Wikipedia talk:No reliable sources, no verifiability, no article

message: I'm glad to see you have some reliable sources for this essay ;)...but seriously folks, i'm all for this.  Articles should have a foundation of at least one reliable source to start with. It would really be a swoon to wikipedia to get more backing to its content, especially as it continues to grow so quickly. JoeSmack Talk 22:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Untitled] 

message: Which of our administrators has the guts to go and delete the ~300,000 articles that don't provide any sources? – Qxz 14:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So... 

message: Take your Britannica, in book, if you have. I have 1993 edition. Do all articles cite their sources or references? No, they don't. So, why are you asking that with such crudeness for Wikipedia? Are you truly going to delete ALL 300,000 articles having no references provided? If you will, you'll lose also me, one who has so far produced at least 1,000 valuable articles: admittingly, not always providing source, sometimes because I forgot, sometimes because I knew the matter by myself and was too lazy to add the books I drew it, other times 'cause I translated from other Wikipedias. I think that there's a level under which we should admit that references can miss: I agree a good article should cite it, but there's no reason why we should deleted useful stuff and ruin the volunteer work of so many people who didn't cite their sources for reasons like mine, or others. Bye. (PS: I think the ones who wrote this article were not so much into the true spirit of Wikipedia, despite what they think... at least, in what I so far seemed it was that spirit). --Attilios 14:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we have to be realists here, and think of the negative consequences. I think this essay is more of a rant, because a lot of people are tired of seeing OR in articles. — Deckiller 15:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Britannica has A)paper limitations, which we don't have, and B)nothing to prove, which we do have.  Of course there will be collateral damage, but this is the kind of problem that can only be solved by action now rather than later. Deltabeignet 04:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The only way a encyclopedia can be reliable as a legitimate resource is with the assurance to the reader that all information has been thoroughly fact-checked and is reliable. Britannica (or any other well-known encyclopedia) has the advantage of reputation and expert writers. We have two disadvantages: public distrust of the wiki concept, and a large number of editors who are not experts and may not even know what they're talking about. Because of the second problem, we need to hold every editor to the same standard - that they state the source of the knowledge they contribute to the project. Eventually the first problem will solve itself as the public realizes that verifiability has made Wikipedia trustworthy. - Chardish 06:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally, all absurd

message: I disagree with this idea. Providing sources and corrections is what experts can do, but they may have little time/interest to write whole articles. In my opinion, it is better to have possibly wrong (and marked as such) unsourced article, which will tick off some expert so much that s/he will correct it (but s/he would never write it in the first place). Maybe this is just an another version of old deletionist/inclusionist debate. Also, I think that the quote is taken out of context - I believe Jimbo Wales was referring to the unsourced personal accusations, that may be damaging. 130.119.248.12 17:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't want to complain or something, but if you're right, why is there no maintenance project for this yet? 86.49.63.162 13:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says that they have to be a whole articles? I'm okay with a stub as long as the content that's there is sourced.--Rmky87 23:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert time is valuable 

message: Well I do agree this more of a rant but a justified one. Special:Random is testament to this. So what if we could implement a time period for keep voters to provide sources. For all AFD nominations that question the information verifiability and reliability (not notability of the subject, don't get confused) the admin should give the "keep" voters 48 hours (let's say) to provide sources and verify the information. If not the article should be deleted. How does this fly with others? Personally I only see a benefit from such a proposal, a lot of 'crappy' articles who weren't going to be improved any time soon are going to be improved once they are on afd by the people who care about the subject to scream (in capitals) "STRONG KEEP". — Tutmosis 17:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New policies should be proposed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). In this case, there is another very similar proposal at WIkipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles.  CMummert · talk 01:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: It is a lot easier to delete the articles than look up sources.  There is a lot of confusion about what is a reliable source.  If you are writing a plot synopsis of the simpsons, a simpsons episode is a reliable source.  If you are writing about crackpot theories, the writings of crackpots (or george Norry's radio show) are reliable sources.  A lot of articles are marked as unsourced because some editors have the idea that anything not written in a peer reviewed academic journal is not a reliable source--this might be true for academic subjects, but not for every subject!  It would be nice is people took five minutes to see if sources are easily available before they start deleting someone's hard work.  Not everybody in the world has acsess to a good library! Puddytang 17:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true that not every subject has sources, but what your saying is original research. If someone wants to put in hard work into an article they can also state from where they getting their information, if its their personal knowledge then that 'hard work' is not welcome. We should not sacrifice professionalism and reliability of this encyclopedia over personal feelings, people come here to learn and its wrong to provide information that has not be confirmed by anyone other than the author, and had no time to be disputed by other researches. Allowing this leaves a wide open door for misrepresentation. Yes plot summaries are an exception but if you want to make an article on Pegasus-Class Assault Landing Craft you need sources with no exceptions. — Tutmosis 17:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: You make some nice points but lose me with the whole "Jimbo is God" thing. Merely citing Jimbo does not get me aboard your bandwagon. ask123 (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo is God?