Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Roylee

I don't understand the 'Discussion' section. Are we suppose to discuss there or on talk? &mdash; mark &#9998; 11:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I that section is the carrot to get people here. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;   11:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The full story
(this heading belatedly added Andrewa 19:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC))

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Latin Alphabet: Circumstantial Evidence for Egyptian Origin for some evidence not in the summary (and there is lots, lots more). It also, sadly, provides evidence that this contributor was not always treated with the respect that is a valuable part of the Wikipedia culture. Possibly, a chance to make a Wikipedian out of a potential vandal was lost by personal attacks in this VfD entry and elsewhere.

However, IMO the sterling work by the certifiers in dealing with a difficult problem deserves an endorsement rather than an outside view, so I have given one. Andrewa 14:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree with your first point if we didn't know the rest of the story. Roylee has been treated with much respect and all editors have assumed good faith in their first exchanges with him. I have restored much of his talk page for ease of reference; if you read through it, I think it is quite clear that editors have gone great lengths to discuss Roylee's contributions in a friendly manner. If it were true that he never responded to any request to clarify his edits because he still was wrathful months after about the incident(s) you mention, and if his only answer to that was to silently keep editing his fringe theories into Wikipedia, then all I can say is: this editor is irredeemable and has always been &mdash; show him the door. Quite paradoxically, editors like this, when tolerated, will be the death-blow to our Assume Good Faith policy. &mdash; mark &#9998; 14:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I did spend an hour or so looking at the full story before posting this comment.


 * We'll never know in this particular case. But any ill word IMO must be assumed to have a possible butterfly effect. Many will turn out to be harmless. The problem is, we can't even tell in hindsight which these are, so we certainly can't tell in advance.


 * I think the whole concept of showing people the door is a lot more difficult than you seem to think. Yes, we do have blocks and bans. These are a last resort for many reasons. One of these reasons is that they are not very effective. To make them effective would require measures that would change the most fundamental concepts of Wikipedia.


 * Food for thought? Andrewa 19:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well we should all try hard to assume good faith and not set someone off, but in the end people are responsible for their own actions. When someone is rude to them they can either choose to diffuse and improve the situation or to be a troublemaker. What I'm saying is that there is neither an excuse for being rude in the first place, nor for the disruption in response. - Taxman Talk 19:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Andrewa, you commented that this contributor was not always treated with the respect that is a valuable part of the Wikipedia culture. Frankly, after examining in detail Roylee's edits, I don't think he is deserving of respect here.  Why not?  Because he is insulting us and our values with his persistent disruption of our communal effort to create a free, on-line, universal, and reliable encyclopedia, by inserting flagrant misinformation into WP articles, and by other manipulation intended to slant WP toward his personal and highly idiosyncratic views, which (as someone familiar with some of the relevant literature) does not appear to have any support, in fact seems to flunk the most elementary criterion of verifiability.  Also, I must say that I didn't see evidence that he has been treated with disrespect.  To the contrary, I was struck by the restraint, civility, and patience of efforts by Mark D and others to bring Roylee to brook.


 * I would also remind you that when challenged, Roylee's response was neither to cease making unverifiable claims or to start supporting his claims with verifiable evidence. No, what he did was to cease using his registered user account and to start editing exclusively as an anon.  This seems intellectually dishonest to me.---CH 06:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The words this fool in the AfD I cited above are a violation of the Wikipedia policy on personal attacks however much he deserves it. I may well think he did deserve it. But what I'm interested in here is not so much justice as practicality. Getting angry at this guy, or any one who seems to be a troll or vandal or both, is counterproductive IMO. I've done it, but it hasn't helped. Any attempt at getting even is at best a waste of our time and resources, and at worst risks feeding a troll. Andrewa 07:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Purpose of this RfC
Personally, I am not interested in sanctioning the editor Roylee. What I think is most important, and accordingly what should be the aim of this RfC, is finding a solution to the underlying social and technical problems of Wikipedia as exposed by this issue. As BanyanTree said here, "it took over a hundred edits before Mark began to reel Roylee in. Is there another user whose made 50 similar edits, who has not been discovered? Are there a hundred such users?"

