016 == | ||
Revision as of 23:20, 28 December 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 is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Verifiability page. |
|
 | 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
|
 | 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 |
|
Archives by topic First sentence (Nov 2010–March 2011) |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Is verifiability temporary?
Given the prevalence of new media kinds of sources, how permanent is verifiability? If an editor verifies a source today, and then that source disappears tomorrow, is the presumption that the source checked out? Or is the statement now no longer verifiable? An example would be (say) an article that appears in a site that is not archived by the wayback machine at archive.org. Is this still "in principle verifiable", because the article must appear on some server somewhere, as well as copies with the original author? Should WP:V favor sources that also have a reputation for permanence, like being in actual physical collections, as opposed to digital ones)? Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Verifiability and WP:GNG does not 'switch off.' See WP:Linkrot and WP:Dead link. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- I get that, but here's an example. Suppose that a YouTube personality made some statements in a YouTube video. That video was cited in some sources, and turned out to be the main reason (under WP:GNG) for the individual's Misplaced Pages article. Is it still acceptable to refer to the original YouTube video, after it was deleted by the article's subject? (Remember, this is assuming that the person is primarily notable for the statements made in that video, which were not clearly discussed in the secondary sources.) As far as I know, there is no publicly accessible YouTube archive, but archives must exist somewhere, so verifiability still holds "in principle", and those of us who did see what the subject said in the original video would still be justified in summarizing its contents? Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the reality is that verifiability is sometimes temporary. Archives don't always exist, and if information is removed, it can become impossible to verify it. It is impossible for anyone to be "primarily notable for the statements made in that video, which were not clearly discussed in the secondary sources", because it is only the coverage in secondary sources that makes a subject notable in Misplaced Pages's terms. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- 'It is impossible for anyone to be "primarily notable for the statements made in that video, which were not clearly discussed in the secondary sources"' Unfortunately, this is not actually true, as the existence of a certain article clearly demonstrates. Secondary coverage had concluded that the subject disproved the Big Bang, and developed a series of mathematical models that expanded Einstein's theory of relativity in a YouTube video. None of this was actually the case, per the original video. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the reality is that verifiability is sometimes temporary. Archives don't always exist, and if information is removed, it can become impossible to verify it. It is impossible for anyone to be "primarily notable for the statements made in that video, which were not clearly discussed in the secondary sources", because it is only the coverage in secondary sources that makes a subject notable in Misplaced Pages's terms. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- I get that, but here's an example. Suppose that a YouTube personality made some statements in a YouTube video. That video was cited in some sources, and turned out to be the main reason (under WP:GNG) for the individual's Misplaced Pages article. Is it still acceptable to refer to the original YouTube video, after it was deleted by the article's subject? (Remember, this is assuming that the person is primarily notable for the statements made in that video, which were not clearly discussed in the secondary sources.) As far as I know, there is no publicly accessible YouTube archive, but archives must exist somewhere, so verifiability still holds "in principle", and those of us who did see what the subject said in the original video would still be justified in summarizing its contents? Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Speaking from the Video Games project (where the bulk of our sources are only from online works by the nature of the industry) we do worry about topics becoming unverifyable because sites go dark, have not enjoyed archival forms, and otherwise making it impossible, save by questionable means (forums that duplicate the entire text via copy-vio issues, or other questionable archives), to re-verify the work. This often means facts that were verified before can no longer be verified and if it becomes clear there's no way to replace that, that fact has to go. Hence why we generally try to use archive.org/Webcite whenever possible. Fortunately, because of the GNG, the loss of one or two sources rarely means the article topic no longer can be verified, but that could potentially happen. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- But presumably things like that might be archived in private collections. I have no doubt, for instance, that Google keeps an archive of all YouTube content. That could, in principle, be recovered, but the bar for verification is rather high. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- If that private archive fails aspects that PAYWALL otherwise allows (For example, trying to ask Google to provide a video long since deleted from the public), we should not consider that archive as being able to meet the accessibility aspects of WP:V. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- But presumably things like that might be archived in private collections. I have no doubt, for instance, that Google keeps an archive of all YouTube content. That could, in principle, be recovered, but the bar for verification is rather high. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
No, verifiability cannot be temporary. It is a cornerstone of our content policies. If some video or website disappeared, we don't know why this happened. For example, it may be that it was removed because the information in it was incorrect. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- If the only source for a fact disappears and there is no way to access it within legal/reasonable means, that fact now fails verifyability. This is a reality we have to face with digital news sources. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- (e-c) Verifiability is not and cannot be temporary. It may however in some cases be true that the source used to provide verification at one time is later changed to read in such a way that it no longer provides that needed verification. This can be particularly true in sources which are exclusively available online. In such cases where material is changed in such a way as to remove support for some cited information, I assume that by our policies we would have to accept the reliability of the later, presumably more thoroughly reviewed, version, although it might be useful to have some sort of indicator somewhere of that.
