|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check |
|
|
|
|
|
 How to reference |
 Discuss the WikiProject |
 Things To Do |
 WikiProject Members |
 Archives |
| Archive 1 |
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I've made a page on User:Foxhill/internet reference sites accessible with a valid UK Library card (yes, a nice short title..) which lists, funnily enough, those reference sites such as Encyclopaedia Brittanica, OED and The Times Online database that are accessible to holders of a UK Library Card.
Is there anywhere in wikispace that this should be linked to? Neither WP:FACT or WP:RS seems to trade in this type of information, which is kinda handy if you need to find a source even if WP:NOT#DIR may allude to it not being welcome - Foxhill 19:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
There are quite a few (to put it mildly) entries in Category:Articles with unsourced statements and Category:All articles lacking sources. I recently received a suggestion that these articles could be sorted into more specific categories, much as stubs currently are, and I think this would probably be quite helpful, allowing those with access to a lot of information on certain topics to quickly find unsourced articles that are good matches. What are anyone's thoughts on this? Seraphimblade 05:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I find some {{citation}} templates used instead of {{fact}}. I cleared all articles in "what links here" of Template:Citation. But it might be used again. Can someone please either correct the template, or delete it? It does say "For testing only", but not everyone visits the template page before transcluding it. Hoverfish Talk 13:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Just of out curiosity, but what citation format dose wikipedia use, i know APA, MLA and Chicago.
if some one would fill me in that would be great!
thanks --'•Tbone55•(Talk) (Contribs) (UBX) (autographbook) 20:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
There really isn't a consistent format since all formats are acceptable. The process seems to be to adopt whatever reference format is currently being used on that particular article to at least have consistency in the article. Agne 20:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
What types of websites are suitable sources for citing? I'm specifically wondering about internet forums and message boards. One of the pages I want to contribute sources to (Hoover sound) contains information which is not, generally, written down and published, but is passed from one interested party - in this case, electronic music producers - to another, basically by word of mouth. This does not invalidate the information contained in the article. In fact this article, though concise, is factually correct. But the only area that such a topic would be discussed and therefore verifiable would be public domain forums. To what extent are they acceptable as sources for fact citation? DrSuperbo 03:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I've seen some uncited "facts" mentioned in WP: space, and when I added the citation needed tags, a user removed them saying that they were not appropriate for WP: space, only for use within articles. Is this correct please? Thanks, --Rebroad 17:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I replaced Ancient Rome with Poetry of the United States, which was one of the last articles nominated on WP:ARD (Ancient Rome had been there since December). I'm hoping the article referencing drive will become active again; if not, I'll take poetry down in a couple weeks. -- phoebe (brassratgirl) /(talk) 00:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've created a {{findsources}} template, to help web-based seaches. Addhoc 17:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
"examines the degree to which Wikipedia entries cite or reference research and scholarship, and whether that research and scholarship is generally available to readers" "The open access references that we were able to locate for the smaller sample of twenty entries in the course of the study have now been added to the relevant Wikipedia articles and clearly marked with a link to the “open access copy” (by Sarah Munro" — Willinsky, John (2007-03-05). "What open access research can do for Wikipedia". First Monday 12 (3), http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_3/willinsky/index.html. Retrieved on 17 March 2007.
I've already posed this question at WP:CITE but didn't get an answer, so maybe you can help:
Is there a template for marking links as inactive? I mean one for links that are in references but cannot be found using the Internet Archive or WebCite? What to do when a reference link "goes dead" states that they shall be marked with the date when they were identified as broken.