Simple-minded Linus's law-derivates are not the answer here. Many eyes have looked at the articles that were affected, and did not recognize any problems. More paradoxically, if literally everyone would have assumed good faith, only brute force fact-checking could have detected the problem eventually. This is profoundly worrying. Quite frankly, all this has made me doubt, maybe for the first time, the long-term viability of Wikipedia as a trustworthy resource. &mdash; mark &#9998; 14:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A clever manipulator will always be able to insert unwarranted material into Wikipedia for a time, but many eyes eventually discover even believable nonsense. This issue is a case in point. The principle of caveat lector should not be restricted to elite education: we should all have been raised as doubters of text, right from the start. Even the Encyclopaedia Britannica. As for me, so far am I from continuing to Assume Good Faith, in the face of bad edits, when I find a vandal I try to check through that IP's contributions, and sometimes discover previously unnoticed vandalism.


 * The question remains, how many of these bad edits remain in Wikipedia articles? --Wetman 03:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your first point ("many eyes eventually discover..."), which is of course a truism among Wikipedians as an extension of the proposition that vandalized articles constitute a fraction of one percent of all articles. This case appears to indicate that "believable nonsense" can remain on Wikipedia for unacceptably long periods.  Cases such as the long-lasting misinformation found recently on John Seigenthaler Sr. can perhaps be written off as "believable nonsense" that was missed because the vandal did not edit a number of articles, which has a better chance of rousing suspicion and being reverted (another truism of vandal fighting).  This is not the case with Roylee, who created believable nonsense in self-supporting webs of article across the normal Wikipedian topics of specialization over a period of months.


 * This simply shouldn't have have been possible, and that fact that it did happen indicates that Wikipedia's processes are not as robust as they are advertised. As I mention in the post that Mark links to above, Roylee throws any blanket reassurance given for Wikipedia's credibility into doubt. - BanyanTree 19:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has credibility? Have you seen pages like Nietzsche or Khmer Rouge? Wikipedia has many, many roadblocks to overcome before it has any hint of credibility collectively. I think currently, each article has to prove it's own credibility, it's not simply inherited because it's a Wikipedia article. (Bjorn Tipling 21:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC))
 * I basically concur (see Researching with Wikipedia, largely written by me and Dan Keshet), but the goal is to work toward having credibility, and it looks like Roylee's contributions have been a detriment. And that is what this RfC is about, no? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the problem here is not so much that Wikipedia as a whole lacks credibility; I knew that before and that wouldn't be different without Roylee's contributions. However, as Jmabel says, the goal is to work toward having credibility. Editors like Roylee greatly hinder that enterprise, to the point of making it attainable only by brute-force fact-checking. Maybe I have been naive to let such a thing frustrate me. &mdash; mark &#9998; 17:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This is especially the case as we cannot be sure if he is unique or if his detection is unique, e.g. are there numerous users adding misinformation using similar patterns? I would like to think not, but I don't know how anyone can guarantee it.  I had hoped to hear a solution to the problem from people reading this RfC, and the lack makes me think that the problem is structural rather than individual.  I would love to be proved wrong on this. - BanyanTree 19:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I must disagree with one of the initial statements above: the answer *is* to get more people. I think right now there is a "core" of articles that are so popular and/or frequently vandalized that even minor changes would be noticed on them. Expanding that core should be the goal. Of the thousands of pages on my watchlist, I'm sure there are a few hundred that I would absolutely know for sure if an edit was a good one or not, regardless of who made them. Many of those I would consider in the core. I can't see how the many eyeballs theorum fell down here. While it's disconcerting to see subtle vandalism from a registered user, it's not surprising, and not an unsolvable problem. The "core" articles are vandal proof precisely because so many people are watching them. The onus is on expanding that core, by getting more people in to Wikipedia, and (more importantly) a more diverse set of people to expand what is covered by that core. To expand on what I consider a core article, could you imagine someone getting away with multiple undiscovered subtle edits on the abortion page? On Perl? On Star Wars? On New York City? There are also "specialized" cores out there that are actively patrolled by people with expertise and/or high interest in the subject area (e.g. some astronomy topics). I think once an article makes it into either the main core or a specialized one, is is relatively safe from this sort of problem. As we get more active people who use watchlists, the core grows, ideally faster than the rate of new articles. Finally, "assume good faith" is not an ideal motto for page edits. I prefer "trust, but verify" :) Turnstep 14:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * These are some very good points. In fact, the existence of a specialist core has made me discover him; I have all articles on African languages on my watchlist and I first came across him when he hit Mende language. Also, as Taxman points out below, the many eyeballs theorum in a way didn't fell down because I happened to stumble upon him. mark &#9998; 12:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And a less qualified editor than Mark would have backed off from this discussion. I have watched Nabta Playa references being inserted, and I am still unable to decide whether it is junk or not. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;   13:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In another way, however, it has failed miserably &mdash; look at the various requests for verification at Talk:Sahara and Talk:Silk Road to which nobody responded. Roylee has made scores of edits to Silk Road and its perifery, and I haven't reverted any of his contributions there because I don't know anything about the subject. Both Silk Road and Sahara are articles that I would expect to be in some core. So, spotting the problem is one thing; solving it requires expert 'eyeballs'. Do we have those? And will we get them, or do they walk away because we haven't got it right in the first place? &mdash; mark &#9998; 12:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

