Jump to content

User:HighInBC/Wikilinks are not references

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The purpose of this essay is to explain that wikilinks are not references. I hope to explain that demanding reliable third party references over wikilinks is not just policy wonking, but an important requirement to improving the encyclopedia.

Regarding lists

[edit]

There seems to be a myth out there that lists do not need to be cited. This is just not true.

Partial summary of Wikipedia:List guideline#Criteria for inclusion in lists:

  • Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources
  • Wikipedia:No original research applies equally to a list of like things as it does for the content article on each individual thing listed
  • The verifiability policy states that "articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors should therefore provide references."
  • Inclusion on the list should be based on what reliable sources say.
  • Uncited facts should be marked with a {{fact}} tag, and eventually removed unless cited

Notes

[edit]

Examples of articles that were "cited" with wikilinks only, and the results of actually checking the linked articles for citations:

  • Results: Out of 26 items in the list, 8 have them had citations in their articles. Less than 1/3rd of them were cited.
  • Unfortunately this article is plagued by drive by additions that do not meet criteria and needs plenty of maintenance. Until(1 == 2) 00:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Results: Out of 41 items in the list, only 13 actually had citations in the articles, that is less than 1/3rd of them
  • This cleanup gained the attention of others, and the list was cited further, resulting in a full 38 of them being sourced(but not from sources in the articles they were linked to, ones that were found).
  • Results: Out of 156 items in the list, only 88 actually had citations in the articles. Just a little over half were sourced.