User talk:Jimbo Wales

Moving uncited material to talk pages after a month

@Jimbo Wales, Unomi, TheDJ, and Looie496:

Hi, Jimmy. Back in May 2009, I asked you here about my practice of removing material lacking citations. You gave a nuanced and qualified answer (see the link), one that placed some emphasis on negative material, and material that fell into "France is a country in Europe" territory.

This was useful, but I also needed guidance on articles with material that is neither in the negative or "France" category, especially articles with large swaths of uncited material. Other editors joined that discussion and suggested using "unreferenced" and "refimprove" tags, and/or moving the material to the talk page. Since them, I've made a practice of fact-tagging such articles, putting the refimprove atop articles with large amounts of uncited info, and then moving that material to the talk page after a month. I've also worked to find citations for this material as time permits, as with this section in Phonograph record, which I rewrote and included 12 citations of reliable sources.

However, another editor is challenging this practice, calling it "bullying". I've mentioned the May 2009 discussion I had here, althought it was Unomi, and not you, who gave me this advice, so I wanted to know, do you support this practice? Do you regard it as in line with WP:V, WP:CS, et al.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightscream (talk • contribs) 18:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you systematically removing potentially good material from articles? If so, that would be very unhelpful. While working on a particular article, it might be necessary to remove some text because, after an effort, verification seems unlikely. However, that should not be a habit as it is a very destructive procedure. Of course, removing text which is probably WP:UNDUE or otherwise misleading is fine. But possibly correct encyclopedic text should be left for someone with the necessary skills and source access to fix. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

While I appreciate Jimbo's sage input, I'm not sure taking something he said 13 years ago as carte blanche is advisable. Wikipedia has changed deeply since then. As to your tactic of removing uncited material to a talk page, I'm generally opposed to that. The secret of most uncited content is that it is sourced, but either the citation got lost, the article never had inline sources, or the author had no idea how to cite. I'd wager that as much as 95% of uncited material is factually correct. I'd much rather see editors working on finding sources than removing likely truthful content. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

And how does one objectively determine if material, including entire multiple sections and paragraphs of uncited material, is "potentially good" or "possibly correct" if it's completely lacking in citations? As to your question, my question is to fact-tag uncited material, wait a month, try to find sources and copyedit it in some cases, and then move it to the talk page, complete with a diff that shows where it was in the article.

CaptainEek, what is your basis for your assessment of the cause of uncited material, your 95% figure, or that it is "likely truthful"? Is it something objectively measurable, or completely subjective and made-up?

If material is uncited, then it is not "sourced", since "sourced" means that the source is cited in the article. Nightscream (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

My number is a subjective guess, it would be interesting to do a scientific study of that though. But to your approach: I don't know of anyone else doing it that way en masse. I think it's not a good tactic. Wikipedia should be an additive process, not a subtractive process, whenever possible. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, it is the practice that was reached here as a compromise with the other editor who advised it.

The administrator Johnuniq is now threatening to block me if I ever move uncited material from an article to the talk page, and even seems to be indicating that removing uncited passages about living people recently added by anonymous IP editors is "disruptive" too, and that I'm obligated to clean up that editor's mess when this happens. Do you think such a block threat is appropriate? Nightscream (talk • contribs) 00:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I assume you are asking Jimbo, but I think the block warning is appropriate as your editing practices are, at times, not conducive to the goal of creating a high quality encyclopedia. The removal of, for example, "A tape would be inserted into the rewinder and pushed down so the rewinding mechanism would start." is one of many examples of something that is more appropriately tagged. While the citation doesn't support it, and it doesn't quite fit the definition of common knowledge, it is very close to common knowledge and clearly could be cited if effort was put into looking. MarcGarver (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

There are many problems that can lead to citations being lost, or content appearing to be cited when it actually isn't (so two sides of the same problem). For example, someone may add two sentences, adding the citation at the end of the second sentence. If that second sentence is deleted for some reason, or moved to another place in the article, the link between the citation and the first sentence "disappears". The opposite problem is when people add a clause to a sentence that was cited, where the addition isn't in the citation. E.g., they change "He was born in 1928.[citation]" to "He was born in the US in 1928.[citation]". Maybe one day the software will allow the citation to be attached to specific text - e.g., like the citation is in the edit summary and can be directly linked to the text it supported. Anyway, this general problem - which in 17 years of editing I've seen a lot of - means that we need to be cautious in just dumping text that is uncited. If it is credible and not controversial a refimprove or citation needed tag is a better approach. Ultimately though you need to not follow a strict rule. Rather you need to use your judgement and determine if what you are proposing makes the article better. MarcGarver (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to carefully avoid commenting here on any particular editors past actions or practices, simply because there is so much potential for me to get it wrong unless I do my homework, and there are many many elements of this sort of thing that require nuanced analysis. In general, I would say that if people are working to make the encyclopedia better, but having a disagreement of some sort about how to do that, it's really important to follow best practices like assuming good faith and being kind to each other in the discussion.