This RfC and policy
I have always assumed that the aim of an RfC was to resolve a dispute within existing policies and procedures if possible. However, Requests for comment does not appear to restrict the aims or proposed solution in this way.

So I guess it's valid to use an RfC to develop and promote a proposed change in policy, which appears to be what is happening here. But IMO this is a major change that is proposed. So there's a long way to go, and other forums to be explored, before it actually becomes policy. Andrewa 15:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I started this section because I wasn't fully sure myself where this RfC could get us. What I do know is that it will prove to be difficult to sanction Roylee, if only because he frequently edits anonymously from a dynamic IP range. A block on his account (which in my opinion would be fully defensible since he has ignored a great many warnings) can be evaded easily by logging out, something he often has done to blank messages he didn't like. A block on his IP range (4.241.x.x) would be hindered by the fact that this is shared by at least one other user (who once complained on my talk page that I had sent him a warning adressed to Roylee). This RfC, then, seems to be a good place to discuss the underlying problem(s) of which Roylee is a symptom. I, for one, understand that there's a long way from here to establishing policy. &mdash; mark &#9998; 16:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well the Blocking policy proposal should be able to handle that if it gets implimented, so please support it. Beyond that you did find out about the users edits and I doubt there is a huge scale effort going on similar to Roylee, so Linus law did work. There may be further things we can do in the current system, but insistence on higher quality sources can usually work. In the end the Wiki model is suitable to getting many articles to a very good state, but has it's limits. Perhaps the only way to go to a truly higher level is once the base articles are built, a formal peer review is conducted, where articles are checked against their sources and perhaps additional ones by experts, and those versions are what the public sees. Between that perhaps a wiki where only credentialled, trusted users get to edit could bridge the gap. In the meantime, the open Wiki system is working pretty well and most articles are improving. As long as we don't think we're going to be prefectly reliable under the current system we're okay. So far it's a path, not a destination. Various proposals to impliment what I'm talking about are out there, like published articles and a stable version like FreeBSD has for ex. - Taxman Talk 19:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Where can I find this proposal? I doubt there is a huge scale effort going on similar to Roylee: why? It's quite easy to do such a thing, especially in low-profile specialist articles. &mdash; mark &#9998; 12:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I lost track of this page. I linked the proposal above. It only solves the problem of letting logged in users edit from a blocked IP, but that itself is important. - Taxman Talk 18:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * While I agree with Andrewa that discussion of policy is acceptable in an RfC, especially as it is so closely linked with this one user, I have placed a notice at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Notice of discussion about possible policy proposals at RfC to inform interested users that a discussion strongly linked to policy is taking place here. If the result of the discussion here suggests that a policy change is in order, I expect that a proposal would make its way over there eventually. Obviously a proposal would have to strictly define what issue it intends to address and how it would work, but I find the current free flowing discussion of thoughts to be useful and well in line with its RfC nature.  - BanyanTree 17:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree. I think the notice on the Pump is timely. Andrewa 07:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning up the mess Roylee left
We should not forget that there is still very much to clean up. Yesterday I had a look at Sahara. I have tagged unveried statements in the history section, largely the work of Roylee, with fact. Please check it out, it's really funny. Or not. How in the world are we going to fix this? Simply remove all unverified statements? But not everything is bullshit. So are we going to verify all of those statements, one by one? This simply doesn't scale: one Roylee can frustrate the work of tens of serious editors.

