 | 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. |
For a long time I've thought Wikipedia's reference requirements could be better. While newspaper references are great, for instance, there are now fewer and fewer newspapers. At the same time, journalism by media such as blogging is growing rapidly. Like blogs, Wikipedia is a creature of the internet, and I believe it works better with online sources than with print sources. This should be taken into account. Wikipedia is also full of unreferenced statements that, while often valid, are officially forbidden.
In order to take advantage of the new citizen journalism, while keeping it in perspective, I propose differentiating references, by quality, into the following levels:
- Level 1: Theoretically verifiable statements of fact that are otherwise encyclopedic, but have no references. I believe these have a place in Wikipedia, if only for documenting the rapidly changing memes of our culture. If there is a dispute over the veracity of such a statement, even if the disputer also lacks references, the statement should be removed.
- Level 2: A Level-1-type statement with a reference to any web site that does not appear to have been written by the Wikipedian posting the statement. In cases where there is doubt about the authorship of the website, the usual procedures for dispute resolution apply, but a principal of "innocent until proven guilty" (or in this case convicted by consensus) should apply.
- Level 3: A Level-1-type statement with a reference to a blog or site by a person who has a Wikipedia article about them. This person is usually not the Wikipedian who posted the statement, though it may be. If it is clear that the author of the blog or site has no knowledge of the topic discussed, this should have no more weight than a Level 2 statement, but again a principal of "innocent until convicted by consensus" should apply.
- Level 4: A Level-1-type statement with a reference to a blog or site affiliated with an unbiased, factual publication or news organization which has a Wikipedia article about it. (The Onion doesn't count, for instance.) Note that this does not require the referenced text to be purely factual; op-eds fit here. If it is clear that the author of the blog or site has no knowledge of the topic discussed, this should have no more weight than a Level 2 statement, but again a principal of "innocent until convicted by consensus" should apply. Op-eds should probably also go here.
- Level 5: The normal fact-checked news article level.
Each reference level trumps every level below it. Level 5 trumps all other references.