User talk:Hellknowz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:H3llkn0wz)
Jump to: navigation, search

   Have a my BOT-related message? Please post on the H3llBot's talk page or Article alerts discussion page. Thank you!

Minecraft mods[edit]

I understand your objection to the first few revisions I made to Minecraft mods, but the last time, I was only building on the established source with a bit more information. I think that, in this instance, self-published sources are acceptable. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The article is well-sourced, so we don't want to go back to primary and unsourced statements. The simplest reason is WP:BURDEN -- whoever adds material has to show it is verifiable. Self-published sources are only acceptable for small, unambiguous facts. Anything that goes beyond simple "sky is blue" is undue weight to primary sources. The article is not lacking details, because we couldn't write them -- we don't write them, because it's not described in reliable secondary sources. To quote policy, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." Reliable sources don't cover extended gameplay details for mods, and neither should we in an overview page in an encyclopedia.
To elaborate why such additions work counter to good sourcing. Mixing primary sources is what WP:SYNTH explains to avoid. We might write "BC has machines and pipes". Then source "machines" part to a reliable source and "pipes" part to a forum post by developer. The problem is that this isn't accurate. In fact, the semi-right way would be to say "BC has machines. The developer also said it has pipes." When we don't mix sourcing, it's much clearer what the issue is. What if the developer says BC has space suits. We would then need to say "The developer also said it has space suits". We know it's wrong, but if we accept primary sources, we have to include it. Or what if one developer has hundreds of pages about their tiny mod and another huge mod has none? We would have to only covert the tiny mod for additional details even though reliable sources might do the opposite. In other words, you added information you know is true and relevant, because you likely have played the mods yourself. But it doesn't mean we can reliably show it to be true. One can find all kinds of outdated, biased, incomplete and plain incorrect posts by developers. This is why we use independent sources that do fact-checking. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah, so mixing sources is counter to verifiability. That makes sense, and I'll keep that in mind. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)