View source for Wiki143 talk:Verifiability

{{Skip to bottom}}
{{metatalk}}
{{Policy talk}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 86
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{tmbox
| type      = content
| text      = To discuss changing the lead, please first read the [[Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC|2012 request for comments]] and [[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence|previous discussion about the first sentence]]. 
}}
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=40|index=/Archive index|1=
{{plainlist|class=center|1=
*'''Archives by topic'''
*[[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence (Nov 2010–March 2011)|First sentence (Nov 2010–March 2011)]]
*[[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence (April–August 2011)|First sentence (April–August 2011)]]
*[[Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC|2012 RfC about the lead section]]}}
}}

== Nutshell ==

:"This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations."
Sounds good, but the phrase "Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed" is commonly interpreted by neo-wikignomes as "must be removed". Many a text was written long time ago, with authors long gone, and the number of real content creators seems to be dwindling, so useful information hits the bit bucket, because nobody is here to defend it. I admit I am guilty of deleting big chunks of unref text myself if it is not a trivial task to verify it. And believe me, in 99% of cases nobody comes after me.

Of course, there is a sentence "Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step to removing to allow references to be added." But it is a very timid suggestion compared with the preceding imperative "should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source". Therefore I would like to make two suggestions.
*mention the "cn" in the lede, to increase the visibility of the option. 
*allow reinstatement of the challenged piece with the "cn" tag added.
I can provide arguments supporting these proposals, but I don't want to create tl;dr wall of text.  --[[user:Altenmann|Altenmann]] [[user talk:Altenmann|>talk]] 06:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|allow reinstatement of the challenged piece with the "cn" tag added}} &larr; a terrible idea, and a POV-pushers' charter. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 07:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
::I'm not sure what this has to do with the ==Nutshell==, but since you chose that for your section heading, I'd say that if I were re-writing the nutshell, I'd change "must be attributable to" to "must be possible to find in", or even "must be possible to attribute to".  Editors routinely struggle with statements such as "The capital of France is Paris", which, as written here, without any little blue clicky numbers, is verifi''able'' and attribut''able'' but not ''cited''.
::If you are concerned about {{xt|"Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed"}} specifically, then that could be re-written:  {{xt|"Editors are permitted (but not required) to remove any material that needs an inline citation and does not have one"}}. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

== Suggested rephrasing of WP:PAYWALL ==

I think the [[WP:PAYWALL]] policy should be modified to acknowledge that easily accessible sources are preferred when available. Reliability comes from both the reliability of sources, and from contributors verifying that the content matches what the source says. But it's rare for contributors to pay 20$ or spend hours just to verify one source. And there are more freely available sources nowadays than there was 10 years ago. You can challenge the phrasing or propose alternatives, but I suggest replacing:

''Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access.''

with something like:

''While reliable sources should not be rejected solely because they are difficult or costly to access, editors should prefer easily accessible sources when multiple sources of equivalent reliability are available for a given fact.'' [[User:Alenoach|Alenoach]] ([[User talk:Alenoach|talk]]) 16:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Often a pay wall source is the originator of a story that nonpaywall sources pick up on (eg frequently the NYTimes or wapost). We still want to reference that original source, rather that those that are just repeating the story. So this wording might veer editors from that. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 16:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
::I think PAYWALL is a bigger factor for scholarly sources than for news sources.  "You might have to buy the book" or "You might have to buy the journal article" is a bigger deal than "You might have to subscribe to the ''Washington Post'' for $4 for one month (and then remember to cancel it later)".
::We should probably add a link to [[Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library]] to the hatnotes for that section. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
:::That's a good idea. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:I don't think this is a good change.  Perhaps in the case of a tie breaker between which of two otherwise equal sources but heck, cite them both.  At the same time I would rather cite Horowitz and Hill for information on a 555 timer circuit vs an online Make Magazine article.  Of course citing both is better as one is more authoritative but easy to access is helpful to readers. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 19:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
::Agree on citing both. It's not like we're going to run out of footnotes anytime soon. Hell, chuck some of the more authoritative sources into [[Wikipedia:Further reading]] even if you haven't used them yet. We can discuss if we should remove them if we run out of space. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 15:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]], you might be interested in joining [[Wikipedia talk:External links#Proposal: expand the scope of ELNO to include "Further reading"]], which is the most lively discussion about ==Further reading== that I've seen since we re-wrote [[Wikipedia:Further reading]] in 2010. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] oh my gosh, thank you for linking to that! As someone who curated a very good Further reading to an FA article that I can take pride in, I am very much against that proposal.--[[User:3family6|3family6]] ([[User talk:3family6|Talk to me]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|See what I have done]]) 20:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Just a sidebar comment, but when a question arises, unofficially, I thing offering a more accessible source gives the argument more weight than a less accessible one. I think paywalls are the mildest version of this and so I'm not sure I'd focus on that.  Also wording it as obvious advice on which to pick is just that, although it would impart some meaning between the lines.    Claiming that something is sourced by an unavailable book which is only available off line and the only copy is in a monastery in Tibet unofficially is going to be a weaker argument than providing an on-line source. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 16:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think I agree with this.  A respected reference work is more compelling than an open-access journal article in a mediocre journal.  Wikipedia already has a substantial [[FUTON bias]], but I think that's something we should work against.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
::Agree. NPOV directs us to aim for the [[WP:BESTSOURCES]] and{{snd}}such is the world we live in{{snd}} those aren't always of the free 'n' easy variety. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 16:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
:::The point I was trying to make is more modest, it's that all else being equal, a freely available source is better. Accessibility is one of the many things you have to weight (alongside notability, depth, independence, etc). [[User:Alenoach|Alenoach]] ([[User talk:Alenoach|talk]]) 17:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
::::You probably shouldn't be weighing whether the source qualifies for a separate, standalone article on Wikipedia ("notability"), as many sources are notable for being unreliable, and most good sources are non-notable.
::::The practical problem with adding a sort of "all else being equal" clause is two-fold:
::::* "All else" is almost never equal.
::::* Editors will over-interpret this to mean "whenever possible, even when it means citing a worse source".
::::We already have a significant bias towards free sources.  This significant bias sometimes interferes with article quality ("well, this is the best I can do, given my limited resources").   Like many highly active, long-time editors, I've bought a few books so I can improve Wikipedia articles.  However, I don't do it often, and I know that in many cases, that means that the articles I'm expanding are being expanded on the basis of what I can get easily/for free, and that this introduces a bias.  For example, I bought a book to re-write [[Candy]] some years back.  There are lots of free sources.  Unfortunately, they tend to be at the hobbyist or pop culture level, and I wanted something slightly more scholarly than that.  "All else" isn't equal – but I could easily imagine an editor complaining that I used a book instead of a free-to-read website.  (Now imagine that the complaining editor is a POV pusher.  Of course the POVs he  disagrees with, and that are primarily available in professional literature or offline sources, are exactly the sources/material that he's going to complain about.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
:::{{Ping|WhatamIdoing}}  {{Ping|Bon courage}}  I never said otherwise.  I was just talking about an additional consideration.   The considerations that you described are more important. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 18:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)`