Maybe we could create a template if there isn't one yet, e.g. {{deadsource|link=http://en.wikipedia.org|date=2007-03-31}} ? Thanks in advance. — Ocolon 07:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
As a result of several very long discussions on the mailing list, I've launched a proposal that should promote the addition and maintainance of references and make it easier to find articles to reference in a specific field of interest. Since this is a topic closely related to your project, I invite you to share any thoughts and additional ideas on the proposal's talk page. - Mgm|(talk) 15:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I was about to add a reference to an article from a 40 page paper when I realised and remembered back to the last time that I saw a "suspect" reference. I had to read through a lot of tripe just to determine that the reference did in-fact, not support the fact it had been used support (judging from the summary, the editor hadn't read it (thoroughly) which is what incited me to check). Checking the veracity of a reference could be made a lot easier if a page number of even a page and line number could be provided. Alternatively, if such a practice wouldn't voilate copyright laws, a character string could be provided in the form "modular character of transcription factors allows natural" (<< this is an actual snippet from the 40 page paper I just mentioned) which would allow a fast computer-powered search to the correct point in the text. It would of course be as voluntary as any of the other referencing paramters but would be helpful in a few obvious and considerable ways.
Edit: After verifying references, inclusion of one of these pinpointers would avoid future reference-verifiers having to spend so long scouring the supposed source. --Seans Potato Business 23:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe there should be a merge of two WIkiProjects, this one and Wikipedia:Improving referencing efforts. Both projects are relatively slow right now and both seem to be redundant; a merger will be more efficient. Sr13 (T|C) 07:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
There are some articles on WP that supposedly provide multiple sources from different and unrelated origins. But when you look at source number 2, it is in fact using source number 1, thus not a corroborative or verifying element, just a dupe designed to fool the layman. As illustrated here on Ordu page where source 4,5,6 and 7 are in fact all are identical in regards to the reference made, just published in different places.
The only way to tell if a source is really original is to read the entirety of all the sources where the reference is made, and who has time for that? So, how do you plan on efficiently maintaining credibility while filtering out underhanded and sneaky sourcing like that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.216.11.5 (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
There are over 16,000 articles on living people that are not completely referenced. Take a look at my lists: User:Messedrocker/Unreferenced BLPs. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 16:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
As I am nearing completion of the so called "stable versions" extension, I'm wondering what implications that might have for this project? Any ideas? Voice-of-All 17:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for verification
A proposal designed as a process similar to {{prod}} to delete articles without sources if no sources are provided in 30 days.
It reads:
Some editors see this as necessary to improve Wikipedia as a whole and assert that this idea is supported by policy, and others see this as a negative thing for the project with the potential of loss of articles that could be easily sourced.
I would encourage your comments in that page's talk or Mailing list thread on this proposal WikiEN-l: Proposed "prod" for articles with no sources
Signed Jeepday (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is in the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive and has a template upon it...Articles with unsourced statements since July 2007 as well as All articles with unsourced statements. I have tried to address several points / sections with references. How many references are required? How is this template reviewed? How is the template discussed? How is the template removed? Help please. SriMesh | talk 04:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I made a rather drastic change there in the form of a table and alphabetization(mostly). Comments?--Cronholm144 12:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
As this seems to be the most active of these four projects, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check, Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange, Wikipedia:Research resources, Wikipedia:Library. I propose a content merger. If there is support for this idea I can get working on it straightaway. Cheers --Cronholm144 13:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I looked in envy on all these seemingly narrow, but very active biology and television WikiProjects and created a similar banner template {{WPFACT}}. Can we go hang that banner on interesting talk pages, to pull people into this project? I started on the category talk:Citation templates. Such pages also get listed in the new category:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check.
