User:HighInBC/Wikilinks are not references

The purpose of this essay is to explain that wikilinks are not references. I hope to explain that demanding reliable third party references over wikilinks is not just policy wonking, but an important requirement to improving the encyclopedia.

Regarding lists
There seems to be a myth out there that lists do not need to be cited. This is just not true.

Partial summary of List guideline:


 * Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources
 * No original research applies equally to a list of like things as it does for the content article on each individual thing listed
 * The verifiability policy states that "articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors should therefore provide references."
 * Inclusion on the list should be based on what reliable sources say.
 * Uncited facts should be marked with a fact tag, and eventually removed unless cited

List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity

 * Before After Work log 30.7% cited
 * Results: Out of 26 items in the list, 8 have them had citations in their articles. Less than 1/3rd of them were cited.
 * Unfortunately this article is plagued by drive by additions that do not meet criteria and needs plenty of maintenance. Until(1 == 2) 00:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Romanian actors

 * Before After Work log 31.7% cited
 * Results: Out of 41 items in the list, only 13 actually had citations in the articles, that is less than 1/3rd of them
 * This cleanup gained the attention of others, and the list was cited further, resulting in a full 38 of them being sourced(but not from sources in the articles they were linked to, ones that were found).

List of Indian companies

 * Before After Work log 56.4% cited
 * Results: Out of 156 items in the list, only 88 actually had citations in the articles. Just a little over half were sourced.