Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
moved English212 to Members section
Line 200: Line 200:
==Notes==
==Notes==
<sup>1</sup> Example
<sup>1</sup> Example
We are fact checking and making other changes to "Kool-Aid". Thanks The Kool-Aid Jamers


==See also==
==See also==

Revision as of 14:50, 3 April 2006

Shortcut

Hello, welcome to the Fact and Reference Check WikiProject. The bold purpose of this project is nothing less than having facts in Wikipedia verified by multiple independent sources, to make it the most authoritative source of information in the world. This project works to achieve the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy.

We have some way to go before we attain this goal but this project will help Wikipedia on its way.

Why is this project necessary?

Wikipedia's Achilles heel is the perception that Wikipedia is not a "good" source of information, and that it is a less "definitive," or "authoritative" source than others. This perception likely comes from the idea that "normal" people could not competently create an encyclopedia (this in spite of the many academics that contribute to Wikipedia). Perhaps it is also the idea that at any time people could put in factual errors at will, as illustrated in the Isuzu Experiment.

This project is part of the solution to these issues. Not only can we make Wikipedia a more reputable source of information, we can make it the most reputable source of information. Imagine an article in which every fact is referenced with multiple sources! Wikipedia has the potential — hopefully the destiny — to be the most cross-referenced body of knowledge ever created, but to get there, it needs help.

In addition, this project would make vandalism much easier to spot. Right now, we must use the RC patrol page when we are unsure if a user has fixed erroneous information, or vandalized an article. If this project succeeds, then people on the lookout for vandalism only need to compare current information with the references listed.

Current work

Some have suggested that reference checking in the talk page in a subpage called 'Facts' like this one: Talk:Martin_Luther_King,_Jr./Facts. When the varification/reference code gets put into the next version of wiki, it should be easy to copy the work done at the end into the right places.

Articles which lack sources

References that need formatting

Stable versions

TENTATIVE

Biweekly special article

The current biweekly special article is listed at the top of the page. It'd be nice if all participating members should try to at least get three facts referenced in the article.

We have not yet agreed on what is considered to be the 'best' source to cite from. Until we do, you'll have to use your common sense. Please keep in mind that it should ideally be reputable as well as easy for users to access. Unreputable sources are better than no source at all, but it would be prudent to make a note of it in the article's talk page.

This article is currently a featured article candidate. The lack of references is not the only objection, but having more references would definitely help this article get to featured article status.

If you reference, you are encouraged to put the following code in the summary box to advertise for this project. Putting in this text is by no means necessary:

[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check|Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world]]

-Frazzydee|✍ 02:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Beland 20:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How to reference

Main page: Wikipedia:Cite sources

There is no consensus on which citation style is preferred; therefore, you may cite in whatever style you please. Please try to use one of these styles, but if the choice is between either using one of these formats or not citing at all, please just cite improperly! Another Wikipedian may come along and fix it for you, but even if they don't, it's much better than nothing! However, editors are warned about changing citation styles.[1]

You should not manually create footnotes. Instead, you should use either {{an}}/{{anb}} or {{ref}}/{{note}} to autonumber footnotes. This ensures that they will not have to be updated manually with each new reference. More details can be found at Wikipedia:Footnotes

Proper citation style is usually preferred in Wikipedia, since it gives all necessary information. It can sometimes be imperative for a reader to know when a webpage was accessed, since some sites (Wikipedia is a great example) are updated frequently. To help you along with this, Alterego has created 'WikiBib' to format citations in MLA format.

Format proposals

see also present talk at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Inline links discouraged in favor of more complete sources

Right now there is discussion as to the best format in which to include references within an article. The following are some existing approaches.

Footnotes numbered using templates

These pages follow the Footnote3 proposal. For a complete list of pages using this method, see pages using the "Ref" Template)

Manually coded footnotes

An exellent example of how an article can have fact information. The ability to hide footnotes, for those that complain about the flow of reading etc., should be coded in so all parties are happy.

Manually coded footnotes (2)

As you can see, we are limited on what we can do with current wikimarkup. It is my hope that footnote wikimarkup will be coded in that allows for the <<bracketing>> of text that will autonumber the footnote.

Please see Wikipedia:Footnotes - the proposed format may work. (If not, I want to know so I can fix it! JesseW 09:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Separate section for statement of references

For some reason the formatting, as I have it, does not look neat. Feel free to copy the section below and create your own sub example.