- A particular instance of something like this happening is an article in The Atlantic some time ago, which some editors here might remember. John Carter (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Thread of interest
This may be of interest to folks watching this page: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#How important is verifiability?. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Definition of WP:NPOV at the Death of JonBenét Ramsey article and its relation to article titles and article content
Will editors here weigh in on an important discussion at Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#I have removed "Murder" references? It's about the definition of WP:NPOV and its relation to article titles and article content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
It's now an RfC; see Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#RfC: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy?. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
"Substantial Challenge" or minimal requirements for a challenge
Misplaced Pages:CHALLENGED links here, therefore I discuss this here. In the linked section there seems to be no definition on minimal requirements for a suitable or good "challenge". I would propose the definition of some minimal standards for "challenges", especially for challenges in the strong form of "deletions". Due to the impact (too easy) deletions impose on articles breadth and depth, as "deletion" driven editing is in general in conflict with our overarching goal "(becoming) the largest encyclopedia in history, both in terms of breadth and in terms of depth.", are discouraged by WP:PRESERVE, and safer forms of challenges are available in "discussion starting" and "tagging", I suggest: that we define minimal standards for challenges, e.g. giving of specific WP policy reason + argumentation like "copyright violation as XXX" or "not NPOV, misses position YYY". Circular arguments or personal points of view should not substantiate an suitable challenge, like "not sourced" or "I feel such material does not belong in an encyclopedia". Also I would propose that if an authors decides that drastically measures like deletion are suitable here (and not softer forms of challenging),the burden on (source) research should be shifted on the deleting author. Shaddim (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- I think it would be a mistake to force editors to jump through hoops to remove content from an article. Removing bad content is just as important as adding good content, and we should not privilege one over the other in a content dispute. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose in the strongest possible terms. If you have a problem with specific material being deleted, you have multiple options. There's nothing circular or personal about removing material for lacking sources, and it's ridiculous to ask an editor to prove that sources don't exist. How on Earth would you formalize that, much less prove that any editor had actually done that research? DonIago (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- The other editor could then falsely claim to have seen studies that indisputably prove the sources don’t exist, and then it would be on you to prove that those studies don’t exist… speaking of circular. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Is this a response to me? If so, WP:BURDEN has that covered. It's the adding editor's obligation to provide a source, not the removing editor's obligation to somehow prove they don't exist. As I noted, that's a ridiculous scenario. DonIago (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- More of a followup than a response. Seemed the logical conclusion of the Bad Idea. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Is this a response to me? If so, WP:BURDEN has that covered. It's the adding editor's obligation to provide a source, not the removing editor's obligation to somehow prove they don't exist. As I noted, that's a ridiculous scenario. DonIago (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- The other editor could then falsely claim to have seen studies that indisputably prove the sources don’t exist, and then it would be on you to prove that those studies don’t exist… speaking of circular. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- For material to be “challenged” means for an editor to remove it for being unsourced, or to otherwise express doubts as to its verifiability. I agree that this could be better explained here; I had to ask about it myself. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't mean merely to remove it for being unsourced, because content should never be removed only for that reason if there isn't a specific BLP concern. If an editor doesn't actually think it's unverifiable, then their removal of it is not a good faith "challenge" for purposes of WP:BURDEN, it's just blanking, and contra policy at WP:PRESERVE. postdlf (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- I meant unverifiable here, rather. To be fair, unverifiable content tends to not be supported by a source. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't mean merely to remove it for being unsourced, because content should never be removed only for that reason if there isn't a specific BLP concern. If an editor doesn't actually think it's unverifiable, then their removal of it is not a good faith "challenge" for purposes of WP:BURDEN, it's just blanking, and contra policy at WP:PRESERVE. postdlf (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- My scenario is less about adding material (where the burden question is more clear) but about already existing material (legacy material, imported external articles etc): which might exist already happily in the article for years, reviewed by dozen of WP authors as suitable, found useful by readers, and which now got deleted, over-eagerly by an trigger happy author with the quick evaluation "no source" missing that the mark is verfiability, not sources. We have many policies and position essays (WP:SKYISBLUE, WP:PRESERVE, Misplaced Pages:Inline_citation#When_you_must_use_inline_citations, and especially Misplaced Pages:Five_pillars) which indicate many situations where no sources, weaker sources or other forms of verifiability are suitable. So, in general "no sources" is an invalid "challenge", additional, to that that such light-hearted deletions are a quite harmful activity. This misbalance in power and requirement between adding and removing we need to address to fulfill our over-arching goal. Therefore, in the cases of "challenging of existing, established material" the deleting author should have the burden of checking if he want to change established article consensus.Shaddim (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- @someguy1221:" Removing bad content is just as important as adding good content," indeed, keeping WP articles free of propaganda, vandalism and POV is at least as important as adding content (but not more), but.... "should not privilege one over the other in a content dispute." I absolutely agree, currently there is misbalance in burden between adding material and deleting material. Currently deletion is priviledged by having no burden, not even the burden providing minimal standards for a suitable "challenge". "deletion challenges" ignore often the requirement of verifiability when they take the sloppy short-cut and edit comment: "no sources". this should be changed to restore the balance at least a little bit. Shaddim (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- How? How would you word such a thing, how would you allow for any means to confirm that editors were adhering to such a thing, etc.? I'd like specifics, not vague suggestions. DonIago (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- We already have a "balance" for the removal of unsourced (and potentially unverifiable) content... simply return the content with a reliable source (thus demonstrating that the content is in fact verifiable). Blueboar (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- @blueboar: if this activity is so "simple" than there is no problem in adding this burden to the deleting author. Shaddim (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- This simple and elegant principle is what solves the problem of "balance", and it happens to be exactly what the policy already says. The more verifiable (the easier sources are to come by) the content is, the easier it is to return it with a reliable source. This will keep verifiable content more readily in the encyclopedia than unverifiable content. For hard to verify information – content that is likely to be challenged – adding the citation initially it not only advised to keep it from being removed, but it is required by WP:MINREF. