[WikiEN-l] Requiring sources

Sun Dec 25 20:42:35 UTC 2005

On 12/24/05, Jon <thagudearbh at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I've just seen a couple of proposed decisions by the ArbCom that are very worrying from the point of view of making sure Wikipedia has reliable, sourced information ...
>
> ... I think it is fundamentally important that the onus is on the editor inserting information into an article to provide a source. It's easy to add information - but time-consuming to check it's veracity (particularly if you don't know where it's come from).

I agree with Jon. The problem with the proposed ruling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed_2/Proposed_decision#Viriditas_and_Jayjg_reminded_regarding_NPOV
is that it reprimands two editors because they asked for sources from
an inveterate POV-pusher, which is exactly what they should have done.
The policy is [[WP:V]], which says: (1) the burden of evidence lies
with the editor who adds the material (in this case Xed and an anon);
(2) one reason to ask for sources is if the edit is overly vague (it
was) and if the editor has a history of making inaccurate claims (Xed
does); and (3) any material not sourced may be removed by any editor.

Jay and Viriditas were asking for sources for some wild claims
inserted by an anon and supported by Xed, including that the film
Divine Intervention had not been nominated for an Academy Award
because of a "vigorous campaign by Zionist activists to bar the movie
..." There was no evidence at all of any "Zionist" campaign. There's a
good ABC News article about the controversy, which was basically a
series of misunderstandings combined with a lack of insight into the
Palestinian situation.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=79485&page=1

One of the proposed findings of fact says that: "After Xed restored,
Jayjg demanded sources despite the fact that a simple Google search
gives 80,000 hits ..." But the Google search cited was for "'Divine
Intervention' academy".
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=+%22Divine+Intervention%22+academy&btnG=Search
That search tells us nothing about what credible sources were saying
about the controversy, unless the ruling means Jay and Viriditas
should have looked through the 80,000 entries for sources themselves,
on behalf of Xed. But that's not what [[WP:V]] says. Yes, it would be
ideal if every editor would search for sources for other people's
edits, including the ones they think are wrong, but in reality no one
has the time to do that, which is why the policy is clear that the
burden of evidence always lies with the person who makes the edit.

The proposed decision sends a message that editors have to be careful
when asking for sources, which is the opposite of the one many of us
are trying to get across.

Sarah