Category talk:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Due to recent events, I believe every article needs to be verified soon after its creation. Wikipedia's reputation depends on it. Other sites copy whole articles from us verbatim, and when our information is incorrect, things that aren't true get taken for the truth. All new articles and all articles that haven't been through here need to go through here. —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 00:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this list of articles a bit too big?[edit]

Are some of the articles formerly in need of factual verification, and if so, shouldn't they be removed from the list? Kirbytime 05:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can tell if the tag needs to be removed. Certainly if you are expanding something and you add links that confirm all yourpoints, you can remove the tag... I don' know the difference between this and needing refs. Anyway, I'm proposing that this category be sorted by date to start things moving. If you wan to comment on this proposal, please talk at Wikipedia talk:Maintenance--Rayc 21:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


Shouldn't this be just "Articles needing factual verification" as all the articles listed or that could be listed are Wikipedia articles - unless we start adding Wikinews articles or indexing Citizendium articles :) --Trödel 20:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a plan for self-refernce categories to begin with "Wikipedia". Rich Farmbrough, 19:33 10 January 2007 (GMT).

Split by month[edit]

We should perhaps do this, the same way as the other major cleanup categories. Comments? Rich Farmbrough, 19:35 10 January 2007 (GMT).

And now that this has been done, perhaps we should remove the focus letter, which only leads to the recent additions. Kevin 23:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Providing a resource to help users contribute more easily?[edit]

Per User:Sadads's suggestion to my concern in the Community Portal Talk page, could it be helpful to provide the external link/resource Citation hunt actually ON the main page for, so as to give users a tool that might help them contribute? If they see the resource that allows them to select "what makes them tick" and thus customize to their own interests, perhaps it could enhance user participation, thereby helping out the project.

I'm imagining something to the effect of a line underneath the "Use the (Tl|Verify source) or (Tl|Nonspecific) tags to put articles into this category." saying "Hey users! If you would like to help out with this task, but the 120 categories in the list containing 5,413 articles seems overwhelming or daunting, try using this resource to narrow articles to things that suit your own personal interest: Citation hunt"

Basically anything to do some of the work for them, so would-be editors aren't met immediately with overwhelm, such that they give up and think "nah, why bother?" PolymathGirl (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bush6984: I boldy added a small section, based on what I have been adding to other backlog pages. I would love to see more games like Citation Hunt made available for folks. Feel free to tweak the version I added, Sadads (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@Sadads: I like it! The visual display, clickable link, and unambiguous wording are very clear and concise. I personally approve. Whether or not others likewise find it justifiable we'll have to wait and see. This is definitely a beautiful step in the right direction, and hopefully will encourage folks to join in the effort! PolymathGirl (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)