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Problem is: once content is (too) easily removed, it is unlikely to be reinstantiated for several reasons: 1.) it's would be a revert, which is per se an "aggressive" activity apposing a previous author, therefore something which is less likely to happen 2.) it has then a significant burden, while the opposite activity is fairly easy, authors don't like to invest work for things which are very likely get removed again 3.) no one is interested in this phase anymore, the contributing authors have already left this article. Overall, this redundant activities of removing and (potentially reading) content, could be optimized by just requesting from removing authors doing minimal verifiability checks (verifiabiltiy is the mark according to other policies in any case, so it would be natural to request it here too) Shaddim (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- It sounds like you're mainly talking about articles with little to no traffic, where problematic edits would be unlikely to be quickly reverted. I would say that on such articles, citing your sources to begin with is more important, since there are fewer (if any) eyes reviewing each edit. —67.14.236.50 (talk) on public network 151.132.206.26 (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, as you stated correctly many articles suffer from too little author traffic, and have therefore little author supervision. More generally spoken WP would need more authors, that is the problem. As it was already proven in former times (with less policies), again and again, that the reliability of WP is competitive or even superior to the best comparable encyclopedia, we should not waste our ressources by over-focussing on a non-issue (or of tertiary importance against other goals). The real problem seems missing involvement and development of WP (creation / adding / being abble to contribute for new authors), we should rebalance the burden where suitable to encourage more contribution and collaborative work together. It should be easier to contribute to underdeveloped articles. Just writting more harsh and demanding policies (as you suggest) will not create the authors who will follow them (quite the opposite), but reducing the bar where reasonable might. Shaddim (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- No. In fact, there is nothing that can prevent anyone writing to their heart's content - absent page protection. That does not mean the pedia should not require citation, and be downright insistent upon it, quite the opposite, it should insist, cajole, plead for citation because there is no real barrier to writing to one heart's content. Sure citation is a burden, and it should fall on the writer not anyone else, certainly not the reader. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Well our policies require "verifibility" not "sources", so the burden will fall on other authors over time for content which is verfiable but without sources. Currently the policy push the burden on the first author alone, which is in many cases not available anymore. This policy doesn't represent the actual editing and article reality good enough anymore. Therefore some minimal adaptions could lead to here to better distributed burden (on more shoulders) and in best case minimizing duplicated work and friction between authors.Shaddim (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Policy does require citation, and not just citation, 'direct' citation - you can get away without citation for the obvious (the unlikely to be challenged), but sometimes you are wrong that something is unlikely to be challenged - that's the problem the writer created, when he or she guessed wrong, or when he or she was just too lazy to 'say where they got it' up front (when they were in a position to do so). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Well, as you also said our policies literally demand only "verifiability" and not "citations" for many cases. This has then the implication that the "verfiability proof" becomes NOT only the original writers problem alone but the problem and responsibility of all authors interacting with this article and content. If the described situation ("legit verifiable content, but without inline citation") would be not inside our policies I would agree with you, but policies demand only verifiability, not more. Shaddim (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Our policies do literally demand citation (your focus on when they don't, does not carry the implication you describe, quite the opposite - the implication of being an information source is saying where Misplaced Pages got it, part of being a good reference writer is saying where you got it). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- While I agree with you, that it is beneficial and recommended to give good sources on additions, fact is there there are substantial cases where they aren't demanded ((WP:SKYISBLUE, WP:PRESERVE, Misplaced Pages:Inline_citation#When_you_must_use_inline_citations, and especially Misplaced Pages:Five_pillars)). We can't say therefore they are demanded in general, in general verifiability alone is the minimal requirement. We have to cope with that, and the resulting spread of "verifiability check" responsibitly beyond the original author. Good thing is, this is not a severe change or burden but just an clarification here, which fits already good editors' practices ("minimal token verifibility check"), so I don't see a problem here. Shaddim (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- If it "fits already good editors' practices", as you say, and is simply a clarification in any case, then why do we need to add it to begin with? Can you provide specific examples where you feel this change would have made a practical difference? DonIago (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Appologies, if I use confusing wording, what I mean with good editor practices are not the practices which are commonly applied but are applied by "good" editors. So, which are not the common practice (or minimal standard) but the one which we should encourage with policies and guidelines. Shaddim (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Practical difference would be that we would encourage and guide to better edit behaviour: doing minimal token checks on verifiability and giving better edit comments. Outcome on editting could be less overall work and friction between authors and for WP more verfifiable and verified (!) content. Shaddim (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- "Good editor" practice - as useful as the fiction may be, everyone is mostly a reader, here - by writing, one makes claim on the reader's trust (and implicitly that the writer has sufficient expertise to convey the information, and integral to reference information is where it comes from) the writer should not impose on the reader to guess. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- I fully agree that transparency on the creation, sources and creation of the information we provide with WP to readers is crucial. I believe we do a very good job here, in general. And I want that we do an even better job here by having more verfiability checks by distributing this work in a reasonable amount on more shoulders. I really believe it is not unreasonable to expect minimal verfiability checks and good edit comments from WP authors who believe to be competent enough to remove content from articles. Shaddim (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- So, remove it, if it actually needs to be back then the "check" must be demonstrated, in fact, provided. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- This is against our "verifiabilty req. (only)" of content. Content which is verifiable but without sources is valid. There is no substantiated reason in our policies to remove it, vice versa via have the overarching goal of expanding the WP and keeping suitable content(WP:PRESERVE). A failed verifiability test would be a good reason. Which is a procedure all good authors should follow already. So no extra burden or problem. Shaddim (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- So, remove it, if it actually needs to be back then the "check" must be demonstrated, in fact, provided. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- I fully agree that transparency on the creation, sources and creation of the information we provide with WP to readers is crucial. I believe we do a very good job here, in general. And I want that we do an even better job here by having more verfiability checks by distributing this work in a reasonable amount on more shoulders. I really believe it is not unreasonable to expect minimal verfiability checks and good edit comments from WP authors who believe to be competent enough to remove content from articles. Shaddim (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- "Good editor" practice - as useful as the fiction may be, everyone is mostly a reader, here - by writing, one makes claim on the reader's trust (and implicitly that the writer has sufficient expertise to convey the information, and integral to reference information is where it comes from) the writer should not impose on the reader to guess. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- If it "fits already good editors' practices", as you say, and is simply a clarification in any case, then why do we need to add it to begin with? Can you provide specific examples where you feel this change would have made a practical difference? DonIago (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- While I agree with you, that it is beneficial and recommended to give good sources on additions, fact is there there are substantial cases where they aren't demanded ((WP:SKYISBLUE, WP:PRESERVE, Misplaced Pages:Inline_citation#When_you_must_use_inline_citations, and especially Misplaced Pages:Five_pillars)). We can't say therefore they are demanded in general, in general verifiability alone is the minimal requirement. We have to cope with that, and the resulting spread of "verifiability check" responsibitly beyond the original author. Good thing is, this is not a severe change or burden but just an clarification here, which fits already good editors' practices ("minimal token verifibility check"), so I don't see a problem here. Shaddim (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Our policies do literally demand citation (your focus on when they don't, does not carry the implication you describe, quite the opposite - the implication of being an information source is saying where Misplaced Pages got it, part of being a good reference writer is saying where you got it). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Well, as you also said our policies literally demand only "verifiability" and not "citations" for many cases. This has then the implication that the "verfiability proof" becomes NOT only the original writers problem alone but the problem and responsibility of all authors interacting with this article and content. If the described situation ("legit verifiable content, but without inline citation") would be not inside our policies I would agree with you, but policies demand only verifiability, not more. Shaddim (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Policy does require citation, and not just citation, 'direct' citation - you can get away without citation for the obvious (the unlikely to be challenged), but sometimes you are wrong that something is unlikely to be challenged - that's the problem the writer created, when he or she guessed wrong, or when he or she was just too lazy to 'say where they got it' up front (when they were in a position to do so). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Well our policies require "verifibility" not "sources", so the burden will fall on other authors over time for content which is verfiable but without sources. Currently the policy push the burden on the first author alone, which is in many cases not available anymore. This policy doesn't represent the actual editing and article reality good enough anymore. Therefore some minimal adaptions could lead to here to better distributed burden (on more shoulders) and in best case minimizing duplicated work and friction between authors.Shaddim (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- No. In fact, there is nothing that can prevent anyone writing to their heart's content - absent page protection. That does not mean the pedia should not require citation, and be downright insistent upon it, quite the opposite, it should insist, cajole, plead for citation because there is no real barrier to writing to one heart's content. Sure citation is a burden, and it should fall on the writer not anyone else, certainly not the reader. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, as you stated correctly many articles suffer from too little author traffic, and have therefore little author supervision. More generally spoken WP would need more authors, that is the problem. As it was already proven in former times (with less policies), again and again, that the reliability of WP is competitive or even superior to the best comparable encyclopedia, we should not waste our ressources by over-focussing on a non-issue (or of tertiary importance against other goals). The real problem seems missing involvement and development of WP (creation / adding / being abble to contribute for new authors), we should rebalance the burden where suitable to encourage more contribution and collaborative work together. It should be easier to contribute to underdeveloped articles. Just writting more harsh and demanding policies (as you suggest) will not create the authors who will follow them (quite the opposite), but reducing the bar where reasonable might. Shaddim (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- It sounds like you're mainly talking about articles with little to no traffic, where problematic edits would be unlikely to be quickly reverted. I would say that on such articles, citing your sources to begin with is more important, since there are fewer (if any) eyes reviewing each edit. —67.14.236.50 (talk) on public network 151.132.206.26 (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Problem is: once content is (too) easily removed, it is unlikely to be reinstantiated for several reasons: 1.) it's would be a revert, which is per se an "aggressive" activity apposing a previous author, therefore something which is less likely to happen 2.) it has then a significant burden, while the opposite activity is fairly easy, authors don't like to invest work for things which are very likely get removed again 3.) no one is interested in this phase anymore, the contributing authors have already left this article. Overall, this redundant activities of removing and (potentially reading) content, could be optimized by just requesting from removing authors doing minimal verifiability checks (verifiabiltiy is the mark according to other policies in any case, so it would be natural to request it here too) Shaddim (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
We do not have a single policy or even an essay that restricts us from demonstrating verifiability. Verifiability is demonstrated by citing supporting reliable sources. Sometimes, a claim is obvious or common-sense enough that we can expect everyone to take our word for it that it’s verifiable. The rest of the time, we ought to prove that it is, by citing supporting reliable sources. No one wants an encyclopedia that makes dubious claims with no backing. This is how we avoid that. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, no author is prevented in demonstrating verifiability. I would consider it quite natural process step that authors do the "demonstration of verfiabilty" in the situation of evaluating questionable content. Therefore I believe, demonstrating of verfiabilty should been encouraged, or even made default, also in the situation of an potential content removal. I consider it a duty of all authors in all their activites. As it is also not clear cut what are "obvious facts" and "not obvious facts", the already existing good practice "token check of verfiability" should be applied always in case of doubt. Because, no one wants to have WP articles stripped naked and crippled with the removal of reader valuable content, for no good reason. Shaddim (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Because, no one wants to have WP articles stripped naked and crippled with the removal of reader valuable content, for no good reason.
