User:Darkfrog24/Source bombing

Wikipedia aspires to publish only verifiable content. This means everything must be attributed to a reliable source. Because not everyone has the same degree of access to sources&mdash;university students may have JSTOR accounts, or one Wikieditor may live near an unusually good library or have a collection of specialized books&mdash;we cooperate and collaborate. However, this asymmetrical access can be abused. A user who knows other Wikieditors will not be able to access specific sources may be tempted to post a long list of sources that either do not support or only tangentially support their preferred version of the article in the hope that other editors will be impressed with their "research" and give up.

Many of the best-quality sources are either paywalled or only available in paper form or by subscription, so source bombing can be almost indistinguishable from good sourcing and good-faith bad sourcing. Remember to assume good faith, tell the source bombing editor to check the text more carefully next time, and correct the text of the article.

When someone else cites a large number of sources at once

 * Always read the source yourself before claiming that it does not contain the cited information.
 * Tell the poster you are planning to access the source yourself and ask for page numbers or other information that might help.
 * If necessary, remind the poster that library requests can take weeks.
 * Ask the poster if they have any links and then wait for their answer.
 * Talk to other Wikieditors you trust about sharing the workload. Maybe one person can find a book at their local library while another visits a university and checks JSTOR or other databases for full-text articles.
 * Remember that "We can't put/keep this in the article because I can't see the source yet" is WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and not among your options.
 * Remember WP:NODEADLINE. You can always remove the unsupported text after you access the source.


 * If there is an active RfC at the time...
 * Request that the RfC not be closed until the 30 day limit because you are trying to track down offline/paywalled/hard-to-reach sources.
 * Then actually find as many of those sources as you can.
 * Post your analysis of those sources in a new section. (If you found that the poster's research was accurate, say that.)
 * Remember to follow WP:CANVASSING rules. Your best bet is to alert all the participants in the RfC, not just the ones whom you think might change their !votes in the direction you want.  Post the exact same message on all talk pages.

When you check the sources and they don't match the text

 * Make screenshots or photocopies of the source so you can back up what you say if you have to.
 * Remember that you don't know whether the other Wikieditor was deliberately source bombing or just became overzealous in good faith.
 * Remember that "you made a mistake" feels like an accusation of incompetence to many Wikieditors no matter how civilly phrased.
 * Stick to the facts: "I don't see the information in this source. Can you tell me exactly what page it was on?" or "I don't see the information in this source. Did this author publish two papers that year?" or "Is it in an appendix?" "Sorry, but it looks like this author doesn't really support the article text, so I'm going to take it out for now."

When you're the one who posted a long list of sources

 * Make all effort to post your list before any RfC is called or before the discussion gets intense. Although Wikipedia articles don't have time limits, RfCs do.
 * Make a good faith effort to find non-paywalled links to sources or excerpts and provide them.
 * Check Google Books or other online depositories to see if the source's preview is available.
 * Give the exact page number or exact article section where you found the information.
 * Remember that other Wikieditors are allowed to check your work. Their diligence will only build your reputation when they find that all your sources say exactly what you claimed they did.
 * If other Wikieditors read the source and replace your preferred text with a new version that is closer to the source text than you think is necessary, remember that this makes the article more likely to survive a deletion discussion
 * If other Wikieditors find a small mistake in your sourcing and make the corresponding correction, remember that this only makes the article stronger.
 * Resist the urge to say "I told you so."

Examples

 * Male expendability was brought up for deletion in MONTH 202YEAR, during which its supporters provided long lists of sources. Upon examination in late 2022 into 2023, some of them turned out not to mention male expendability. Others did mention it but did not support the exact text where their ref tags appeared.