Separate "Sources" namespace or subpage

A new namespace for "Sources", like Talk:. See also the rfe.

Examples:

Pros.
  • It easily allows a single fact to have multiple sources, see R. C. Sherriff/Sources.
  • Wikipedia articles look like encyclopedia articles.
  • See what happens when we get serious about adding references by having several sources for a single fact, and using those references for several facts; a footnoted version. Because the article dates are not marked up using RFC3339, it's hard to tell which sources are for the years simply, and which are for the full dates, unless it's mentioned in the footnote name. It's also very difficult to markup. Now compare R. C. Sherriff/Sources.
Cons.
  • It's difficult if contributors have trouble understanding namespaces.
Now make this easy for a editor to use and we might be getting someplace. Stirling Newberry 15:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, my rfe 2745[2] for a separate References editing window could work for References in its own namespace. (SEWilco 17:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
How can one be sure that internet references are actually correct. People could be putting anything in the other sites and frequently do. The IMDB is shot full of mistakes. Williamb 07:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is true of any source. The answer is multiple sources, knowledge of the authors, etc... IMDB is useful as a first-level source; checking facts in it from other sources is certainly good though. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Fact checking does not break copyright, so we may cross reference article information in Wikipedia with other sources such as: Encyclopedias, Text books, Speeches, Newspapers, Magazines, Electronic articles, Movies, Television, Journals, Books, Websites, and Gazettes.

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Sources

Searching and referencing books via Google Book Search

Google Book Search is a great way to reference books, and services such as this are ideal. They give us the veracity of published books, and the convenience of online sources. To search it, search http://print.google.com . For example, to search for mentions of Michael Ledeen in printed books, use the following Google search: "Michael Ledeen" on print.google.com. You should find scanned pages from the book.

When you find books on Google Print, don't link directly to that page. Instead, include a standard reference (author, title, ISBN) in the usual book format.

List of code features

Recommendations

  • Automatically generate a list of references that people are using for all articles, like how Catagory autogenerates the list. For example if someone in the Spiders article used Encarta as a source Encarta would be added automatically to this list.
  • Have the ability to hide the list (or have it hidden by default and the ability to make it reappear)
  • rating system for articles and editors, as explained above - pir
  • Why not simply make a separate tab for it at the top (with its own namespace, a la Talk, perhaps)? Show "article" "references" "discussion", and then "edit this page", etc.? For those who might miss seeing this, perhaps have an additional standardized link to the article's "references" page at the bottom of the article, under "See Also", or as the lead-in to "External links", or some such. Catherine | talk 01:17, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Related projects

List of articles that have been referenced by format

Quoted Fact - Multireference

Notes - References Seperate

Members

Since this project is so big, it maybe be helpful to label what people's roles are (i.e. fact checker, source designer, fact numberer, article formatter, suggestions).