I'm not sure what "prefer" would mean in this case. If two sources of similar quality disagree, should we prefer the one that is more accessible? Obviously, no!

What problem are we solving with this change? [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 20:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:I believe that the usual motivation for the [[Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Require free, online sources]] is either a desire to improve Wikipedia by speeding resolution of disputes ("He's using this source, and I'm sure he's wrong, but I can't read it to prove that he's misrepresenting it") or to benefit Wikipedia by collecting sources that are free for readers, under the [[doi:10.1145/3366423.3380300|mistaken belief]] that readers actually look at the sources. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggestion and think PAYWALL has exactly the right approach as-is.  Reasons include:
*We should prefer better sources, and often the better sources are not the free, online ones.  
*Free sources are often less stable ones, so over time the proposed policy could add to link rot. 
*The proposed criterion is a mutable one, since sometimes sources go in and out of paywalls.  Under it, what's a better source today may be a worse one tomorrow.
*The proposed change could be seen as a reason for people to change sources in existing articles (especially as more things get paywalled, which I suspect is the trend), which is unnecessary. [[User:Sullidav|Sullidav]] ([[User talk:Sullidav|talk]]) 12:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC).

The phrasing of WP:PAYWALL should remain unchanged. In addition to the reasons given by Sulliday and WhatamIdoing, the most knowledgable editors are apt to have the subscriptions or affiliations to see the paywall sources, and be familiar with where to find information in them. It would be a burden for them to find a non-paywall equivalent, which may drive away the most capable editors. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 14:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

My "sidebar comment" aside :-) I think it's fine as is.   Paywall is too minor of an impediment to be much of a consideration when deciding which source to use or to even mildly discourage use. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 14:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC) 

*'''Keep as is''' - It is important to remember that when ''you'' can not access a source - you can ask ''someone else'' to do so on your behalf. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 14:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Sidebar comment: When it comes to temporary newspaper subscriptions, it would be great if there was a fund available for this.--[[User:3family6|3family6]] ([[User talk:3family6|Talk to me]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|See what I have done]]) 14:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:[[Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library]] has quite a few newspapers, but if you've checked the ISSN and it's not in there, the people at [[WP:RX]] can probably find it at a library {{em|somewhere}}. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 15:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

== RFC on adding refs to Further reading sections ==

Please see [[Wikipedia talk:External links#RfC on whether WP:V and WP:RS apply to Further reading]]

[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Marked as "RfC withdrawn by nominator". <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 18:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

== Expert expert ==

[[WP:V]] (and more specifically [[WP:SPS]]) says "Self-published '''expert''' sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter '''expert'''" (emphasis added). I think the first "expert" is redundant and should be removed (not as a change in policy, but as an improvement in grammar). Any additional opinions? —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 19:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:I noticed that the other day, and I agree with you. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
:: Yep, go for it. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 01:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:::{{done}} Thanks, all! —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 15:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)