|
add another incoming link, WP:CAPTAINOBVIOUS
|
|
||
| (41 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{redirect|WP:BLUE|the blue link color|Help:Link color|the guideline about two or more adjacent links|MOS:SEAOFBLUE}} |
|||
{{essay|WP:FACTS|WP:BLUE|WP:BLUESKY|WP: |
{{essay|WP:FACTS|WP:BLUE|WP:BLUESKY|WP:OBV|WP:SKYBLUE|WP:PALLMALLISPINK}} |
||
{{nutshell|Although [[Wikipedia:Cite your sources|citing sources]] is an important part of editing Wikipedia, there is no need to cite information that is already obvious.}} |
{{nutshell|Although [[Wikipedia:Cite your sources|citing sources]] is an important part of editing Wikipedia, there is no need to cite information that is already obvious.}} |
||
[[File: |
[[File:Zygaena filipendulae on Avena sativa.jpg|thumb|right|Which of these things needs a citation?]] |
||
[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]] is an important and core policy of Wikipedia. Article content should be backed up by [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources]] wherever needed to show that the presentation of material on Wikipedia is consistent with the views that are presented in scholarly discourse or the world at large. Such sources help to improve the encyclopedia. |
[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]] is an important and core policy of Wikipedia. Article content should be backed up by [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources]] wherever needed to show that the presentation of material on Wikipedia is consistent with the views that are presented in scholarly discourse or the world at large. Such sources help to improve the encyclopedia. |
||
However, many editors misunderstand the citation policy, seeing it as a tool to enforce, reinforce, or cast doubt upon a particular point of view in a content dispute, rather than as a means to verify Wikipedia's information. |
However, many editors misunderstand the citation policy, seeing it as a tool to enforce, reinforce, or cast doubt upon a particular point of view in a content dispute, rather than as a means to verify Wikipedia's information. This can lead to several forms of mildly [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive editing]] which are better avoided. Ideally, [[Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means#Use common sense|common sense]] would always be applied, but site history shows this is unrealistic. Therefore, this essay gives some practical advice. |
||
Not citing common knowledge and not providing bibliographic entries for very famous works is also consistent with major academic [[style guide]]s, such as ''[[The MLA Style Manual]]'' and the [[APA style guide]]. |
Not citing common knowledge and not providing bibliographic entries for very famous works is also consistent with major academic [[style guide]]s, such as ''[[The MLA Style Manual]]'' and the [[APA style guide]]. |
||
Since all material that is either [[Wikipedia:Challenged|challenged]] or [[WP:LIKELY|likely to be challenged]] must be cited, if someone else is already challenging material as false or misleading, then it needs an [[Wikipedia:Inline citation|inline citation]]. Remember to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and consider that something that may be obvious to you [[WP:RANDY|may not be obvious to them]], and that many things that "everyone knows" [[List of common misconceptions|turn out to be false]]. |
|||
== Pedantry, and other didactic arguments == |
== Pedantry, and other didactic arguments == |
||
{{shortcut|WP:PEDANTRY}} |
|||
Sometimes editors will insist on citations for material simply because they dislike it or prefer some other material, not because the material in any way needs verification. |
Sometimes editors will insist on citations for material simply because they dislike it or prefer some other material, not because the material in any way needs verification. For example, an editor may demand a citation to verify that most people have five digits on each hand.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Finger&diff=prev&oldid=166357603 22 October 2007] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Finger&diff=prev&oldid=824625957&diffmode=source 8 February 2018] edits to [[Finger]]</ref> Another may insist that the color of the sky is <em>aqua</em> rather than <em>blue</em>, while providing spectroscopic analyses as part of an assortment of verifiable evidencetosupport their position. Simultaneously, they demand that other editors show equivalent support in reliable sources for the claim that the sky is <em>in fact</em> blue. While there are times when this insistent attention to detail is useful or necessary, it is often simply disruptive and can be dismissed, as there is no need to verify statements that are obvious. Additional claims besides the obvious ones may merit inclusion according to site policies and guidelines, but they should in no way be given greater prominence because they happen to be sourced. |
||
== Over-tagging == |
== Over-tagging == |
||
Wikipedia has several templates for tagging material that needs verification: inline templates for particular lines, section templates, and article templates. See [[Wikipedia:Template messages]]. Sometimes editors will go through an article and add dozens of the inline tags, along with several section and article tags, making the article essentially unreadable (see [[WP:TAGBOMBING]]). As a rule, if there are more than 2 or 3 inline tags they should be removed and replaced with a section tag; if there are more than 2 section tags in a section they should be removed and replaced with a single '[[template:Multiple issues|Multiple issues]]' tag. If there are more than two or three sections tagged, those tags should be removed, and the entire article should be tagged. |
