Wikipedia:Citing sources/Proposal

This is a PROPOSAL

In the highest sense of the be bold policy, I am suggesting a new policy for VfD. People who came to this page from another link should be aware that this IS NOT ACCEPTED WIKI POLICY, it is a SUGGESTION.

Note on Terminology

-- Note: The term "General Public" is used in the below explanation. However, it is not actually the general public, it is simply that section of the general public who A) has a computer and an internet connection, and B) is interested in the project. This should not in any way be considered to be a valid statistical sampling in the ordinary manner the term "general public" is used.

Assessing the Problem from a Process Point of View

What's wrong with the system has already the subject of extensive discussion. What's missing from this discussion is an assessment of why other systems for existing encyclopedias work, and whether/why Wikipedia's system isn't working. So, let's look at the traditional process of producing an encyclopedia, and compare it to the Wikipedia system.

Traditional Encyclopedia Publishing Process

1) The project directors draw up a list of articles they believe should be included.

2) Authors who are acknowledged experts in their field are invited to compose the needed articles.

3) General knowledge articles, such as brief articles on animals, plants and other common subjects of simple research, are carried over from previous versions of the encyclopedia (there's no need to re-write an article on robins unless robins actually have evolved or gone extinct since the last edition). Missing articles desired in the new edition assigned to a team of authors who will perform ordinary research to fill them in.

4) Where the subject is controversial and has two distinct views, efforts are made to invite authors with competing views to compose "Objection" sections which present their view as plainly as possible.

5) All articles are then collated, indexed, proofread and copy-edited.

6) The encyclopedia is published, made available to the public. The usual advertising and sales mechanisms are put into motion so that it will be profitable. The weight of each author's expertise helps in promoting the encyclopedia as a valid reference and research tool which can be cited.

Wikipedia Publishing Process

1) The publication is put online, made available to the general public.

2) Articles from members of the general public who have heard of the project are created. Each member of the general public simply writes on subjects they are interested in.

3) The articles that have been created are then subject to review by other members of the general public, and altered in any way they see fit.

4) Steps two and three are repeated endlessly, forming a body of work which represents what the general public is most interested in reading about, and is the contribution of tens of thousands of anonymous editors.

5) (Projected) At some point, the directors of the project call a halt to the proceedings, take what articles they have in whatever condition the last edits left them, copy-edit them, and place it on CD for sale. The weight of opinion of literally thousands upon thousands of ordinary people writing anonymously and millions upon millions of edits is used as proof of the validity of the articles as citations for research and publication.

Flaws with the Above Processes

As one can see, both methods have inherent flaws. Let's review each to examine what these flaws are.

Flaws Inherent in the Traditional Encyclopedia Publishing Process

In stage 1), the project directors draw up a list of articles they believe should be included. This applies a large bias to the system - if the project directors are good at what they do, the list of articles will be what the public wants to know about. If not, it won't. As can be clearly seen in the Wikipedia system, the general public is far more interested in TV shows, movies, books, music and video games than they are in history, science or the humanities.

In stage 2), authors who are acknowledged experts in their field are invited to compose the needed articles. This inserts an inherent bias towards that author's point of view, which means that the authors chosen for each article have to be selected carefully. Their views must not merely be their views, they must also be right.

In stage 3) general knowledge articles are created by a team of researchers. Again, these individuals must be selected carefully, so that the articles will not merely represent their personal viewpoint, but represent fact.

In stage 4), controversial subjects are given a second treatment by opposing authors. And, again, these individuals must be selected carefully, so that the articles will not merely represent their personal viewpoint, but represent fact.

In stage 5) and 6), the encyclopedia is copy-edited, then published. Flaws in this process are outside the scope of this discussion.

Flaws Inherent in the Wikipedia Publishing Process

In stage 1) and 2) The publication is put online, made available to the general public, and articles begin to come in. Without quality controls, a large portion of the articles are simply one individual's personal opinion of a subject. Also, the majority of articles written are on subjects which interest the general public - mostly television, movies, books, music and video-games - leaving the project with comparatively few articles on science, history and the humanities.

In stage 3) and 4), articles that have been created are then subject to review by other members of the general public, and altered in any way they see fit, without concern as to whether or not they actually know anything about the subject. Articles that individuals do not like are altered to suit their tastes, simply re-written wholesale to suit their particular viewpoint, or blanked, or vandalized, as the whim suits them. This process is repeated endlessly, forming a body of work which represents what the general public is most interested in (TV shows, movies, books, music and video games leading the list by far, with science and mathematics lagging far behind). Certain articles of controversial topics are endlessly edited and re-edited by individuals with differing viewpoints. Cliques of editors both pro and con to each article begin to form. Articles of even the most basic subjects (like truth) become entrenched battlegrounds where teams of editors fight a never-ending war to place the "right" view into each article at the expense of the editors who are "wrong". Articles do not necessarily reflect absolute fact, but simply the last edit. A historian with a PhD who writes an article on Abraham Lincoln can be over-ridden in the next edit by a factory worker from Peoria - or, more often, by a twelve-year-old who blanks or vandalizes the article.

Stage 5) is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Summary of Flaws with the Above Processes and Previously Applied Solutions

As we can see, the essential problem with the Wikipedia system in comparison to more traditional methods of producing an encyclopedia is lack of control. The basic system is set up as a semi-Athenian democracy where only the vote of the last person who voted matters, and there is no way to know whether or not the person is writing from the point of view of an expert, or simply a child with a computer. The problem occurs in stages 3) and 4) of the above process.

