Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Citation Poll

message: This poll is biased and misleading. The editor presenting it has been blocked  for improperly using his footnote method against or without consensus. He is currently the subject of an RFC see  and is the subject of an arbitration case partly involving his pushing of footnotes, see . By initiating this poll, he appears to be attempting to garner after the fact support for his case. - Vsmith 12:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: this poll is highly misleading. SEWilco has been blocked, and has had an RfC and RfAr opened against him, because of his campaign against Harvard referencing and embedded links in favor of footnotes. The examples he gives below are incomplete and misleading. WP:V and WP:CITE both say any of the three citation styles are acceptable. What's important is to persuade editors to cite any sources at all; if we try to dicate that they must use footnotes, they'll just ignore us. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with SlimVirgin and Vsmith that this poll is misleading, or at the least is very confusing and poorly formulated. What exactly is the point of these polls? The binary choices offered in no way fairly represents the range of options available for citing references. older≠wiser 17:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Bkonrad et al. For this reason I will not be voting in the options below and do not consider myself bound by them. For example if an article is taken from BE1911, and then a couple of other details are added from other sources. I would not consider it necessary to put a citation on every sentence that came from  BE1911, as one ":Template:1911 PAGE NAME" in the references is sufficient, but I would footnote additions or corrections to the article which were from other sources (and not just style changes to the text). In the example I have given Q4 does not have a yes/no answer. I can construct similar examples which means for me the answer is not yes/no but "it depends" for most of the other questions posed below. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  SlimVirgin neglected to mention that SlimVirgin is the person who blocked me.  The block was because I converted numbered URL-only links to numbered WP:FN links, and added the titles of the documents using WP:CITET templates.  I did this following WP:V and WP:CITE preferences for complete citations.  You can read SlimVirgin's justification at User talk:SEWilco#Changing links to footnotes.  SlimVirgin also is incorrect, as I support Harvard referencing.  What is important is more complete citations, as we're building an encyclopedia and not a collection of 404 links spattered around text.  I also am not dictating footnotes must be used, and am supporting Wikipedia's accepting any minimal citations which a user can provide and the expectation that someone will improve the weak citations.  SlimVirgin also neglected to mention that the RFAr is improper.  (SEWilco 02:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: SE, you didn't know what Harvard referencing was until very recently. The RfAr is not improper, and nor is the RfC. Your behavior around this issue has been highly disruptive for weeks and this "poll" with its absurdly loaded questions is the latest example of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've known and used Harvard referencing for decades.  You're the one confused between the appearance of references and the reference themselves.  Talk:Harvard_referencing#Recent_edits   My Wikipedia activity has been disrupted for weeks due to interference which violates common sense and Wikipedia policies.  (SEWilco 06:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This poll is biased and misleading 

message: * Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability prefers full citations.
; Yes 
# SEWilco 06:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q1: Are more detailed citations preferred over less detailed ones? 

message: * Are more detailed citations preferred over URL-only citations?
** Is "by 1979 global cooling was of waning interest. " preferred over "by 1979 global cooling was of waning interest ."?
** Citation for first example above:
**#  
; Yes (first example preferred)
# SEWilco 06:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q2: Are detailed citations preferred over URL-only citations? 

message: * Is the use of URLs ("inline links") as supporting material to be tolerated as being only temporary citations, and is it encouraged they be replaced by more complete citation information?
; Yes, URL-only links should be replaced
# SEWilco 06:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Except stupid edit warring, I now see... how lame. Dan100 (Talk) 00:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q3: Are URL-only citations considered temporary? 

message: * Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability suggests connecting text to associated source citations.
; Yes
# SEWilco 06:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q4: Is it desirable to identify which statement uses which source? 

message: * Wikipedia:Footnotes has the current best practice for linking text a to relevant citation.  Wikipedia:Cite sources states that "full citations of the articles and websites linked to must be included in the ==References== section" but does not suggest how readers are to find which citation is relevant to a mentioned article or website.
** Is "by 1979 global cooling was of waning interest. " preferred over "by 1979 global cooling was of waning interest ."?
** Citation for first example above:
**#  
** Citation for second example above:
**# 
; Yes (first example preferred)
# If you can't find the right citation details you can't use it.  SEWilco 06:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not fair, Dan. Wikipedia:Footnotes isn't a style guide, just a proposal. WP:CITE is an old guideline and the aim of its editors is precisely to make sure there's consistency across policy pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q5: Are references linked to citations preferred? 