The interesting hard question here is around unsourced information in articles which meets a few criteria such as: (1) isn't negative claims about a living person (or groups of people etc) as BLP policy strongly implies that immediate removal is the right thing to do (2) has been flagged in the article for substantial time (a month is the time raised in this question) (3) one that I'll add is "doesn't sound ridiculous" - since if it sounds ridiculous (i.e. likely to be false) then surely it should come out right away. So when we have a case like this, what should a good editor do?

I'd say the first thing is probably: quickly look for a source. Because if it can be sourced quite easily, then that surely seems like the best way to improve the encyclopedia without a lot of effort.

Then I'd say post to the talk page: "Hey, this section has been tagged for over a month that it is unsourced, and I've personally looked for a source and can't find one. Here's a quote of what the article says today: <block quote of it>. If no one comes up with a source in the next few days, I'm planning to just delete it. If it sounded ridiculous, I'd delete it right now, but it certainly sounds plausible and I'm holding out hope that someone can find a source."

I'd also throw in that a review of the article history to find out who added might turn up a good person to ask for a source, and a look at who has edited the article quite a lot (and my have specialist knowledge that's relevant) could also turn up good people to ask. And finally a great many articles will likely fall into the area of interest of a WikiProject and obviously those would be good people to notify.

Now, I do concede that this is all a lot of work, and not every step of this is going to be necessary in every case. But surely we shouldn't keep stuff permanently in the encyclopedia if no one is willing or able to find a source for it, even if it sounds plausible.

All of this is a matter of degrees, I'd say. The more high profile the topic, the more urgent it will be to fix it. The closer to biography of a living person, the more urgent it will be to fix it. I've used the term "seems ridiculous" and "seems plausible" but surely that's a matter of degree as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales and MarcGarver: Jimbo, thank you for agreeing to participate: I think three points of clarification are needed:

To make it very clear, the material was not removed outright (that is, not "deleted"), but moved to the talk page, complete with a diff that showed precisely where which piece of information had been in the article.

You say "quickly look for a source." When you say this, do you mean I should have to find the numerous sources needed for the entire swaths of information — often times the a large portion or even a majorty of an an entire article, and that I need to do this with every article I so find, and every time someone comes by and adds it? I just want to be clear that I'm understanding you.

Do you support the block threat that has been leveled against me, as described above? Yes or no? I would genuinely appreciat it if you and others were to answer this. Nightscream (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll start with the last question first - I haven't look at your past editing history at all and so I know nothing that would give me insight into that. I'd say when possible, yes, it's a lot better to source as much as you can than to simply remove to the talk page as a first move. I suppose again it really does depend on the context. If we have a huge long article (or section of an article) with no source, then it can be a lot of work to go through and specifically source every sentence. But it'll often be possible with just one or two sources. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: I didn't ask you if it's better to source material. I asked you if moving large swaths/entire sections of uncited material in article, after it's been fact-tagged for a month (and often times for years prior to my coming across it) to the talk page, with a diff showing where it was in the article so that it can be moved back after being sourced.

Yes, we are talking about huge swaths of uncited material comprising entire sections, sometimes the majority of an article. I mentioned this above. As for my edit history, you can glean much of it from my edit count, the articles I've edited, overhauled, or created that are listed on my user page (including four articles that I single-handedly got to Good Article status), as well as the numerous accolades from others who left barnstars on my page (which are at the top of my user page). Would you support a block for this?

Nightscream (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The situation is explained in my four brief comments at User talk:Nightscream#Tagging uncited material (permalink). In particular, "systematic removal of probably good content in anything other than the significant development of a particular article" would be a problem. I gave a trivial example (diff2) and have had no response other than Why in the world would I go to Project Baseball when I have no interest in that topic?. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Tagging and subsequently removing uncited material is not a problem. Any block you placed (as you threatened Nightscream with) on that rationale would almost certainly be overturned and result in you being asked to justify yourself in front of ARBCOM for abuse of admin tools. Systematic removal of uncited content is both encouraged and policy compliant with WP:V. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I am not a Wikilawyer and I don't think arguing nuances of policy is a useful way to spend time. However, I think you have an over literal interpretation of WP:V which does not say uncited content should be "systematically removed". The policy itself is more nuanced. In the policy summary it reads "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." The question being asked here is, loosely paraphrased: for something that is very likely to be true, and commonly held to be true, should it be deleted or tagged? The policy appears to require a subjective decision based on the first clause. That is, is the material's verifiability likely to be challenged? If so, it needs sourcing or removing, if not, then it could be tagged and left in the article. This is made clear by other clauses of the policy - e.g., "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it". This would not be included if tagging and leaving it in the article was unacceptable. The fact that the policy only requires the deletion of material that is in violation of the BLP policy also makes it clear that deletion is not a foregone conclusion for anything uncited. Turning to the specific examples given above, these are all things that some editors judge to be likely true and commonly held to be true, and therefore the verifiability is not likely to be challenged and therefore it is not unreasonable for someone to dispute the need to remove the content. I think what we have here is debate about how to apply the subjective test of when to tag and when to remove - Nightscream has one view, others may or may not share it. MarcGarver (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