Previously, the solution applied was the VfD process. But, it itself contains the same flaws - it is again a semi-Athenian democracy, but in this case, only the vote of the "closer" counts. Many times articles have been deleted (or even undeleted) where "consensus" was entirely subjective, with no firm rules to be applied, and all those participating in the vote being left unsatisfied with the final decision. Moreover, those voting to delete or undelete do not have to show any experience or knowledge with the subject of the article, merely the willingness to type the word Delete or Keep.

Proposed Solution

My solution is to address the problem at the root - stage 3) and 4) of the Wikipedia process. It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect every single Wiki editor to present a set of credentials to certify their scholarship of a particular subject. In fact, when it comes to certain subjects (like "Star Trek Trivia"), scholarly certification is simply impossible, because it does not exist. However, it is NOT unreasonable and NOT unrealistic to expect Wiki editors to provide citations.

Currently, the rules for citations are stated here. In short, they simply propose that each editor cite their sources. As a direct solution for the problems inherent in stages 3) and 4), I propose that this be expanded. Each and every assertation a Wiki editor creates should not be simply their opinion, but have a citable source.

As an example, let's take this article: Abraham Lincoln. At the beginning of the article, it might read as follows: "Abraham Lincoln (pronounced linken) (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1869)..."

Now, assessing this, we see it is a simple statement of fact. But, how do we KNOW that the fact is true? If it was written in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, we'd know it simply because we would know they researched this beforehand. Here, however, we do NOT know if the editor actually researched this. In fact, Lincoln did NOT die in 1869, he died in 1865.

Further on in the article, we might encounter this sentence: "Lincoln was a master politician who emerged as a wartime leader skilled at balancing competing considerations and at getting rival groups to work together toward a common goal. This is an opinion. It may be TRUE, however, it is an opinion. This then begs the question: Whose opinion is it? The obvious answer is "it's the opinion of the person who wrote the article, of course." Well, that doesn't work - see here for why. Yes, it can successfully be argued that this is more than just the opinion of the author, it is the general consensus of nearly all historians. But, the point is that this opinion is an opinion, and needs a citation to show the origin of the opinion. The author of the article is anonymous - in fact, if you check the edit history for that article, you will discover that it has been the constant work of literally hundreds of anonymous editors for over two and a half years. Thus, the accuracy and scholarship of the opinion is entirely unknown. It needs a citation.

In short, every single assertation a Wikipedia editor writes should have a corresponding citation, so that the accuracy and integrity of every article can be shown not to stem from a blind faith in the accuracy of an anonymous editor, but in the scholarship of the citations. Where the article is a synopsis or summary of a previous work by an established scholar in the field the article covers, that work should be cited.

In summary, what I am proposing is not a change to the VfD rules, but a change to the rules for citation, toughening them up to improve the scholarly value of the overall encyclopedia, and make it easier for nonsense and junk articles to be identified and deleted.

Specific Proposed Changes to the Rules of Citation

1) Online citations should be from either established news organizations, governmental organizations, or the published websites of established scholars who have published several books in their field through print publishers. Self-published books and "vanity press" operations are specifically excluded.

2) A weblog is not a valid scholarly citation, no matter who writes it.

3) Print citations should contain the full ISBN of the work, and be from authors who can be shown to be scholars in their fields.

4) Every assertation of fact or opinion that is made must have a citation. Where this citation would be in a print work and not immediately verifiable, the chapter and page number where the assertation is derived from should be cited.

5) An article that fails to correctly cite it's sources must be corrected to add the required citations, or deleted until such time as the author provides citations.

6) Changes to articles must show scholarly citation for such change, or be deleted.

7) Articles which can show no citations at all for the assertations within the article must be deleted.

8) Articles on television or movie trivia should be allowed to cite the visual medium they are referencing (such as "character ___ first appeared in episode ____, which also saw the first appearance of the _____ weapon.").

9) Articles which are essentially biographical entries must have a citation for a published biography or autobiography of the individual being detailed. Again, this cannot be a self-published work or a blog.

10) Major magazines (Time, Newsweek, etc) and major newspapers (The New York Times, etc) count as a valid citation, particularly for biographies. If someone is worthy enough to rate at least a short bio in Time magazine, they're worthy enough to rate a Wikipedia entry.

Effects of the Above Changes

1) Certain articles which are entirely opinion (such as articles on fads or popular culture) would end up in the rubbish bin unless they can show citations for published authors or the visual medium they are referencing. 2) It will be difficult for outsiders to the Wikipedia project to impune the scholarship of the project as a whole, since each editor will be required to provide scholarly sources for the assertations they make. 3) New articles that are entirely worthless (such as "vanity" articles) would be easier to delete - in fact, they could be speedily deleted, for the most part, as they would have no citations whatsoever. The criteria for notability would become "has someone written a biography of this person and gotten it published in a book, or in a notable magazine or newspaper?" If the answer is "no," then the article would be deleted. This will, as a consequence, result in the deletion of literally thousands of individuals who currently have biographies on Wikipedia but otherwise are of little note. 4) Most importantly, issues in controversial articles (such as truth or Bill Clinton) become resolvable when each side is challenged to provide proper citations for their assertions. This reduces the effects of the stage 3) and 4) process of Wikipedia, and as such reduce the difficulties in VfD nominations. If it doesn't cite, it doesn't stay.

Comments

Please leave comments on this suggestion on it's talk page. Thank you. =)