  • ShaunMacPherson - Fact Checker, Fact Numberer, Recommendations
  • Frazzydee: I wouldn't be able to create the script or implement it, but I would be happy to go around verifying facts.
  • Fred Bauder 15:47, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC) I'll follow this project and support it. Down and dirty going through articles, no as once you get started I'll have my hands full justifying prior entries. I just need to develop better habits of citing sources as do most Wikipedia editors
  • Sewing - I'll lend ideas as I think of them, but I'm too busy with other things to devote much time to this right now, even though it is undeniably a critical issue for Wikipedia...
  • Danny - I would like to be involved in some way.
  • JFW | T@lk 19:26, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) - Experienced in (and enjoying) journals (mainly medical ones), aims to provide exact references[3].
  • Jmabel - Consider me a supporter. Not sure how involved I'll be.
  • Quinobi -General support - reference and relevance tools - tractor driver
  • JesseW - Supporter. Great idea. I've been doing this piecemeal, but it's nice to see a project set up.
  • Pedant fact checking, recruiting... count me in, I'll factcheck anything, drop a link to the article and a quick note on my talk page, if I can't do it I'll point out the part I couldn't do to someone else.
  • Ta bu shi da yu Sure, why not. I'll lend a hand in computing articles, and articles about Australia. Also, any articles about exploding whales will be cool with me also. Cheers. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:16, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Neoconned 16:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) - I intend to (very slowly) continue referencing work on a previous Biweekly Special Article, Leonardo da Vinci. This is not because I have a particular interest in da Vinci, but simply because I'd like to see the job finished!
  • Taxman - Will fact check and tirelessly work to encourage others to research and properly reference articles. Currently working on the list I compiled of featured articles with references problems
  • ➥the Epopt -- fact checker, especially on military subjects
  • Alterego Formatting citations properly and helping articles that have no citations by including them.
  • SlimVirgin - I'd like to be involved in some way. I'm becoming increasingly fed up with editors not citing their sources (and often having none to cite because what they're writing is just plain wrong). Wikipedia is picked up by mirror sites and reproduced without editing, so our factual errors spread fast. I'd be happy to fact-check.
  • David Gerard - trying to encourage referencing as a habit in general. Then we might have something to check!
  • WikiUser - Supporter, fact checker, suggestions, other. I'm an English language teacher and have a degree in computing.
  • Mozzerati - supporter, heavy user of references, converter of pages to footnote usage.
  • Taku - My god, this is awesome. This is the best thing ever happened in the history of Wikipedia!
  • Pearlg - Fact checker, primarily in political science, general science, and engineering.
  • JustDerek - As a genealogist, the impulse to cite sources is near and dear to my heart. Formatter, fact-checker, etc. and I have suggestions for standardization of citation/reference format.
  • Nichalp -- will attest sources, whenever necessary.
  • CAnderson -- Willing to help with fact checking and adding references, especially in linguistics and medieval history.
  • — mark ✎ — Wikipedia's Verifiability is precious. I'm fact checking in the domain of (African) languages and linguistics.
  • Peter Farago - I hereby declare my eternal fealty to the citation jihad. No quarter for uncited assertions!
  • Viriditas | Talk - Checking citations for accurate usage is important.
  • Wikibooks:SV Resolution | Talk Self-declared member of the Wikijunior auxilliary, currently embarking on fact-checking of Wikijunior book Our Solar System
  • Courtland 01:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC) ... very supportive of the efforts here as I think they are essential, and quite concerned with the apparent lack of will to reference on the part of most editors.[reply]
  • Epolk 17:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC) - Fact checking and referencing for United States Federal Government agencies and science topics.[reply]
  • HappyCamper 23:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC) - any fact checking, particularly quantum chemistry related[reply]
  • Johnleemk - I've been campaigning for better referencing for quite a while, as I feel we need to get the habit of citing sources inculcated in our Wikipedia culture on the same level as bolding an article title. I cite sources for whatever suits my fancy, but I tend to focus on economics-, business- and politics-related articles.
  • Johntex - fact checking on articles I encounter. Also conversion of existing references to the preferred ref-note style.
  • P.MacUidhir (t) (c) - I am interested in doing fact-checking / providing article citations / whatever for any articles related to northern Europe in general, pagan religions, library science, Celtic languages, and Germanic languages. Topics that focus on items/events/people after 1650 C.E. do not much interest me. Anything older usually *will* catch my interest. Requests can be posted to my (talk page).
  • --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC) Spreading the word with {{unreferenced}}[reply]
  • Voice of All. I'm in. We need this and semi-protect to trim out the lard. Charts, percents, I like checking those...
  • Spangineeres (háblame) We need more inline citations in this place...
  • Ian Pitchford Fact checker etc. --Ian Pitchford 17:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Satanael Count me in. I'm not too keen on writing an A+ essay for each edit, but I'll provide info and sources whenever possible. See my personal page and make requests for something you want. Satanael 22:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adamsan. Splendid idea, I am a recent convert to footnoting everything but can certainly check any claims relating to archaeology, cultural traditions and the past in general. adamsan 11:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andries Volunteer to check references in Dutch and German language. I believe that strictly confining ourselves to English language hurts the scope and the quality of the English language Wikipedia. Sometimes non-English language sources are simply better. Andries 23:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jleybov 23:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC) - hoping to implement some of the requested features in software[reply]
  • Avi 20:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC) - I often attempt to track down and reference basic facts using Harvard/MLA style if possible, or at the very least adding reference section.[reply]
  • deeptrivia (talk · contribs) — Extremely important wikiproject.
  • MSJapan Factchecking on Japan and Japanese sources in particular, and just about anything else in general. MSJapan 08:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • English212 We are a group from Saginaw Valley State University. We are fact checking the Child Labor Article. Tahnk you — Preceding unsigned comment added by English212 (talk • contribs)
You!

Notes

1 Example We are fact checking and making other changes to "Kool-Aid". Thanks The Kool-Aid Jamers

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check&oldid=46757154"