message: * Should Wikipedia:Footnotes be considered a guideline?  Because Wikipedia:Footnotes supports several styles (including numerical and Harvard style), this is a vote on the tools and not a vote on numerical or Harvard-style referencing.
"This page is a style guide for Wikipedia. The consensus of many editors formed 
the conventions described here. Wikipedia articles should heed these rules."
; Yes, Footnotes is a guideline
# They increase reliability and make usage and updating easier.  SEWilco 06:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q6: Should Wikipedia:Footnotes be a guideline? 

message: * Should the examples in Wikipedia:Verifiability be updated to use recent Wikipedia:Footnotes tools?
; Yes, update examples
# I didn't update them already because they're only text examples, but the current examples seem to be confusing at least one person.  06:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q7: Should Wikipedia:Verifiability examples use Wikipedia:Footnotes? 

message: This is not the time to start trying to force editors to use footnotes. The Siegenthaler incident has highlighted Wikipedia's poor use of sources, and there's more interest than ever now in encouraging editors to provide sources for their edits, or at least for any that are even slightly contentious. What we have to concentrate on is persuading editors to provide any sources at all, rather than fussing about the precise form they have to come in, and especially not one as complicated as SEWilco's.
In any event, he is just wrong about embedded links providing less information than sources. When  using a footnote system, you're meant to add the number after the sentence, then go to the Notes section to add the full citation information. When using embedded links, you add a numbered URL after the sentence, then go to the References section to add the full citation information. Therefore, both styles, when used correctly, provide exactly the same amount of information.
I find his edit warring about this very tiresome. It has been going on for months over multiples articles, policy pages, guidelines, the Village Pump, at least one RfC, and now RfAr. We are not going to stop editors from using embedded links. We're going to encourage their use, because we want to encourage any source citation at all. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia already accepts embedded links as a minimal source, just as a book title alone is accepted.  It is expected that citations will be improved, just as it is expected that everything else in an article will be improved.  (SEWilco 19:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree that edit warring over format and requiring a certain format when there is no consensus is silly. But I would also have to say that going and changing a bare external link into a footnote with added title and author information is an obvious improvement. And SlimVirgin, if you don't wan't edit wars, why are you going around on articles with no controversy and removing that extra information that SEWilco's bot has added? I refuse to get dragged into this case/conflict and I would prefer we instead just separate out the issues and make common sense decisions. More information in citations is to be encouraged, though not required. Enough said. I don't agree with a lot of SEWilco's edits, but I am able to separate the person from the edits. When they make sense, we should support them. - Taxman Talk 20:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Taxman, I'm not removing information. I'm restoring embedded links that he removes. If he wants to add citation information to the References section, that'd be most welcome and he'll never find me removing it. But that's not what he wants. He wants Wikipedia to outlaw embedded links, and he's been editing warring on policy pages and guidelines for months, misrepresenting what one says on another, adding misleading information then edit warring to keep it in. WP:CITE says pages shouldn't be changed from one style to the other without consensus, and I'm asking that he stick to that. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The issue is that SEWilco has been changing WP:CITE, the MoS, and various other pages to give the impression that embedded links are not allowed. But they are allowed, and in fact are preferred by most editors because they're easy. We're trying to encourage editors to cite sources in whatever way they can, and if they want to do so via embedded links they ought not to be discouraged. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I've not been saying they are "not allowed".  I've been clarifying existing policy that URL-only citations are accepted as being minimalist citations which is all that some editors are able to provide, and it is expected that others will improve the citations.  For example, see Village pump (policy)#Inline links discouraged in favor of more complete sources.  (SEWilco 05:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  People are invited to see SlimVirgin's changes to WP:CITE, the MoS, and various other pages on the topic of embedded links.  (SEWilco 08:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: People should use more detailed methods if they can, but if a URL is all they can provide then we'll deal with that minimal contribution.  Just as we deal with "George won the election" and fill in some details if we can find them.  (SEWilco 08:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Now is not the time