No sooner had I set up that category before I learned that there is already a user box. You can paste this into your user page:
{{Participant|Fact and Reference Check|image=Nuvola apps kpdf.png|background-color=#f0d5f0}}
Also today, I wrote comments about bad ISBNs on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons#Citations and ISBNs and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods#Citations and ISBNs. Should we aim to foster other WikiProjects to do the fact and reference checking? How does that relate to the WikiProject Council? --LA2 05:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
[Question] I'm not sure how to proceed with this. However, I believe you all might be the best people to know. There is currently a discussion regarding the page Saint Maurice regarding the reliability of a source. The source is a book published in 1981 which is said to indicate that the subject was presented as being white before a certain period, after which time the subject was presented as black. The book in question is The Image of the Black in Western Art, Volume II. There had been one copy of this volume available locally prior to the current school year. However, that library has since for whatever reason removed the book from their holdings. There is only one other copy available in the state, to the best of my knowledge, and that's an eight hour drive one way, and I have no way of ensuring that the book will even be there if I do make the trip. Would there be any way in which I could inquire that perhaps others check to see if the volume is available to them, to determine what the book says? Thank you in advance for your consideration. John Carter 15:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Since a few weeks back, I'm compiling statistics on the ISBNs mentioned in the Wikipedia database dumps for a number of north European languages, now also German and English. I'm sorting my ISBNs into 4 categories: formal errors (typically 1%), checksum errors (2%), bad hyphenation (25%), and fully OK (72%). Many errors are easy to fix: "ISBN:", "ISBN-13", "ISBN 13-978-", using ndash or period instead of hyphen, and using Cyrillic X instead of Latin X, etc. For other errors, I need to search for the title in a library catalog (or Amazon.com). Fortunately, it is often the same ISBN that has the same error in many articles, because of copy-and-pasting. Based on statistics I can look up a few ISBNs and correct a large number of errors. This work has started to pay off in the Scandinavian languages, where the error categories are down from 2% to 0.2%. I have also started to process bad hyphenation with a bot in some languages. I'm using a Perl program with the Business::ISBN module from CPAN to determine the correct places for hyphens. This has moved the fully OK ISBNs up to 98% or so.
However, that only means the checksum and hyphens are OK. I still don't know if this is an ISBN that refers to the right book, if the citation is complete (perhaps the author name is missing or the year is wrong), or if that book is any good. How am I to determine that? Again, I can use statistics for the frequently cited ISBNs, to see if the same ISBN is cited with the same bibliographic details. If templates such as {{cite book}} are used, my analysis of the database dump can automatically find the author name, title, publisher, etc. But citation templates are not used very often, because they bring so little visible advantage to the article editor.
In the September 8, 2007, dump of the English Wikipedia, the most frequently occurring ISBN error is one zero too many in the ISBN of a Guide to The Simpsons, which is cited in 60 articles (all cites having the same error, of course). In this case, since there is a WikiProject for that TV series already, I called their attention to the problem, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons#Citations and ISBNs. This is not because I couldn't have fixed the error myself, but because I thought that perhaps WikiProjects have a greater role to play in fact and reference checking. Instead of us here doing the work, we could guide the projects to it.
These are the most frequent ISBN errors in the recent dump:
Not yet dispatched: 26× ISBN 051243811X (checksum), 22× ISBN 0873403194 (checksum), 21× ISBN 186373986, 21× ISBN 1570035982 (checksum), 21× ISBN 08129310698, 21× ISBN 0321049404 (checksum), 20× ISBN 1840133092 (checksum), 18× ISBN 86844430009, 18× ISBN 086176118X (checksum), 17× ISBN 9985441529 (checksum), 16× ISBN 0195121006 (checksum), 15× ISBN 1576070400 (checksum), 14× ISBN 048626896, 14× ISBN 037010107X (checksum), 13× ISBN 853312702, 13× ISBN 081032048, 13× ISBN 0796706929 (checksum), 13× ISBN 0007275325 (checksum), 12× ISBN 398710333, 12× ISBN 1903341726 (checksum), 12× ISBN 1557491475 (checksum), 11× ISBN 185709171, 11× ISBN 06910147879, 11× ISBN 0517489904X, 11× ISBN 0319237083 (checksum), 11× ISBN 00907521134, 10× ISBN 9994925822 (checksum), 10× ISBN 979968451, 10× ISBN 9637323147X, 10× ISBN 8090110538 (checksum), 10× ISBN 0802005910 (checksum), 10× ISBN 07769101X, 10× ISBN 0752442501 (checksum), 10× ISBN 0395199798 (checksum), 10× ISBN 0380758963 (checksum), 10× ISBN 007034003. --LA2 07:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
When you think of it, it's actually braindead to copy an entire citation (using {{cite book}} or not) into dozens of articles. If there is an error, you have to go back and fix the error in every place. Of course, there is a whole category:Citations of templates that contain exactly one book citation each. However useful each of them can be, when you consider that the English Wikipedia mentions ISBNs in 349,816 places, referring to 197,327 distinct ISBNs, and that 8165 ISBNs are mentioned in 5 places or more, we'd be flooded with such templates.
