User:ONUnicorn/thoughts on sourcing

Sources are the foundation upon which Wikipedia is built. Just as it would be a mistake to build a building without a proper foundation, it is a mistake to write an article without proper sources. A buiding without a proper foundation is liable to collapse. A Wikipedia article without proper sourcing is liable to eventually be deleted.

Errors in the foundation of a building may be fixable; but it is a lot more expense and effort than building it correctly in the first place. Sometimes, the issues are so severe the building must be demolished. Likewise, an article written with no sources, few sources, or low-quality sources may be fixable; but it is easier to write it correctly to start with, and sometimes the issues are so severe that demolition is the only answer.


 * Any source is better than no source.
 * If you cannot find a good source the question should be "is this source good enough"?
 * if the answer to the above is no, then remove the information.
 * Say where you got it. If you found it in a source that is not the best; cite that source, and look for confirmation in more reliable sources.  If you have found confirmation in better sources, cite both.
 * Some editors have a practice of removing poor sources, then removing the information as "unsourced". I strongly disagree with this practice.  Such information is not unsourced - it may be sourced to unreliable sources or low quality sources, but it is not unsourced.
 * Some editors will remove a low-quality source when a better source is found. I disagree with this as well. I think it's important to confirm information from low-quality sources with better sources, but I strongly believe we should say where we got the information, even if it's from a less-than stellar source.
 * There are some sources that are so bad we should not be using them at all. Obviously, don't use those at all.