That would not be possible in any halfway decent article without removing supporting citations. Any valuable content on Misplaced Pages tends to be cited to reliable sources. (You may want to see also WP:VALUABLE and WP:VALINFO.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)- "Tends" does not mean all of it. The short cut "not sourced, not verifiable" might be an intriguing idea due to its simplicity but is not backed by WP's intend and whole of policies. Even you said:
Sometimes, a claim is obvious or common-sense enough that we can expect everyone to take our word for it that it’s verifiable
. We have significant portions of the WP being verifiable but not with direct sources. And this is fine, inside the policies and a wanted, reasonable situation. When there is the demand to increasing the proportion of verified content, the implementation should be shouldered by all authors, also the ones who demand this, especially the ones "specialized" in questioning/challenging content. I believe this is also a good approach to bring in their motivation and approach separated WP author groups more near together in their actual WP edit experience, synchronize them, bridging some persisting rift. Shaddim (talk) 14:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- "Tends" does not mean all of it. The short cut "not sourced, not verifiable" might be an intriguing idea due to its simplicity but is not backed by WP's intend and whole of policies. Even you said:
What's a valid challenge
We already had a discussion similar to this one regarding WP:CHALLENGE, the result of which was adding the wording "please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable". It has been found that WP:BURDEN does not provide a blanket permission to remove any amount of content without inline citations, in a case where an editor doing so was considered disruptive. In my view, BURDEN already has a definition of a valid challenge with the above sentence; the editor invoking this policy needs to state their good-faith belief that the content is unverifiable (not merely unsourced). Challenges based on other criteria not related to verifiability (WP:Original Research, WP:Due weight...) are not covered by this part of the WP:V policy (although WP:ONUS seems relevant). Diego (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- These arguments would be far less common if people spent as much time and effort actually properly sourcing things as they did trying to dodge WP:V through wikilawyering and arguing about who's allowed to challenge what content. All challenges are valid and if someone's genuinely being a nuisance with them, there's behavioural remedies at WP:ANI. Reyk YO! 17:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Mind you, AN/I never imposes effective behavioural remedies on anyone except a rank newbie, and BURDEN griefing is a real thing that really happens. If it ever happens to you, find an active sysop with no patience for fools and post directly on their talk page.—S Marshall T/C 18:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- In respect of WP:V it seems to me that sourcing (in some form, even if not perfect) is an absolute requirement, and a reasonable burden. Someone challenging a lack of sources should not have to demonstrate a likely unverifiability (which is to say, a lack of sources). That would be somewhat like trying to prove a negative. The offence is the lack of citation of a source, and is readily evident.
- When someone adds material, they should have it from some source, not simply intuited out of the ether. Providing that source is a reasonable and required burden, and a sufficient remedy. Even if the challenger knows of valid sources, she probably doesn't know where the contributing editor read it; citation is necessarily part of writing.
- Where the griefing comes in (in respect of sources) is more in challenges to the adequacy, authority, accuracy, relevancy, etc., of the sources. I don't believe all challenges are valid, but neither do I know of any clear-cut way of distinguishing any particular challenge as "valid" or "invalid". But, I think griefing arises not from any particular challenge, or even several (no matter how frvivolous, or lacking in good-faith), but in repeated challenges of doubtful merit.
- I think it would be useful to consider challenges as questions. E.g., it is quite reasonable that an editor whose understanding of a topic is not as broad or deep as mine should ask questions (as one should), and it is civil to assist in others' understanding. (Though beyond a few questions it becomes a matter of tutoring, and I think RTF
Msources applies.) But there is a fundamental difference between asking a question, and arguing a point. The former is an inquiry; the latter is inherently disputation, which all too quickly becomes more adversarial than collegial. - It is also useful to consider challenges as a form of statistical quality control. Even where there is no expectation that a widget is out of spec, it can be reasonable to inspect a few (even destructively) to be certain. In that regard I don't mind a few questions (even dumb questions) to show the adequacy of my work. The griefing is where someone expects a right of unlimited challenges. If one cannot provide an adequate response then the challenge was valid, and further testing is likely justified. If one can provide an adequate response, then justification for additional testing is reduced. In this context the validity of additional tests or challenges depends on the degree to which it can make any difference in the result. E.g.: after a single test a single contrary result makes a big difference, but not so much after twenty consistent results. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- "Griefing" is when your whole watchlist lights up because someone you've clashed with systematically goes through your contributions tagging and challenging everything you've ever written. It takes them a few minutes to do it and the workload they've handed you will take you months to get through. There are other kinds of challenge which aren't necessarily griefing, but are non-trivial to address ---- the most nuanced ones tend to involve either things that can be logically derived such as calculations or computer programs, or else translations from foreign language sources. The problem comes where you, the author, are well able to do the maths or read the source but the editor who challenges you is not.—S Marshall T/C 00:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- What you describe as “griefing” sounds like WP:HOUNDING. However, what you describe could also be, from the same page:
Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) correcting related problems on multiple articles.
It depends wholly on the editor’s intent. If you had a tendency to routinely make some problematic error in your editing, and some other editor noticed this pattern and lit up your watchlist in an attempt to fix (or at least draw attention to) that systemic problem, would you consider that “griefing”? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)- Oh, I'm sure that in that particular editor's mind, it was that he'd noticed a problem in my editing. He thinks every couple of sentences there needs to be a little superscript number pointing to a reference; whereas I think that as long as I've provided my sources in the bibliography, then I only need the little superscript number for direct quotations or material that's likely to be challenged. Therefore in his opinion my edits were problematic and he was drawing attention to that problem. But there were some red flags for griefing there, such as the fact that it started after I'd challenged one of his non-admin closes and brought it to DRV, or the fact that he was tagging or butchering articles I'd created at the rate of about four a minute, so there was no way he was evaluating the articles before editing. AN/I came to the typical fudge that AN/I comes to when none of the editors involved are newbies; I summarily restored all the removed content and deleted the tags, added a couple of sources where the user did seem to have some basis in fact. This was five years ago and nobody's tagged any of those articles since, so I suppose I was in the right... which is of course part of the definition of griefing: it has to be (a) retaliatory or vexatious, and (b) wrong.—S Marshall T/C 14:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- What you describe as “griefing” sounds like WP:HOUNDING. However, what you describe could also be, from the same page:
- "Griefing" is when your whole watchlist lights up because someone you've clashed with systematically goes through your contributions tagging and challenging everything you've ever written. It takes them a few minutes to do it and the workload they've handed you will take you months to get through. There are other kinds of challenge which aren't necessarily griefing, but are non-trivial to address ---- the most nuanced ones tend to involve either things that can be logically derived such as calculations or computer programs, or else translations from foreign language sources. The problem comes where you, the author, are well able to do the maths or read the source but the editor who challenges you is not.—S Marshall T/C 00:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps "griefing" is where those with views variant to mine are allowed to edit Misplaced Pages? :0 ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2016