See User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee for a list of affected articles. This list is certainly not complete; there might be fifty or hundred articles missing. I don't know. We don't know. &mdash; mark &#9998; 12:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * (copied from User talk:Hipocrite)
 * If you point where I should go, I'll do the digging in the article's history and delete everything and prevent it from being readded without proper citations. I'm going to start on your userpage list now, and will mention this on IRC this evening to get more totally-inexperienced but wikipedia aware eyes on the articles. That's the right way to solve the problem, and it's what we'll have to do untill we can find a technological solution. Yes, it means that I might delete good facts, but bad facts are more pernicious than missing facts. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The main problem is that the list on my userpage is not complete. The best (and most tiresome) way to proceed might be checking all contributions from all IP's listed; adding affected articles to the list; cross-checking the articles' history whether there are unlisted IP's (if there are, check their contribs also, etc.); and to start cleaning up only when the list of articles can be expected to be exhaustive. The list could then even be split into workable units, if needed. &mdash; mark &#9998; 20:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In any case, please record which articles you've cleaned up. &mdash; mark &#9998; 21:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have added about twenty articles to the list yesterday, from the contribs of . &mdash; mark &#9998; 09:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It is much slower and more desperate to check facts than to write fiction. If the fact checker is given the burden of proof then they need to massively outnumber editors. If the original editor is given the burden of proof through detailed citation this balance begins to shift in the other direction. We are now at the stage where we can afford to slow down the rate of addition of material and begin to concentrate on quality. Mozzerati 20:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what I implimented by fiat. I'm going through mark's well researched list, tracking down all of the roylee edits and roylee cites, and reverting everything. If it's true and important, it'll get readded and cited. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ripe for RFA
This subject is now ripe for RFAr, in my opinion. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Mark says: Personally, I am not interested in sanctioning the editor Roylee. He has not responded to this RfC, I think it unlikely that he would engage in arbitration. It is not about him, it is about Wikimedia. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;   06:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am interested in him being blocked, it's just that I am not primarily interested in sanctioning him; cleaning up the mess (and fixing up policy if needed) is more important. Besides, about what kind of block are we speaking here? I think only an indefinite block can be of help; Roylee has always been unresponsive to requests and warnings and we have every reason to expect that he would just go on with his 'work' after his block expires. But someone has yet to show me which policy would cover an indefinite block, except for this one, maybe. &mdash; mark &#9998; 09:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh my God... someone just pointed out to me that he's been running around making more edits... the guy is a menace, putting nonsense into not well watched articles and then trying to cite those sections in disputes over other articles. All he does is push a series of fringe POV ideas everywhere and screw up articles left and right. See the contributions of User:209.76.23.144 -- oh my god, he needs to be stopped... a block is way overdue at this point.

And anybody seeing this... can we make a concerted effort to undo all of his edits? I mean, ugh, they're everywhere, and they keep coming back. DreamGuy 22:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, I came across yesterday and have reverted all edits that fit the pattern outlined here. I have also pointed him to this very page; no reaction. It's very disheartening. (But as I asked above, which policy would cover an indefinite block?) Anyway, I'm all for mass-reverting all of his edits - this guy is doing far more harm than good to Wikipedia and should simply be stopped. I don't really care if there are good edits sometimes, it is clear to me that all of his edits, good and bad, are made to further an Afro-centric POV. Let me put it this way: I'm usually very optimistic about people, but this editor does not deserve any more good faith and simply needs to be stopped. &mdash; mark &#9998; 06:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

hardcore cite sources and citation formats
Rules which will handle this:


 * 1) all edits must be justified with a page number or URL from a source
 * 2) all sources must be properly cited in the article; this includes (as a minimum) author (or publishing organisation if anonymous), date and title.
 * 3) any edit not conforming to this should be rolled back

Mozzerati 20:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Additionally, and very importantly, Roylee's strategy has been to use a self-serving mix of obscure pseudo-scientific websites, online reference works, and some sites that probably would qualify as reliable sources. He quotes everything out of context to serve his POV. WP:RS does not really discourage this at present, as far as I know. &mdash; mark &#9998; 21:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a WP:POINT violation. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A large number of our current articles fail these rules. IMO of those that pass them, many would never have been written had these rules been in place. These include many articles that I think are quite good, including I think all of those that I have personally started over the years.


 * I suspect that very few of our contributors (both current and previous) would have started contributing had these rules been in place and enforced.


 * In summary, I think these proposed rules if adopted would quickly destroy Wikipedia. Perhaps Roylee is cleverer than you think.


 * It's also not difficult to circumvent the letter of these rules. I could, for example, set up a pbwiki site for the purpose of providing URLs to cite. You'll then need to provide some criteria for which URLs can be cited. I think this will prove difficult, and again will either be easily circumvented, or will greatly increase the overhead of editing for us all, or probably both.


 * That's not to discourage those who want better tools for dealing with this sort of behaviour. As one who has contributed to several attempts to set up some sort of approval or refereeing mechanism over the years, I encourage you to look further. And I again commend the work you are doing, both on this page and in removing unencyclopedic material.


 * My conviction is that the cadre of Wikipedians and their commitment to Jimbo's goals and ideals is far more important than what the rules say. That's why I mentioned the butterfly effect above. See also User:andrewa/creed. Andrewa 19:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I won't disagree with you that if these rules were in place at the beginning Wikipedia may never have succeeded. However, often different rules are needed to start something from the rules which are needed for it to remain a success.  The majority of the articles needed for an encyclopedia are now written.  The problem is that their quality is variable and their coverage is often biased.  We now need to grow our coverage more slowly whilst increasing our quality as fast as possible.


 * Wikipedia is now a part of many people's life; if nothing else as the irritating stub article which comes out at the top of their search. If they begin to feel it is an important and valuable part of their life then they will contribute.  Making sure our facts are supported will help this.


 * On the subject of tricky use of sources; lying sources leave a clear trace in search engines. Merely searching for holocaust denier's sites as strings in Wikipedia gives a good idea of articles where disreputable sources have been used.  Even more clear is misrepresentation of or lying about the contents of sources.  This leaves a trail which, on detailed examination, will have the perfect stink of vandalism.  As with David Irving, discovery may take some time, but it will happen.   Mozzerati 21:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that Wikipedia has now begun to mature to the point that it can change radically and still maintain its momentum? You may be right. But you may also be wrong, and just as we have only one planet, so we have only one Wikipedia. By the time we know for sure whether or not the changes you suggest will kill it, it will be too late.


 * There are a number of current projects seeking to add some quality control to Wikipedia by creating a more reliable derivative. I think this is exciting, and harmless at worst. It's the right way to introduce the sort of changes you suggest here. But, if you prefer to suggest that Wikipedia adopt them for the existing project, that's your call. I'll watch with interest. Andrewa 00:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, to some extent (any edit not conforming to this should be rolled back) I'm trying to bait people into a discussion (worked with you :-). But in another sense, I'm just suggesting that existing policy should be taken seriously (WP:CITE if you add any information to an article, you must cite the source of your information. / Disputed information which, if verified, would remain in an article, should be placed on the article's talk page) (WP:V The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit)..


 * WP:CITE is a guideline, not a policy. Then again, so is Consensus.


 * I believe that if we do not tackle the problem of seemingly true but actually misleading information head on, Wikipedia will become worse than worthless. I have proposed one mechanism which is likely to work.  I'd like to see others face the problem and propose other less "radical" measures which will help the problem.  For example, the above proposal added to "Please do not bite the newcomers" could become quite reasonable.  For long term editors, edits could be reverted, with a link on the talk page; this should become the normal thing to do.  For newcomers or where we are feeling tolerant, other editors can try to ask for and add sources themselves.