Wikipedia has several templates for tagging material that needs verification: inline templates for particular lines, section templates, and article templates. See [[Wikipedia:Template messages]]. Sometimes editors will go through an article and add dozens of the inline tags, along with several section and article tags, making the article essentially unreadable (see [[WP:TAGBOMBING]]). As a rule, if there are more than 2 or 3 inline tags they should be removed and replaced with a section tag; if there are more than 2 section tags in a section they should be removed and replaced with a single '[[template:Multiple issues|Multiple issues]]' tag. If there are more than two or three sections tagged, those tags should be removed, and the entire article should be tagged. |
||
Verification tags should not be used in a [[Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point|POINT]]ed fashion. Use only those tags necessary to illustrate the problem, and discuss the matter in detail on the talk page. |
Verification tags should not be used in a [[Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point|POINT]]ed fashion. Use only those tags necessary to illustrate the problem, and discuss the matter in detail on the talk page. |
||
| Line 19: | Line 23: | ||
{{See|Wikipedia:Citation overkill|Wikipedia:Citation underkill#Overciting content}} |
{{See|Wikipedia:Citation overkill|Wikipedia:Citation underkill#Overciting content}} |
||
Citations should be evaluated on the qualities they bring to the article, not on the quantity of citations available. The first 1 or 2 citations supporting a given point are informative; extra citations after that begin to be argumentative. Keep in mind that the purpose of a citation is to guide the reader to external sources where the reader can verify the idea presented, not to prove to other editors the strength of the idea. Extra sources for the same idea should be added to 'Further Reading', 'See Also' |
Citations should be evaluated on the qualities they bring to the article, not on the quantity of citations available. The first 1 or 2 citations supporting a given point are informative; extra citations after that begin to be argumentative. Keep in mind that the purpose of a citation is to guide the reader to external sources where the reader can verify the idea presented, not to prove to other editors the strength of the idea. Extra sources for the same idea should be added to '[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Further reading|Further Reading]]', '[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#"See also" section|See Also]]' or '[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#External links|External Sources]]' sections at the bottom of the page, without explicitly being cited in the text. |
||
== Citing everything == |
|||
A common misconception when improving an article, particularly towards [[WP:GA|Good Article status]], is that ''everything'' must be cited to an inline source, which leads to comments such as "the end of paragraph 3 is uncited", without specifying ''why'' that is an issue. In fact, the [[WP:WIAGA|Good Article criteria]] merely state that inline citations are required for "''direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons''". While that covers much, most, or possibly even (in the case of [[WP:BLP|biographies of living people]]) all content in an article, it does not imply that you must cite ''everything everywhere'' for ''every single article, period''. |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
==== Wikipedia guidelines ==== |
|||
| ⚫ |
* [[Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue|Wikipedia:You ''do'' need to cite that the sky is blue]], the opposing essay |
||
* |
* {{section link|Wikipedia:No original research|Routine calculations}} |
||
| ⚫ | |||
* [[Wikipedia:Common knowledge]] |
* [[Wikipedia:Common knowledge]] |
||
| ⚫ | |||
* {{section link|Wikipedia:When to cite|When a source may not be needed}} |
* {{section link|Wikipedia:When to cite|When a source may not be needed}} |
||
* {{section link| |
* {{section link|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking|What generally should not be linked}} |
||
| ⚫ |
* [[Wikipedia:Why most sentences should be cited]] |
||
==== Wikipedia user essays ==== |
|||
| ⚫ | * [[Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue|Wikipedia:You ''do'' need to cite that the sky is blue]], the opposing essay |
||
| ⚫ | |||
* [[Wikipedia:Must I add a citation?]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:The Pope is Catholic]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Don't be a WikiBigot]] |
|||
* {{section link|User:Uncle G/On sources and content|There are no exceptions to everything}} |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
* [[Wikipedia:You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth]], for when a reliable source claims the sky is bright green |
|||
==== Related articles ==== |
|||
* [[Judicial notice]], a legal rule that allows irrefutable, well-known facts to be introduced into evidence |
* [[Judicial notice]], a legal rule that allows irrefutable, well-known facts to be introduced into evidence |
||
* [[Common knowledge]] |
|||
* [[Argumentum ad populum]] |
* [[Argumentum ad populum]] |
||
* [[ |
* [[Common knowledge]] |
||
* [[WP:WikiBigotry]] |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
* [[WP:OVERLINK]] |
|||
==Notes== |
==Notes== |
||
 |
This is an essay.
