User talk:Kurross

November 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at List of oldest cats, you may be blocked from editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are official medical records for an animal not considered a sufficient source while articles posted to random websites are? Help me understand the standard here. Kurross (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not allow original research. I understand your dislike that newspapers and the Guiness Book are middle-men but we place trust in them. It's just a cat. If you don't have a cited source then why should our website say anything about it? Chris Troutman (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to understand why an animal's medical records from a licensed professional hold less value than a random Internet blurb going off of the owners word. In some cases, the very same document you find to be prone to forgery is the very source for the article. Do you feel that records from a licensed veterinarian hold less value than the word of a non-expert author? By making those records available in a public commons, it would be trivial to call the vet's office to verify for anyone who would like to challenge it. I would argue this is a superior source of verification that the vast majority of what is being cited here.

Wikipedia's own stated standard is that the documents only need be available in a public forum. Wikipedia's own standard also states that the veracity required of that source material is taken within the context of the Wiki; in this case a list of old cats. If records from a licensed professional in a public forum don't meet the standard for this page on both of those counts, how is the standard for a quality source defined in the context of this list? Kurross (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires published and reliable sources, per WP:V. You might think that the journalists get it wrong but that's policy on here. Because Wikipedia does not certify professionals everyone here is a dilettante and so we cannot trust any editor's word. For example, you might look up at the sky and think the sky is blue but that's original research. You have to cite a source to support an assertion. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source I'm trying to cite would be a public medical record. Both credible and verifiable. Kurross (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also produced by a third party. It meets every criteria Wikipedia lists. How do you define published? Any website or news outlet would be acceptable? Kurross (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PUBLISHED: "The term is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources." Because it has to come from a reliable source and not an archive, we're generally looking at newspapers or books. The source doesn't have to be online but you couldn't probably point to a record on file in a veterinarian office. It can't be a website hosting a scan of the document, either. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying the veterinarian's own website would have to post the record? I think the rub here is around the idea of what makes a source reliable. I've read nearly every cited source in this wiki. They almost entirely are going on the pet owners word. These are complete fluff pieces with no firm evidence of the animal's age. So, for this list you would consider word of a pet owner as long as it's on a third party site more credible than medical papers on a veterinarian office's mast head with names, dates and test results all of which can be verified with their office? This doesn't seem very academic. Kurross (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're arguing that you don't like how Wikipedia works, you can just leave Wikipedia. I've explained and linked a few policies and guidelines. You ought to raise this issue on the list's talk page but I doubt anyone would agree with you. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing that you aren't following the letter of the polices you've linked. The Wiki page for reliable sources says "Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form." Found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:REPUTABLE

A public commons is public by definition. It is also "some form".

Further, it says "each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."

The key here being appropriate for that content. If you "carefully weighed" the sources as the Wiki outlines, nearly every article wouldn't past muster. They are entirely hearsay. Further I'm arguing medical records are a more exact form of documentation. Created by literal experts on this subject matter.

You are not following the standard you are pointing out. You're picking and choosing arbitrarily. Kurross (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely disagree. First, you haven't presented a citation. You might try adding content with a citation and we can discuss it. Second, if you take issue with a citation on that list or on other articles, you are welcome to raise the issue on the respective talk page or remove the content per relevant guidelines. You seem to be arguing against the system, probably in an effort to get me to relent. I will not as I derive sick joy from frustrating malefactors. Finally, new user, I've done my share of Good article reviews and so I have actually checked books out of the library to verify what some articles state so you might hold your horses on "nearly every article wouldn't past muster". I know how bad content is on Wikipedia and you truly have no idea; grasping at straws won't help you. Add content with a published reliable source. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This attitude is inappropriate. I specifically cited the example of medical papers from a licensed professional to a public commons as a previous entry was denied when it cited the same to a public commons. 65.29.184.177 (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What "public commons"? Are you uploading a scan to Flickr? We do not accept primary source documents like that. The website holding the record would have to be a reliable source and specify what the record is. You cannot upload a source to Wikimedia Commons, either. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an accepted forum to make documents public? 65.29.184.177 (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is not because we don't do that. It has to be published by a reliable source. For example, public documents published on a government website or a reliable watchdog website would be ok. The source cannot be self-published. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of oldest cats. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]