Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards/Archive 3

message: One example of using a nonpublished source: I used to work at HMX-1, a U.S. Marine helicopter squadron. I added the following to the article: "The presidential and VIP flights fall under 'whiteside.' 'Greenside' operations include support of Marine Corps Combat Development and operational test and evaluation, such as with the V-22 Osprey, a vertical take-off and landing aircraft."
If that information is not published anywhere, is somebody going to tell me I shouldn't have added it? Maurreen 07:58, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is if it really was unpublished. Was this a standing order, a military operational procedure, etc., all of which are written down someplace. Most of these actually have a source, but you may need to go through extensive hoops to track down a reference. In the meantime, if the element is particularly relevant, a footnote of the timeframe you can personally report from and "reported by Name on date" is a method of citing yourself. This citation is, of course, ripe for abuse and is generally poor practice. - Amgine 17:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: "is somebody going to tell me I shouldn't have added it?" Yes, you shouldn't have added it. If it's not published, how is anyone else going to verify it? What if someone maliciously interchanges "whiteside" and "greenside" with the edit summary "Maurreen is ignorant"? How can anybody adjudicate that kind of a dispute? I personally accumulated lots of juicy stories about the GNU project, but won't put any of it in WP until it's been published elsewhere. Stan 05:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I followed Noel's advice. Thanks. Maurreen 16:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: The book that publishes the interviews is the original research; it's exactly the sort of thing that history professors do to get tenure. The step of review and publication is to a degree artificial, but it's the only thing that stands between WP and the armies of kooks who would like to put all their mumblings online here. In practice, we do accept plausible-sounding websites in addition to books and news articles, although I look for some kind of credential, such as a real name that is attested elsewhere as an expert in the topic, etc. See primary source, etc, for our own material on all this (which I note is itself unsourced, tsk tsk :-) ). Stan 20:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing options

message: I've been pushing a lot lately to help get the articles cited better with sources.  I especially feel all featured articles should have good references.  You may be surprised to find out that many, if not most, featured articles currently have no proper references.  I am making a list of them and will post that somewhere soon.  I feel all wikipedia articles should be properly researched and cited, so the featured articles are a good place to start.  See the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_removal_candidates.  (Currently I seem to be losing :) - Taxman 18:49, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
: Well, I agree we need better references/sourcing/etc! Noel (talk) 16:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: This is great

message: A couple days ago Neutrality posted a template that warns the reader that an article has no sources.  I like this idea very much--it really should be a no-no to post stuff on the Wikipedia that isn't backed by sources, and this template might give people the right idea.  I have two little suggestions and one bigger one:
*No need to say "this important article"--all articles should have sources
*No need to mention this Committee; all can source
*Figure out some way to gain prior community assent before posting this template all over the place, otherwise people will feel bullied.  
:Opus33 01:54, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it usually kind of obvious when an article entirely lacks sources? I think that's why people would feel bullied - the reaction would be "well, duh". Also, something painfully obvious, like the title of a album with the scan of its cover right there, is sort of "self-sourcing", if you will. I think a better way to phrase would simply be "please add more references", because many article have one or two dead links as references :-), and we want for those is "more and better". Stan 04:54, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article isn't meant to be put all over the wiki. It's only meant for very important articles that don't have sources, such as England and Blackshirts. Neutrality (hopefully!) 05:01, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
I think the template has potential but it's probably premature right now. Maurreen 07:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, the Talk: page is the right place for it. That's where the editors communicate about the article, and it is the editors who need to know that it needs sources. The only reason to put it on the article would be to warn readers - and we already have a number of standard warnings that would be more appropriate if there is any concern about the contents. (Not to mention that until we get some sort of "known good version" system working, any page could always contain vandalism anyway...) Noel (talk) 14:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Responding to Neutrality's suggested template

message: Do we want to develop a consensus on a purpose/mission statement like the above? I think most of us are interested in developing Wikipedia into a respected resource worthy of citation at the personal, business, and educational levels, although I do not think there is consensus for developing Wikipedia into an academic research resource tool except for background material. It's the elements regarding when and how an article is protected from change which are in question here, and not the end results of this (desired/opposed) process.
: I think it would be good for the group to develop such a statement. But I don't see any consensus on protecting articles. Maurreen 18:03, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose or mission statement