Wikipedia-edit-a-thon

Trust and citations

Because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, how do we know we can trust what we are reading? Well, just like any resource, one of the main ways trust is created is by using references to credible sources. When credible sources are cited (which allows us to verify the information), we can feel more confident that something is true.

In the same way, when we incorporate references by citing them in our own writing, whether in a research paper for class or in a Wikipedia article, it backs up and supports what we are saying. It also gives what we are saying a greater voice of authority, because it isn’t just us saying something, but also this book, magazine article, or newspaper article.

For Wikipedia to be seen as a trustworthy resource, we need to be able to see that the information is based on something and not just being made up. To trust that an article on Wikipedia is credible, we need to see exactly where the information on that Wikipedia article is coming from. Citations which link to those resources are the basis of how we trust what we see when read Wikipedia.

And when we change roles from reader to editor, it is the citations we include, or the lack of them, that often plays a deciding factor in changes we have made either sticking around or getting quickly deleted.

Trolls

On the internet, trolls want to create conflict and anger. Often, trolls also want to destroy things they disagree with or don’t value. This can come in a variety of forms.

On Wikipedia, this often comes in the form of deleting updates to pages on people and subjects the troll disagrees with or dislikes. This also often leads to the troll calling for the deletion of pages that they consider insignificant, or in Wikipedia terms, not notable. This happens particularly with new pages that might not be as well developed or have as many citations. Again, this is often a reflection of personal beliefs and biases of the troll more than a reflection of anything about the actual notability of the topic of the page in question.

This is slightly different from vandalism on Wikipedia, though vandals are often called trolls as well. For our purposes here, vandals delete content for the sake of deleting content, or they create malicious content with a goal of misleading or being funny. The goal of the vandal is to destroy or create misinformation.

To oversimplify:

• Vandals delete content or edit content to be malicious and funny
• Trolls delete content to challenge the value of the subject being covered

Credible citations are a shield against trolls

While not much can be done to protect against vandals (except reverting changes to before the vandalization took place), credible citations can work to try to shield new Wikipedia content and edits from trolls. There is no guarantee, of course, but credible citations help protect new edits by backing up what has been adding which helps ensure any changes are left in place.

In 2020 terms: credible citations are like face masks. They are not 100% going to prevent the coronavirus of deletion, but they are an essential first step to prevention. No new Wikipedia edit should venture out into the world without a citation facemask to help protect it.

What makes a citation a credible citation?

Credible citations, as described by Wikipedia, are verifiable, reliable, and independent.

Something is verifiable when someone else can look up the same resource and confirm the information in that resource.

Reliability happens on a spectrum. Books and scholarly articles are generally seen as more reliable than magazines and newspapers which are generally seen as more reliable than websites.

For a resource to be seen as independent means that it doesn’t come from someone directly involved in the subject of the Wikipedia page.

For more information on credible sources, see below.

Credible citations and marginalized artists

For anyone working on Wikipedia pages about artists who are from a marginalized group, this can be a significant challenge because these artists are frequently underrepresented in traditional “credible” media sources. Often these artists have very limited resources discussing them, and their personal websites cannot be used as the primary source of information, since primary reference materials for a Wikipedia page need to be from someone not affiliated with the subject of the page being edited.

Note that the artist’s websites can probably be used to provide limited additional details (if there are no other options), but they should not be the main source of information. Doing so increases the chances that someone, troll or not, will flag the changes made as being from a non-credible source.

For more information on credible sources, see below.

Notability and citations on Wikipedia

Wikipedia has many reasons, legitimate or not, for why notability is important for the existence of a page. But the reality is that finding resources that are considered credible by Wikipedia standards is an issue that extends far beyond Wikipedia and brings up issues of systemic bias by mainstream media sources that focuses on some artists and not others.

Also, in the end, changes made to a page that don’t provide verifiable and credible sources, are changes that are adding information with no evidence to back up what is being said. Again, because Wikipedia wants to function as a reliable and trustworthy resource, information presented needs to have references to credible resources.

Wikipedia does encourage editors to consider notability beyond the evidence presented in a page as it currently exists, but many trolls use a lack of citations as a tool to delete changes or even entire pages.

As editors, our best protection to our new edits is robust citations from numerous sources as credible as can be found.

Given how critical it is to use credible sources to document the information that we are adding to a Wikipedia article, here are a couple videos that give some more information.

University of Washington Libraries: Research 101: Credibility is Contextual (YouTube)

Watch this video on YouTube | More videos by the University of Washington Libraries

 

Hartness Library: Credible Websites? (YouTube)

Watch this video on YouTube | More videos by Hartness Library

These videos look at the idea of what is or isn't a credible source, and that depending on context and source, even a tweet might be a credible source. Also, the second video looks into the idea that even biased work might be used, as long as the bias is acknowledged. Acknowledging bias is a key part of maintain the neutral point of view that Wikipedia is striving for.