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Include a definition or explanation of “challenged.” 67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- A specific change has to be proposed before that template should be used, and in the case of a policy, that change should be agreed on here first. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- How’s this? An editor may challenge material simply by removing it for being unsourced, or by otherwise expressing doubts as to its verifiability. (Note: if this is incorrect, that’s all the more reason.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Is this not already clearly defined under WP:CHALLENGE? "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Granted there's the may there, but that doesn't detract from removal being a form of challenge, only the question of whether it's the best form of challenge to make. DonIago (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Doesn’t really say that’s what it means by “challenge.” The word isn’t even in the same paragraph. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Am I the only one who doesn’t think it’s obvious? That may be the case, but I thought I was smarter than that. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Did you read the entire section? Other means of challenging material are discussed. DonIago (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- I understand the concept. My concern is that the use of the term itself may be unclear. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, and I would like to see the clarification that a "deletion" is the most unsuitable form of a "challenge". A "challenge" should happens if there is doubt or disagreement. If there is doubt, discussion or tagging is the suitable response. If there is not doubt it is not really a challenge but just restoring of the ordered WP status. Deletion should require higher standards & requirements than a "challenge" Shaddim (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Except that deletion isn't necessarily the most unsuitable form of challenge. If someone puts in an article "Adolf Hitler is still alive", editors shouldn't be required to jump through hoops in order to delete it on the groudns that it's unsourced. DonIago (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- This is a use-case which is fully inside many other edit policies. As this would be a personal, sensitive, and controversial fact, highest standards on fact checking for the inlcuding author for "fresh inclusion" would apply. A "personal, controversial claim without backing, most likely wrong" or plain "vandalism" in your edit as removing author comment would be sufficient. As it is already expected good practice & not an additional hoop. This discussion is more about less controversial content where the strong verifiability standards does not apply & also strong, instant challenges are not required. The current "challenge" formulation requires nothing and allows without good reasons removal of established content which is inside "verifiablility". Here should the principle "benefit of doubt" being applied for the content. If there is no strong case against the content or higher standards required ("controversial, personal etc"), the burden of verifiability should be shifted to the deleting author, when he decides that opening up this question to community with an tag or discussion is not suitable. Shaddim (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- It sounds like a claim like Star Wars: Rogue One features more Ewoks than any other film would fit your criteria. It’s not controversial, but it’s factually wrong and not backed by anything, and doesn’t use the correct title, besides. I still agree with User:Doniago. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Which begs the question: how would a challenging editor prove that Rogue One doesn't feature more Ewoks than any other films? Do they need to initiate a Talk page discussion and get consensus to remove it?
- I'm disinclined to comment on this further without knowing what specific changes editors have in mind, as I feel like this argument is currently bordering on hopelessly abstract. DonIago (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- A challenging author could simply write "couldn't find in a reasonable search any indications backing such claim, doesn't believe this is verifiable." In fact, this is what I expect from an author in anycase if he finds something dubious, doing a minimal research, so not a extra hoop, just a clarification. Shaddim (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- It sounds like a claim like Star Wars: Rogue One features more Ewoks than any other film would fit your criteria. It’s not controversial, but it’s factually wrong and not backed by anything, and doesn’t use the correct title, besides. I still agree with User:Doniago. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- This is a use-case which is fully inside many other edit policies. As this would be a personal, sensitive, and controversial fact, highest standards on fact checking for the inlcuding author for "fresh inclusion" would apply. A "personal, controversial claim without backing, most likely wrong" or plain "vandalism" in your edit as removing author comment would be sufficient. As it is already expected good practice & not an additional hoop. This discussion is more about less controversial content where the strong verifiability standards does not apply & also strong, instant challenges are not required. The current "challenge" formulation requires nothing and allows without good reasons removal of established content which is inside "verifiablility". Here should the principle "benefit of doubt" being applied for the content. If there is no strong case against the content or higher standards required ("controversial, personal etc"), the burden of verifiability should be shifted to the deleting author, when he decides that opening up this question to community with an tag or discussion is not suitable. Shaddim (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Except that deletion isn't necessarily the most unsuitable form of challenge. If someone puts in an article "Adolf Hitler is still alive", editors shouldn't be required to jump through hoops in order to delete it on the groudns that it's unsourced. DonIago (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, and I would like to see the clarification that a "deletion" is the most unsuitable form of a "challenge". A "challenge" should happens if there is doubt or disagreement. If there is doubt, discussion or tagging is the suitable response. If there is not doubt it is not really a challenge but just restoring of the ordered WP status. Deletion should require higher standards & requirements than a "challenge" Shaddim (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- I understand the concept. My concern is that the use of the term itself may be unclear. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Did you read the entire section? Other means of challenging material are discussed. DonIago (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Is this not already clearly defined under WP:CHALLENGE? "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Granted there's the may there, but that doesn't detract from removal being a form of challenge, only the question of whether it's the best form of challenge to make. DonIago (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- How’s this? An editor may challenge material simply by removing it for being unsourced, or by otherwise expressing doubts as to its verifiability. (Note: if this is incorrect, that’s all the more reason.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
So then, you're requesting a change to something like, Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it, where suitable sources cannot be located after a reasonable attempt, may be removed …. Is this correct? —67.14.236.50 (talk) on public network 151.132.206.26 (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- My suggestion would be:
As the overarching theme of WP is verifiabilty for creating a reliable encyclopedia, for the deletion of challenged content it should be checked with reasonable effort if the content is (or most likely is) verifiable. In such cases a deletion should be not be applied but a involvment of more authors, with discussion or tagging the questioned content, should be initiated. In conclusion, this means that direct deletions of content require a higher standard on pre-research and amount of burden (with more elaborated edit comments stating a clear reason and policy which is harmed by the questioned content e.g. VANDALISM, PROPAGANDA, POV etc) than lesser forms of challenges like tagging and discussion initation. For instance "no source" is not a suitable deletion challenge reason, when given as edit comment, but might be good enough for tagging.
Shaddim (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
(The short-cut of "source" and "verfiability" I consider problematic in your proposal, as according to our policies "verfiabilty != sources". "Reliable" used binary or absolute is problematic too as the required strength of "reliable sources" is content & context dependent, more for controversial & personal stuff, less for others, in many instances primary sources are fine.) Shaddim (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- or a proposal as adaption of the existing text:
All content must be verifiable. When material is added by an editor and got challenged by another editor, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds material. A way to satisfy this challenge is by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. On already existing and established material, with the original author potentially not available anymore, a content challenging author is expected to check verfiablity (or likely verifiablity) with reasonable effort himself. He should give then on removal then his reasoning and cited policy in an elaborated edit comment; e.g. "removed due to PROPAGANDA", "No verfiabilty after reasonable search" are suitable, "no sources" is not. In summary, this means that direct removals of established content require a higher standard on pre-research and amount of burden. If the verifiabilty is unclear or unchecked, the inclusion of more authors with lesser forms of challenges like tagging or discussion initation is strongly encouraged in such cases.
Shaddim (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- I see a lot of relativism in the text immediately above this comment. Phrases such as "established" and "potentially not available" would need to be more clearly defined.
- Additionally, I'm no longer clear as to what problem this is trying to solve. If we assume that in the majority of cases editors are already making at least a token effort to find a source before removing material, why is it necessary to add this level of instruction creep to address something that we believe to already be occurring in the majority of cases? DonIago (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Well, in my experience exactly this can't be assumed in the majority of cases. I saw too many to light-hearted content removals, which didn't took the minimal burden of at least token checks on verifiability and giving only unsuitable edit reasons like "removed, can be easily re-added with sources", which then never happened. I agree the formulation might be to detail oriented and chould be streamlined. About "established", "content which survied another authors contribution and didn't challenged and therefore gave his implicte approval"? Or content which is there already for years without challenge? In law there is something like custom (law), should not something similar applied here? If content was considered good enough for years (and is not in conflict with any major policy now), should it have not at least have the benefit and doubt and deserves at least a token check? Shaddim (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- It sounds to me like you're not assuming good faith. Have you discussed your concerns with any of these editors? I would not consider your first definition of "established" acceptable, as editors can edit an article without reviewing changes made by prior editors. Personally I'm more inclined to tag unsourced material which hasn't been newly-added, but I'm also willing to remove it if I think it's unverifiable, and editors who disagree can always a) initiate a discussion about it, or b) source the material and moot the concern. You seem to be assuming that material remaining in an article for years is somehow "good", when it could simply mean nobody's ever taken the time to look at it. DonIago (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, I consider removal of verfiable content a problem. Authors should not do that. And avoiding minimal burden of a token verfiability check I consider indeed "not good faith", if it happens continuously. What it does for some authors, when they impose their own standard of "no sources, not allowed to be in WP" , which is beyond our policy standards. About content: Content could be good then, indeed. If it is in so long propability indeed suggest that the content is less likely SPAM or VANDALISM. But needs still to be checked which should be done by the next author who questions this content or article. If an authors even notices that this article was not touched by no other author in years, is even an stronger indication for burden responsibility distribution to him. The likeliness that the original author will jump out of the bushwork and provide reliability sources on removal is quite low. Shaddim (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly agree with you but I'm afraid this is not going to succeed. As you're probably aware the principle that editors should not remove verifiable content is already policy, in WP:PRESERVE. It's one of our oldest rules and it enjoys widespread consensus. I've tried to get this principle enshrined in WP:V on a number of occasions as well. Unfortunately these attempts always go nowhere. I've found that there's a very strongly held view that anyone can remove content ---- no matter how wilfully, recklessly or negligently, no matter how distorted the article is after that content has been removed ---- for any reason or none ---- under WP:BURDEN. No qualification or mitigation of WP:BURDEN is ever permitted on this talk page. And actually there are good reasons why not. WP:V is developed by editors who use it in the most difficult and controversial areas of the encyclopaedia, in articles about pseudoscience and climate change and alternative medicine and so on. In these conflicts WP:BURDEN's role is to give the heavy artillery to the skeptics, and it is in the best interests of the encyclopaedia to do that.—S Marshall T/C 21:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- thank you very much for the "heads up" ... and for taking the time and offering a broadening of perspective into the history of this policy, motivations of groups and the importance of the "sharpness" of the WP:V in controversial WP articles. While I have to admit I'm not active in these difficult areas (and I'm glad that I don't have to do the stressful work there, kudos to the authors who take this burden!), I'm currently not fully convinced that the humble and reasonable small adaption of the burden distribution I try to encourage would weaken the effectiveness of WP:BURDEN in controversial situations. I believe nothing would there change. Am I wrong? Shaddim (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- You're certainly welcome to try and I would not oppose you. You'll probably need a RFC. BURDEN is so important when dealing with editors who are using Misplaced Pages to push an agenda that many people are very protective of it. This means that edits to BURDEN are usually reverted if you haven't gone through a full RFC first. At the RFC expect to be asked for:- (1) Several diffs showing clearly and incontrovertibly that there's a problem; (2) Clear reasons why the best answer to the problem is an edit to BURDEN; and (3) A very succinct proposed edit (because editors are very sensitive to policy bloat and WP:CREEP so each word you add diminishes your chances of success). The wording will be scrutinised to see if it can be misunderstood ---- particularly including tactical or wilful misunderstandings by editors with an agenda who are trying to force Misplaced Pages to include some fringe position they might espouse or wish to promote ---- and, hopefully, refined.