User:Thebiguglyalien/The source, the whole source, and nothing but the source
 | This is an essay on the Original research and Neutral point of view policies. 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. |
 | This page in a nutshell:
|
When giving sworn testimony in many countries, one must swear an oath that they will tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". But on Wikipedia, we have a higher standard of verifiability, not truth. To write an honest article, you should swear a different oath: that the information you provide is from the source, the whole source, and nothing but the source.
Most editors use sources, but surprisingly few adhere to this oath. This is unfortunate, because these practices are essential to make an article truly verifiable, comprehensive, and neutral.
Your oath as an editor
[edit]The source
[edit]This is the easy one.
Everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable, and facts are verified using sources. The best way to support information in an article is to cite every claim with a source, even when it seems obviously true. This verifies not only that it's true, but that's it's relevant to the subject. Start by finding a source about the topic. Then read the source. As you read, take the facts down so you can add them to the article. Don't add anything until you've read it in a source, otherwise you're writing the article backward.
The whole source
[edit]This one isn't hard, but it takes dedication.
When you read the source, don't just pull one fact from it and call it a job well done. It's very rare that a relevant source only has one noteworthy fact about the subject. Instead, take all relevant facts until there's nothing useful left to take. There are two reasons to do this. The first is obvious: a thorough article is more valuable than an empty article. The second reason is more subtle but just as important. If you only take the facts that you're interested in, it makes the article lopsided so that it no longer represents information in the same proportion as the sources.
If you want to write a really impressive article, then find a book about the subject, make yourself some coffee or tea, and go through chapter by chapter, page by page, finding everything relevant. Then find a few more books and do the same thing. By the time you're done, you'll have a comprehensive article that represents the information as it appears in the sources, and featured article status will be within sight.
Nothing but the source
[edit]This is the hard one.
The sources you use should all be secondary sources that give significant coverage to the subject or a major aspect of it, preferably in an impartial tone. After you find the sources, don't deviate from them. It's possible that you already know what facts should be covered—forget them. If your search was thorough and you found broad overview sources, then you should already have what you need to determine what the article covers. Reliable sources decide what's due in an article, and you are not a reliable source.
If you've used all of your sources and major aspects are still missing from the article, that's an indication that you should look for more sources in general. Consider using these missing aspects to guide searches, but don't force an aspect that isn't heavily covered in overview sources. Do not go out of your way to find a source for a specific fact or interpretation that you think should be included. Even if you can find a source that verifies a fact about the topic, it's not enough that something is true. If the main overview sources don't think it's relevant, then neither does Wikipedia.
If you've incorporated every overview source you can find and there are still parts of the article that don't make sense because there's missing information, only then should you start looking for specific sources to fill these gaps. Even then, only do this for basic facts. Missing opinions and interpretations don't warrant additional searches; if they're not covered in the main literature, they're simply not relevant, and trying to force them is a form of POV pushing.
The application of "nothing but the source" can vary depending on the scope of the article. If you're writing about something more obscure where sources are hard to come by, you'll probably need to use every source you find, even the minor or hyperspecific ones. If you're writing about a really broad or well-known subject, you should only use books or detailed literature reviews that cover the entirety of the subject or major aspects of it. Most articles will fall somewhere in between.