 * I would like you to answer the question: Given that it has now been shown that Jimbo is the final arbiter and can remove content which offends other people if he wishes; what process should we use to ensure that he doesn't have to become morally responsible (let alone legally) for bad and inaccurate content on the site? Mozzerati 21:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Jimbo is no longer the final arbiter. That's what we have a board for. The board can remove Jimbo from his (admittedly exalted) position in Wikipedia any time they like, and/or reverse any of his decisions. We all hope they're not likely to. He's shown a great deal of vision and leadership.


 * His recent decisons were probably correct, however the "vision and leadership" I see is a) radical change (blocking anon page creation) and b) community consultation ("what do we do now"). We need to discuss how to improve this.  My proposal is designed to allow less radical change by simply encouraging stronger support for existing policies, including WP:V which already cover this.  Even if we remain the same, we need to justify it carefully to the outside world.  When our content upsets someone unfairly that is bad. Mozzerati 11:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Have a look at my church's wiki site for how I'm addressing this problem elsewhere. I'm serious about the comment on ten to twelve year olds. In Australia, they are learning critical reading (on which we should probably have an article) in primary school.


 * Yes, this is valuable, but it only meets half way. Twelve year olds are unlikely to have experienced marking a document draft, having someone else remove that message and then it having real world consequences.  Even if you are clear about who is at fault (someone else :-) then you tend to be a little more careful about that.  In our case, mirrors of our bad articles, which will stay around for months at least, mean we have to try to be more careful.


 * That's one of the reasons I suspect that making major changes to Wikipedia polity in an attempt to improve the quality of its articles is not a good direction. Fine tuning, yes. Andrewa 03:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Right, but this is a debate about what to do about a specific problem. Specific alternatives are really needed.  If you believe that the situation is really okay, then providing statistics which prove it would a) support your position with me and b) be a clear answer to critics.  For example, show that Britanica makes 5 libellous statements per 100,000 articles whilst we make only 3.  Or alternatively, show that we make 7 per 100,000, but Britanica misses out 5000 important facts which we include.  Further, show that when informed of these statements, it takes Britanica one year on average to correct them, whilst we do so in less than one week.  etc.


 * The onus of proof I think is with you, not with me. I'm questioning many of your suppositions. Let's start with the needed above.


 * Wikipedia is rather useful as it is. Not perfect, certainly. Why is it necessary to change it? What evidence do you have that the improvements you imagine are actually possible? If they are not possible, then whether they are needed is not terribly relevant.


 * Our specific problem here (the claim made in the RFC) is that sources cited through direct links are very misleading. In a page with 100 links to major media and 5 to radical crazy blogs, it's impossible to know which ones to check.  Where we don't know what the source is covernig.  For example if we say "John Lennon had a dog and five hundred cats" a source which just says says he had a dog is legitimate but misleading.  A source "John Lennon and his Pet Dog", Mr A.Crufts, 1974 is much more understandable.  A source  "John Lennon and his Pet Dog", Mr A.Crufts, apart from his family, John's only love in his life is his pet dog, Pet Magazine, 1974, immediately lets you know which fact is referenced and which isn't.


 * Perhaps then, one improvement that could be contemplated is to work on WP:CITE to make it more useful?


 * A little advice. Working on policy can be extremely frustrating. Most good ideas don't actually work, see What's in, what's out for one of mine that didn't. The ones that do work generally require a lot of hard work to get them going. The ones that don't work often require a lot of hard work just to find out that they don't work.


 * Perhaps improving our track record on citations will bear good dividends. It will be very hard work I predict, but no pain no gain. Here's one possible project to achieve this:


 * Work on WP:CITE to make it more appealing to contributors, and possibly on WP:V as well (more difficult as this is already a key policy).


 * Upgrade WP:CITE to a policy.


 * Promote awareness of WP:V.


