 | This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
.jpg)
Once upon a time ...
The first rock.
A new editor wanted to add some content to an article. An experienced editor immediately removed the new addition, saying that a citation was required to demonstrate that it was verifiable.
_(cropped).jpg)
The second rock.
The new editor read the three thousand words at Wikipedia:Verifiability. Then the new editor re-added the original statement plus a citation to the source that the editor learned the material from. The experienced editor came back, looked at the citation, and removed it all with an edit summary stating "That is not a reliable source."
.jpg)
The third rock.
The new editor read the five thousand words at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Then the new editor re-added the original statement plus a different citation. The experienced editor saw the edit the next morning, and reverted it again, leaving a note on the talk page that said "That source isn't good enough. You need to learn how to cite sources properly."
.jpg)
The fourth rock.
The new editor read the twelve thousand words at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Then the new editor re-added the original statement plus two new, perfectly formatted citations. The experienced editor saw the edit the next morning, and reverted it again, saying "I'm going to report you for edit warring."
Enlightenment.
The new editor, now frustrated, replied: "Look, you asked for a source, and I gave you the one that I used, which was a post on social media. Then you said that I needed to cite a reliable source, and I thought social media isn't reliable, so I gave you an article in a respected daily newspaper. Then you said that my source wasn't good enough, so I gave you a book and a scholarly journal. Now you're claiming that I'm edit warring. What, exactly, do you want?" The experienced editor was silent.
Another experienced editor, happening to see the discussion, said:
- Oh, that. What that editor really means is: They don't want that information in the article at all. The true problem isn't the sources you've named; they're just sending you on an errand to find more sources because you can send eager newcomers on that errand endlessly, without having to bother with the work of establishing consensus or explaining anything complicated, like how to balance viewpoints. What they really mean is: convince me personally that this information is both true and also important enough to justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. Once you do that, they'll be as eager to include this information as you are.
And the newcomer was enlightened.
| This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Once upon a time ...
The first rock.
A new editor wanted to add some content to an article. An experienced editor immediately removed the new addition, saying that a citation was required to demonstrate that it was verifiable.
The second rock.
The new editor read the three thousand words at Wikipedia:Verifiability. Then the new editor re-added the original statement plus a citation to the source that the editor learned the material from. The experienced editor came back, looked at the citation, and removed it all with an edit summary stating "That is not a reliable source."
The third rock.
The new editor read the five thousand words at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Then the new editor re-added the original statement plus a different citation. The experienced editor saw the edit the next morning, and reverted it again, leaving a note on the talk page that said "That source isn't good enough. You need to learn how to cite sources properly."
The fourth rock.
The new editor read the twelve thousand words at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Then the new editor re-added the original statement plus two new, perfectly formatted citations. The experienced editor saw the edit the next morning, and reverted it again, saying "I'm going to report you for edit warring."
Enlightenment.
The new editor, now frustrated, replied: "Look, you asked for a source, and I gave you the one that I used, which was a post on social media. Then you said that I needed to cite a reliable source, and I thought social media isn't reliable, so I gave you an article in a respected daily newspaper. Then you said that my source wasn't good enough, so I gave you a book and a scholarly journal. Now you're claiming that I'm edit warring. What, exactly, do you want?" The experienced editor was silent.
Another experienced editor, happening to see the discussion, said:
- Oh, that. What that editor really means is: They don't want that information in the article at all. The true problem isn't the sources you've named; they're just sending you on an errand to find more sources because you can send eager newcomers on that errand endlessly, without having to bother with the work of establishing consensus or explaining anything complicated, like how to balance viewpoints. What they really mean is: convince me personally that this information is both true and also important enough to justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. Once you do that, they'll be as eager to include this information as you are.
And the newcomer was enlightened.