"I am not a wikilawyer" and yet you cherry pick the summary of the policy rather than the actual text at WP:BURDEN which is quite clear. If uncited material is challenged, it can be removed at any point. When and how long before removal is appropriate depends on the material. A month of being tagged is sufficient time for most articles to be updated. The burden then rests on people who wish to restore the material to provide a citation. BURDEN is very very clear on whose responsibility this is. At no point does WP:V say anything to support keeping uncited material present in an article once it has been challenged. There is no 'subjective test' applicable here, as WP:SKYISBLUE is only an essay and 'not likely to be challenged' is irrelevant if someone has already challenged it. If an article is tagged with a citation needed, the response required by WP:V is to provide a citation. Not argue that people do not need to cite it. If you or anyone else has a problem with that, you are free to open a discussion to amend the wording of WP:V, or attempt to promote SKYISBLUE to more than an essay, but until that point happens tagging and subsequent removal is policy compliant. Keeping uncited material in an article is not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Your apparent anger isn't required (you sound angry, apologies if you are not). I did not "cherry pick" to try and "win" an argument. My intent in referencing only the summary was to establish that a casual reader of the policy would not automatically infer "systematic deletion" was required by the policy because that isn't the plain meaning of the words. I am just trying to have a civil conversation about a problem and how there might be reasons why people would disagree with each other in the spirit of hoping to find some ground slightly nearer the middle. I have no skin in this game, nor interest in who "wins". MarcGarver (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Johnuniq: "In particular, 'systematic removal of probably good content in anything other than the significant development of a particular article' would be a problem." And I asked you, point blank, how you make a determination that material is "probably good". You persistenly chickened out of responding to this question, because you realized that you had been painted into a corner. The truth is, you don't know if material is "probably good", or "potentially good", these phrase denote subjective impressions, which means that they cannot be used as criteria for determining whether removal adheres to or violates policy.

This is in line with the tendency on the part of the less fastidious members of our community with adding or accepting material based on assumptions rather than on the very sources that WP:V requires, and this is the not the first time that I've run into editors fighting to keep large amounts of uncited material in an article on this type of weak premise. Back 2009, I got into a conflict other editors who opposed my position that every entry in the List of suicides article needed to have an explicit citation of a secondary source. The notion that he put forward was that this was not required for list-type articles. At one point one editor argued that one merely had to add inline citations from the parent article of each individual, telling me, "On the other hand, if it's just a lack of inline citations in the main article, the fix is to add them. You didn't mention which articles you checked, so I don't know which applies here. However, I've checked the sourcing on most of these before, so I suspect it's the latter." Well, I decided to do a deep dive into those in one section: Those with surnames listed under "A". Guess what I found? I found ten whose parents articles did not source the suicide. Can you imagine how many are in the entire article? The same editor said that if I wanted to require this work to be done, that I had to be willing to do it myself. Wrong. The person who adds the material, or favors its inclusion, has to be the one willing to do this. My position, which was to move all the uncited entries (which was most of the article) to the talk page pending sourcing, was upheld. Since then, we've gradually added back those entries (plus new ones, of source), all with inline citations. And that article is entirely supported by cites. There's not a single entry in it without one. And that's the way it should be. Granted, the List of suicides article concerns a more contentious topic, but the problem is the same: Articles comprised of large numbers of entire pargraphs and sections of uncited material should not be allowed to remain that way, solely on the basis of an "assumption" that the material is "probably true" or "potentially good", which entirely one of supposition that can't be substantiated with any line evidence or reasoning.

You knew that you couldn't definite what constitutes "probably good" or whatever, Johnuniq, and knew that you had no counterargument for it, and that's why you went silent --- while simultaneously complaining that I wouldn't responded to one minor point you brought up.

The truth, which anyone can see from reading that exchange on our talk page that you linked to, was that I missed that minor point with the diff, but did respond, in general, to each of your arguments, and in detail, explaining why I overall did not agree with you. Yet you continue to bitch and moan about one point about diffs, which you even admit here was a "trivial" one, as if I'm required to respond to each and every offhand comment or remark in a discussion. By contrast, the one question I keep asking that you keep evading is central to your position, and would expose that position for the house of cards that it is if answered.

Johnuniq: "...and have had no response other than Why in the world would I go to Project Baseball when I have no interest in that topic?" A lie. Anyone who reads our discussion can see that A. that comment by me was in response to a different statement by you, and not the diff in question, and B. that I gave substantial answers to each of your points, which reveals the picture you've attempted to paint of my supposedly not being transparent and straightforward to be one of deliberate mendacity on your part.

Bottom line: You have zero authority to block me for my practices. Your views on moving material to the talk page after a month are at best, one administrator's personal opinion, one that does not reflect a consensus of the administrator community here, as at least two people have disagreed with it: One of them here, and another one, an admin, on my talk page, who stated that he did not see grounds for such a block. In light of this, as well as the undisgusied hypocrisy and willfull mendacity that you've exhibited during this, which paints a picture of a rather obsessive and fanatical individual who may not be appropriate to wield the mop. I urge you reevaluate your stance here. Should you ignore this, and continue on this course, you risk being de-sysopped. I suggest that you not take that course. Nightscream (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)