 * Your advice is so good that I've been following it for ages. WP:FN was designed by me.  I have created quite alot of the current compromise text on english language sources in WP:V; inote is another proposal of mine specifically designed to be a carrot (and I managed to hook User:mav and User:Lord Emsworth if I may switch analogy for a second).  But the question is, how do we get people beyond general in principle agreement about ideal goals toward actual action.  I find it difficult enough to persuade myself to reference where I know I should.


 * Hmmmm, WP:FN seems more of a draft guideline than a real guideline. What processes did you follow for seeking discussion and adoption?


 * I didn't originally aim for adoptation so I didn't really push for adoption. It was meant as an experiment.  However, others liked it so much and village pump discussions were so successful that it ended up being added to the style and reference howto.  It's been discussed on WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:VP, etc. however  If you ask me, the most important thing it proves is that a referencing feature needs to be added to mediawiki.


 * If you don't like my solutions, please either suggest alternative solutions which make this checking easier or show how we can show it isn't needed. Mozzerati 11:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you find my input here frustrating! I'd like to provide the solution you want, but again I feel you are jumping the gun here. I agree that what you are proposing has merits. But I think we need to step back from your presumptions about what is needed. I don't think I need to prove that something is not needed just because you feel that it is. If we step back and say it's desirable rather than needed, then it becomes obvious that there may be many other considerations.


 * My wish is your... oh... oops.. no; I didn't use the word need and so I will just say I gave an answer to the question of how we can deal with edits like the ones Roylee is accused of making.


 * The basic problem I have with the proposals I've seen so far is that they are prescriptive. This was tried with Nupedia and failed, and IMO the reason it failed is that it doesn't support the postmodern ethos, which Wikipedia in its current form very much does. Or, to put this in a positive way, one reason that Wikipedia is succeeding is that it hits these hot buttons. My proposal above, you will notice, is all carrot to start out. The stick only follows once the carrot has been well and truly consumed. I don't see the carrot in your proposal at all. I think you need one.


 * Or, to put this another way, IMO many good edits fall short of the standards you are proposing. The question is, are we prepared to reject all these good edits in order to more easily reject the bad ones? I think not. So, the first step is to upgrade the good edits, to make them even better, so that the bad edits are more easily identified - and as a side effect, the good edits also become that much better.


 * I'm not sure what your proposal above is. If it is about reducing personal attacks, then I'll agree beyond belief.  Friendly experts can allow us to succeed like nothing else.  Annoying people and being rude to people is sure suicide for a wiki based community.  However, see User:Kate/WhyWikiPediaWorksNot for some suggestions from me about how to survive in a more hostile environment.  My (additional to existing wiki addiction) carrot is simple.  A visibly credible and useful wikipedia makes everybody's article more valuable and trusted.  That makes it more attractive to add to.  Similar effort creates something much more valuable.    Mozzerati 20:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * My proposal, or counter-proposal really, is the bit that starts Here's one possible project to achieve this and includes the three bullet points following it.


 * Or, it's also quite possible that what is happening now is actually less work! Andrewa 17:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You should try joining us on WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. In a good week we manage to verify one article.  I have managed better productivity with the trick of persuading Emsworth to Cite his Sources by providing him a custom referencing system to suit his needs.  Mozzerati 20:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I begin to get the picture. This project confuses verifiable with verified in the very first paragraph, but more serious, it's enormous. I wish you well with it, I have no doubt that your efforts are improving the articles you edit.


 * Actually, I think you misunderstand the scale of the project's ambition. The original author at least meant "verified against" (as in, they plan to verify it themselves; going to each individual source and matching it against the text) and they may possibly mean "verified by" (as in multiple independent editors should each go to each source and verify that the source matches the text).  The aim is to experimentally prove the verifiability of each article.  This makes it easy to understand why they aim to complete one article every two weeks (the current featured articles could be verified by 2036, the current Wikipedia should be verified by the year 35081).  My personal aim is much more modest, just a "verifiable" for many articles by getting people to add a good proportion of their sources.


