"

 Verifiability 

Hi Flexme. You said...

SingKong ... this issue of quoting sources giving reliablilty of information ... it seems sensible at first ... yet it is wildly out of control ... check out the comment on the updraft page where it is said to be an expensive way to produce windpower (it might be expensive , but this is NOT the way to show it) ... this is simply a website quoting the media who quote someone's offhand comment - possibly out of context ... this is not reliable! Or another ... the floating chimney, as jdh saw it was totally misguided (though it may start a similar but sensible design in sci fi novels) Similarly, if i was to ""publish"" my results of my analysis that is at present on my talk page and in the tower discussion page on ANY other website, even on my own yahoo freesite, then my results would suddenly become verifiable!!!!!! this is out of control. i read wikipedia a lot and find it a wonderful source of info, i had no idea about this shambles behind the scenes. when i first started editting i assumed that wikipedia itself was a nice central location to bring my ideas so they could be verified in some sense, but it seems that if you feel you know something then in fact you are best off going ANYWHERE other than wikipedia!? bizzarre!Flexme 

I understand the frustration - I had a similar reaction. But keep in mind, this is an encyclopedia written by many people, and it's the concept and practice of verifiability that stops it becoming a shambles. This can be quite frustrating for someone who knows their material without necessarily having sources at their fingertips - however, I do believe it's essential.

I met a guy in Nimbin a few months ago, who complained that he'd edited Wikipedia 4 times, and had been reverted each time. He was putting in his own ideas... but he was in a very different category to you. This guy appeared to be mentally ill and believed in all sorts of bizarre conspiracy theories. Now, if there is no test of verifiability, it can make things impossible for other editors, as it may not be obvious, from looking at the article and history page, which editor is a genius, which one has a PhD in solar power generation, and which one has been getting their ideas from conspiracy rags and voices in their head. (Not to be harsh to the mentally ill - but you see that it's a problem.) To demand a level of expertise of editors would be to drastically restrict the effectiveness of Wikipedia, and cause endless arguments about who is best qualified. Using the principle of verifiability, however, makes it much easier to maintain reliable articles.
 
I should add - verifiability doesn't mean you must have a source before adding something. However, it must be something that can be verified, and it is hoped a source will be added later, at least. I sometimes even put a  tag (citation needed) after material that I've written myself. 

If one person publishes an analysis on their website, that's not necessarily notable, but if editors judge it to be useful and suitable they could include it. As odd as this seems at first, it's better than putting one's ideas directly into Wikipedia, as the source is now very clear to any reader and is open to checking and comparison with other views. Also, being on an external site, the Wikipedia article doesn't automatically have to endorse that view, but can present it as one viewpoint, if that is appropriate.

I suppose one of the keys is that Wikipedia is not trying to be the reservoir of all human knowledge - though it may come closer than anything else to fulfilling that purpose, through extensive linking to other sites and sources. 

I've gone on much longer than I planned. Hope that makes sense - feel free to comment or ask further, on my page or on a relevant talk page (e.g. at the Wikipedia:Community Portal.  tc "