—S Marshall T/C 22:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- thank you very much for the "heads up" ... and for taking the time and offering a broadening of perspective into the history of this policy, motivations of groups and the importance of the "sharpness" of the WP:V in controversial WP articles. While I have to admit I'm not active in these difficult areas (and I'm glad that I don't have to do the stressful work there, kudos to the authors who take this burden!), I'm currently not fully convinced that the humble and reasonable small adaption of the burden distribution I try to encourage would weaken the effectiveness of WP:BURDEN in controversial situations. I believe nothing would there change. Am I wrong? Shaddim (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly agree with you but I'm afraid this is not going to succeed. As you're probably aware the principle that editors should not remove verifiable content is already policy, in WP:PRESERVE. It's one of our oldest rules and it enjoys widespread consensus. I've tried to get this principle enshrined in WP:V on a number of occasions as well. Unfortunately these attempts always go nowhere. I've found that there's a very strongly held view that anyone can remove content ---- no matter how wilfully, recklessly or negligently, no matter how distorted the article is after that content has been removed ---- for any reason or none ---- under WP:BURDEN. No qualification or mitigation of WP:BURDEN is ever permitted on this talk page. And actually there are good reasons why not. WP:V is developed by editors who use it in the most difficult and controversial areas of the encyclopaedia, in articles about pseudoscience and climate change and alternative medicine and so on. In these conflicts WP:BURDEN's role is to give the heavy artillery to the skeptics, and it is in the best interests of the encyclopaedia to do that.—S Marshall T/C 21:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, I consider removal of verfiable content a problem. Authors should not do that. And avoiding minimal burden of a token verfiability check I consider indeed "not good faith", if it happens continuously. What it does for some authors, when they impose their own standard of "no sources, not allowed to be in WP" , which is beyond our policy standards. About content: Content could be good then, indeed. If it is in so long propability indeed suggest that the content is less likely SPAM or VANDALISM. But needs still to be checked which should be done by the next author who questions this content or article. If an authors even notices that this article was not touched by no other author in years, is even an stronger indication for burden responsibility distribution to him. The likeliness that the original author will jump out of the bushwork and provide reliability sources on removal is quite low. Shaddim (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- It sounds to me like you're not assuming good faith. Have you discussed your concerns with any of these editors? I would not consider your first definition of "established" acceptable, as editors can edit an article without reviewing changes made by prior editors. Personally I'm more inclined to tag unsourced material which hasn't been newly-added, but I'm also willing to remove it if I think it's unverifiable, and editors who disagree can always a) initiate a discussion about it, or b) source the material and moot the concern. You seem to be assuming that material remaining in an article for years is somehow "good", when it could simply mean nobody's ever taken the time to look at it. DonIago (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Well, in my experience exactly this can't be assumed in the majority of cases. I saw too many to light-hearted content removals, which didn't took the minimal burden of at least token checks on verifiability and giving only unsuitable edit reasons like "removed, can be easily re-added with sources", which then never happened. I agree the formulation might be to detail oriented and chould be streamlined. About "established", "content which survied another authors contribution and didn't challenged and therefore gave his implicte approval"? Or content which is there already for years without challenge? In law there is something like custom (law), should not something similar applied here? If content was considered good enough for years (and is not in conflict with any major policy now), should it have not at least have the benefit and doubt and deserves at least a token check? Shaddim (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2016
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request the following change under WP:CHALLENGE:
Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged
Without this, it’s unclear what it means for material to be “challenged” when this shortcut is used directly. It seems uncontroversial to use the same wording as in the lead. 67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Done! How can or should we verify claims of deletion?
If an article or blog post or YouTube video has previously been established to exist, but now it can no longer be found, can its unavailability be assumed to verify the claim that it was deleted? Or do we need an RS stating that it was deleted? Would failed attempts (confirming its absence) to find the item ourselves be considered original research? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I expect that this is about Talk:Jacob Barnett, which I've also been following. I think that in those particular circumstances Slawomir Bialy's position is reasonable.—S Marshall T/C 14:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Without specifics, I would say that per policy practically every source needs to be (be shown to be) in a public archive, at the least. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- It's not being used as a source itself. The article simply claims that it was deleted or is no longer available. I'm only asking about the verifiability of this claim, and whether a dead link can verify it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) on public network 151.132.206.26 (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- The lack of availability, or that something has been deleted, would be a fact, and its determination a matter of original research. This is what we need sources for. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- In this particular case, we're dealing with a BLP of a former child prodigy (now an adult) who is undoubtedly notable. His notability rests on some claims made in the popular press about his abilities. These claims were undoubtedly inflated. They included pointers to a series of youtube videos featuring the child, as he then was, talking about obscure and abstruse areas of mathematics and physics at a precocious age. It's germane that these videos have been taken down, because it indicates that the young man is no longer claiming to have made revolutionary discoveries that disprove Einstein. The article needs to say that these videos are no longer available.
It's verifiable that the youtube videos are no longer available means of a youtube search that gives no results. This is the essence of verifiability ---- we can directly link the evidence that backs up what we say. Whether it's original research is a much tougher question and I do think we're skirting the edges of OR with this, but we're doing it for good reason, on the basis of a consensus, and with the aim of producing an accurate and informative article.—S Marshall T/C 23:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- It is dubious OR because the videos could have been reposted under a different title. Happens all the time with any online sources. Secondary soorces must say that videos came and go. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- This is precisely why I was hesitant about such an uncited claim. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- It is dubious OR because the videos could have been reposted under a different title. Happens all the time with any online sources. Secondary soorces must say that videos came and go. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- In this particular case, we're dealing with a BLP of a former child prodigy (now an adult) who is undoubtedly notable. His notability rests on some claims made in the popular press about his abilities. These claims were undoubtedly inflated. They included pointers to a series of youtube videos featuring the child, as he then was, talking about obscure and abstruse areas of mathematics and physics at a precocious age. It's germane that these videos have been taken down, because it indicates that the young man is no longer claiming to have made revolutionary discoveries that disprove Einstein. The article needs to say that these videos are no longer available.
- The lack of availability, or that something has been deleted, would be a fact, and its determination a matter of original research. This is what we need sources for. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- It's not being used as a source itself. The article simply claims that it was deleted or is no longer available. I'm only asking about the verifiability of this claim, and whether a dead link can verify it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) on public network 151.132.206.26 (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)