 * But I'm very doubtful that forcing these standards on every editor is a good thing. They will appeal to a certain minority of potential contributors only. Andrewa 12:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Right; WP:FACT is an ideal to aspire to. However, the fact remains that it is much easier for the original editor to make the text verifiable by adding the sources used.  We "need" practical suggestions which won't disrupt the flow of work but will get people to add their sources.  Mozzerati 22:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * WP:FACT redirects to WikiProject Fact and Reference Check I see. It says its goal is to make it (Wikipedia) the most authoritative source of information in the world. I see many problems with that goal. Agree that contributors should be strongly encouraged to cite their sources, for exactly the reason you give: It's a lot less work to do it at the time of writing! (I have often regretted not being more thorough in this myself - and not just in Wikipedia.)


 * I'll think about more practical suggestions. I've made one, above, that WP:CITE could be improved IMO, and perhaps then upgraded to a policy.


 * But my other practical suggestion is one you don't want to hear: IMO, the rules you propose above are a bad idea. They're unlikely to be adopted, for two reasons. Firstly, Wikipedia has become to some extent institutionalised and reactionary. (That's not necessarily a bad thing.) Secondly, they're a risky and unnecessary venture.


 * Have a look at Referees for some of my long-ago thoughts on how we might make Wikipedia more authoritative without conflict with the established polity or ethos. Andrewa 03:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Unsigned comments
How do you expect anyone else to be able to follow this discussion when so many of the comments, at various degrees of indentation, are unsigned? Please go back and sign all your comments! u p p l a n d 07:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, no comments in this section are unsigned. The indentation clearly and accurately shows which comments belong with which signature. IMO this is an established convention on talk pages. To sign every paragraph seems unnecessary to me, although I can see how it could be strange at first, and it does assume everyone knows and follows the convention. Andrewa 22:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * With all nested indentations, it is not at all clear who wrote which comment. It may have been clear at first, before later replies became interspersed, but it is not clear to someone who comes to the page later. u p p l a n d 23:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: boast about not being "authoritative"

 * Wikipedia should is not Brittannica and should not be taken as gospel: indeed that's a benefit and attraction in that it should increase awareness of the need to view information critically, and avoids the traps that Brittannica sets when on occasion it's misleading or wrong. To me this is something we should be bold and upfront about. A short statement under the globe logo could help to reduce misunderstanding, misuse and misrepresentation of Wikipedia content, perhaps along these lines:
 * Anyone can edit Wikipedia and many have contributed to making it an extensive introduction to a huge range of topics. By its nature it is not definitive: always double check information, especially when citing Wikipedia.
 * The disclaimer already put up by Andrewa as an example shows another way of doing this which might work better, though a longer statement might have to go in a less prominent position, which would be a disadvantage. ...dave souza 14:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As has already been pointed out to me, every page has a small Disclaimers link at the bottom, but the intention is to draw this to the attention of people who aren't looking for the small print...dave souza 16:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this is a separate issue to the way we respond to Roylee, but it has dominated the discussion. Far from protecting Wikipedia, IMO misguided attempts to make it more authoritative risk destroying the whole project.


 * That's not to say we shouldn't continue to strive to improve the quality. We should be always upgrading our policies, procedures, guidelines, and of course articles. To attempt to stay still while the project continues to grow is even more dangerous than moving forward in the wrong direction. Andrewa 00:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * My thought on this is that people don't come to us for the freedom to edit. They come for the value of the content.  Afterwards they spot the edit button and eventually they find a reason to use it.  Until now, the judgement has been made on the face of the article.  Just as if it was any random internet page.  We have now reached the stage where we are seen differently.  No longer just a random site, we now have a reputation.  Unfortunately, the media largely sees us as a competitor and so that reputation isn't always good.  The ability of people to check for themselves; one fundamental principles of Wikipedia, is the thing that will make them decide that actually this is a valuable resource and actually they do want to contribute.  The idea that we actually carry out what we have always said we want to do, and ask contributors to provide clear verifiable sources will only help us to get more editors contributing valuable material.
 * Please note the difference between this (you know when Wikipedia is "authoritative" because you can check what the truth is) and other schemes which call for "expert editors" or "special fact checkers" which break the whole scheme by making one (possibly massively out of date) version of a page specially superior to the current version. It's something that can just be added into the wiki editing process in very simple and friendly ways.   Mozzerati 21:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)