User talk:Scott MacDonald/why do unreferenced BLPs matter

''This question keeps being asked. So let me answer it.''

The simple, and surprising answer, is ... that they don't.


 * Tony Blair is a convicted arsonist" is not any more libellous than Tony Blair is a convicted arsonist   "
 * Jeffrey Archer is a liar is no less true than Jeffrey Archer is a liar

So what's the issue. Well, let's start at the beginning?

The problem for Wikipedia is that an editor may insert material into an article (or, indeed, create an article) which is false (in the sense that it could not be supported by any source). That material is a problem regardless of whether it is unsourced, has a "false source", has an unreliable source, or misrepresents its source. Indeed the given sourcing doesn't matter at all - the problem is the material itself.

Quality Control
How is such material removed from Wikipedia?

It is removed only if someone removes it (obviously). Someone will remove it only if they do all these things:
 * 1) View the material
 * 2) Recognise the material is false
 * This means either a) having subject knowledge or b) being motivated enough to source check
 * 1) Remove the material

1) Is the most important. The less scrutiny on the article, the less chance that anyone will follow to step two. That's why the most problematic articles are those with fewer page watchers, or less readers. These are the ones where problematic material is unnoticed.

2) Is also vital. Ever if someone reads the article - will they recognise a problem? If the problem is obvious "George Bush is a poo" all good and well. But the real problems are plausible falsehoods - because they are the ones less likely to be spotted by a reviewer and, simultaneously, they are the ones most likely to damage the subject's reputation by misleading a reader into thinking ill. (Hint: no one will actually think Bush is a poo. It might cause him to complain, it might embarrass Wikipedia - but it doesn't harm his job prospects!)

The less notable, the less chance a reviewer with knowledge will see the problem. Failing that, the only chance is that someone will check the text against sources. And this is the key point. If the source is provided, then it is easier to check the veracity of the information - and falsity is more likely to be identified. If the source is not provided (or less accessible) there is less chance a reviewer will be motivated to check what sources are saying. And even if they do find their own source, it is harder to be sure that the material doesn't rely on a different source. It will always be easier to say "the source given does/does not support this".

A sourced article is more likely to get checked by a reviewer, since we've insisted that the person submitting the material must make it easier for the reviewer. (We are also allowing the reader to check the sources, rather than simply rely on "Wikipedia".)

Wikipedia:BLP
This principle - unsourced material is more problematic - is already recognised in the BLP policy itself. It states that negative unsourced material must be removed. Why? All negative material can harm a subject if untrue, so surely the harm will be caused regardless of whether any untrue material is sourced or not? Answer:The principle must be that unsourced material is harder to check. Someone who wants to put negative material into an article must help the reviewer being providing a source. Providing a source doesn't make the likelihood of untrue submisisons decrease, but it makes the likelihood of them being identified increase. The risk assessment is that Wikipedia cannot afford unsourced material in the case of negative BLP submissions - because, when ease of review is considerer, unsourced material carries a higher risk.

Of course, WP:BLP strictly read applies only to negative or contentious material. But it still recognised that it is inherently harder to exercise quality control over unreferenced material.