User talk:Civicsight

Selfridges
Interesting information you've added. However, it looks like original research, and there is a rule against that.

We're all interested in Wikipedia containing reliable facts, but since there's no way to test for that, the standard is that encyclopaedic information needs to be verifiable. I might believe that Tiger Woods is an outstanding golfer, but if I want to state that in a Wikipedia article, I have to be able to show credible sources saying that.

By showing references to what we write, users can easily click on the link and see that we can be trusted, that we're not just making up stuff out of whole cloth. What's more, it prevents edit wars, where editors battle to make the article conform to their individual point of view. Instead, users see "Some believe Miller Beer to taste great,¹ while others believe it to be less filling.²"

In some cases, the material we need to reference is not online. That's fine. Those citations are acceptable, even when it's an out-of-print book, or a local newspaper in a small town.

The whole point is that Wikipedia content needs to become more reliable/verifiable as well as more complete. I realize it's a lot easier to add things we *know* to be true, than to find a reference that *says* that they are true, but ultimately, it's a lot more satisfying than to come back some time later, and find some yahoo has wiped out your contribution, saying to himself "Gee, I don't know if that's true or not". If you back up your contributions with citations, other Wikipedia editors will value your content highly, and move quickly to defend it against deletion and/or change, and seeing that happen is a wonderful feeling.

I assume from your empty talk page that you're relatively new to Wikipedia. Welcome! I hope you find it rewarding to participate! ClairSamoht 15:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)