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Although citing sources is an important part of editing Wikipedia, there is no need to cite information that is already obvious. |
Verifiability is an important and core policy of Wikipedia. Article content should be backed up by reliable sources wherever needed to show that the presentation of material on Wikipedia is consistent with the views that are presented in scholarly discourse or the world at large. Such sources help to improve the encyclopedia.
However, many editors misunderstand the citation policy, seeing it as a tool to enforce, reinforce, or cast doubt upon a particular point of view in a content dispute, rather than as a means to verify Wikipedia's information. This can lead to several forms of mildly disruptive editing which are better avoided. Ideally, common sense would always be applied, but site history shows this is unrealistic. Therefore, this essay gives some practical advice.
Not citing common knowledge and not providing bibliographic entries for very famous works is also consistent with major academic style guides, such as The MLA Style Manual and the APA style guide.
Since all material that is either challengedorlikely to be challenged must be cited, if someone else is already challenging material as false or misleading, then it needs an inline citation. Remember to assume good faith and consider that something that may be obvious to you may not be obvious to them, and that many things that "everyone knows" turn out to be false.
Sometimes editors will insist on citations for material simply because they dislike it or prefer some other material, not because the material in any way needs verification. For example, an editor may demand a citation to verify that most people have five digits on each hand.[1] Another may insist that the color of the sky is aqua rather than blue, while providing spectroscopic analyses as part of an assortment of verifiable evidence to support their position. Simultaneously, they demand that other editors show equivalent support in reliable sources for the claim that the sky is in fact blue. While there are times when this insistent attention to detail is useful or necessary, it is often simply disruptive and can be dismissed, as there is no need to verify statements that are obvious. Additional claims besides the obvious ones may merit inclusion according to site policies and guidelines, but they should in no way be given greater prominence because they happen to be sourced.
Wikipedia has several templates for tagging material that needs verification: inline templates for particular lines, section templates, and article templates. See Wikipedia:Template messages. Sometimes editors will go through an article and add dozens of the inline tags, along with several section and article tags, making the article essentially unreadable (see WP:TAGBOMBING). As a rule, if there are more than 2 or 3 inline tags they should be removed and replaced with a section tag; if there are more than 2 section tags in a section they should be removed and replaced with a single 'Multiple issues' tag. If there are more than two or three sections tagged, those tags should be removed, and the entire article should be tagged.
Verification tags should not be used in a POINTed fashion. Use only those tags necessary to illustrate the problem, and discuss the matter in detail on the talk page.
Citations should be evaluated on the qualities they bring to the article, not on the quantity of citations available. The first 1 or 2 citations supporting a given point are informative; extra citations after that begin to be argumentative. Keep in mind that the purpose of a citation is to guide the reader to external sources where the reader can verify the idea presented, not to prove to other editors the strength of the idea. Extra sources for the same idea should be added to 'Further Reading', 'See Also' or 'External Sources' sections at the bottom of the page, without explicitly being cited in the text.