Some people have taken the thought one step further. About a year ago, {{Ref Jane's}} was created. This template contains a whole list of citations of works by one person. A parameter to that template is used in a #switch, to select the right work to cite. The talk page to that template is worth reading.
If we could encourage WikiProjects to each maintain such a template, containing their most frequently cited works, maybe we could make them care for it as their standard reference library. Any errors would be entered (and needed to be fixed) in just one place. The need to write, copy and maintain full citations in multiple articles would disappear. All you need to write in each article is {{Ref The Simpsons|Guide-1}} or something similar. Citing these standard works would become far easier than citing some odd book the article editor happened to find. Entering new books (bad books, bad editions) into the WikiProject's standard library would on the other hand become harder, since it could be questioned by other project members. I think the overall effect would be higher quality of cited sources.
The use pattern I'm suggesting is that "WikiProject XYZ" create a "template:Ref XYZ" with a single parameter, a citation label, that is used in a #switch expression, to select one citation from a list. Each citation in the list can be written in free wiki text or using templates such as cite book. --LA2 07:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Lusine Vagarshakian, choreographer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lianagor (talk • contribs) 06:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This project does not appear to have the profile it deserves. How about a relaunch? Suggested name change: "Fact and citation testing". Yes, you got it, FACT for short. Wikipedians love a recursive acronym. Geometry guy 23:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
:D Happy‑melon 09:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)On the Village pump (technical) there is a discussion to simplify the citing of commonly used sources, and more generally to improve our bibliographic record keeping. There are a number of options presented, some of which are ready for prime-time, and an organised effort is required to consider their suitability and prepare a well rounded proposal if any option appears to be workable. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Attribution is not a core policy. Rather, the relevant core policies are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Original research; thus the page is currently slightly misleading. Superm401 - Talk 12:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I have created a program to assist FACT members in inserting citation requests and warning messages into articles. I use it very heavily myself (because I have a hard time remembering all the commands.) If you're interested, it's Licensed GNU General Public License. An installer , source code, and a few screen shots are located here. It should be noted that Wikipedia has not endorsed this program in any way. It is a third party application created by me. Feel free to hit me up on my Talk Page if you have any questions. Matthew Glennon (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope this is the correct talk page for discussion on this issue, if not, please feel free to move it. I am wondering if there is a specific guideline on using images to reference statements. I'm having particular trouble with an unreferenced statement on Singapore Airlines regarding nicknames used on several historic aircraft in the airline's fleet. I have found multiple images on airliners.net, an aviation-fan website, that verify these names were used on the specific aircraft. Now, airliners.net as a discussion forum is not a reliable source by far and one editor is arguing that the photos are not a reliable source because of that. However, I look at the photograph database as being an exception, as unless there is proof the photographs have been altered, they do helps substantiate claims and are records independent of the unreliable forum posts. Thoughts? By the way, I have tried to find textual evidence to support the claim elsewhere and have been unsuccessful. NcSchu(Talk) 13:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I am interested in the topic and regulary both add citations and tag articles for needing sources. This page looks fairly inactive. Where can I go to find an active community of allies to discuss issues with? Thanks. N2e (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, does anyone know of a way to cite chart positions of the UK Singles Chart, which are below 100? I have chartstats and that magazine ChartPlus already, are there any others?
If this question should be posted elsewhere, please tell me. thanks --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Since the list of anarchists article was deleted on the grounds of poor referencing, a few of us have been working on a sandboxed version at User:SwitChar/Anarchlist, building it back up from scratch with rigourous referencing. The problem is that we are few, and the putative anarchists we need to vet and find references for are many. We could really use some extra hands sorting through the potential additions here here, finding references for their being anarchists and adding their names with a brief description to the sandboxed version. If you could help, it would be really appreciated. On behalf of the Anarchism task force, the skomorokh 15:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |