Verifiability and
Notability Tutorial
Wikipedia strives to
publish verifiable
information about
notable subjects.
Verifiability
important because the encyclopedia is a
source of information and knowledge,
but can be edited by anyone. Citation of
reliable sources allows people to verify
the information.
What requires citations?
● Any fact in dispute, or likely to be challenged.
● All quotations must be attributed, with citations.
● Facts regarding honors (awards, prizes) or top
achievements
● Description of criminal convictions
● Numbers and statistics
● Other facts may or may not have citations.
Examples requiring citations
● Buhari is the president of Nigeria
● "Be the change you want to see in the world"
● Boko Haram pledged allegiance to the Islamic
State
● She won the Booker Prize in 2014
● India controls 43% of the territory of Kashmir
Notability
important because the encyclopedia
is not a phone book, and
documenting absolutely everything,
rather than everything notable,
would cost too much effort.
Okay, but my topic is
notable!
How do you know?
How does
English Wikipedia
determine notability?
by guidelines!
And through
community discussion
A general guideline...
...and some
topic-specific
guidelines
The General Notability Guideline
"If a topic has received significant coverage
in reliable sources that are independent of
the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a
stand-alone article or list."
[[WP:GNG]]
"Significant coverage"
Signifcant coverage of X means that X was the
subject (or one of the main subjects) of the
source, and addresses it directly and in detail,
and not just mentioned in passing.
"Significant coverage" examples
An interviewed politician mentioning a band
she enjoys listening to is not "significant
coverage" of that band.
A major newspaper feature article on the band
is significant coverage.
"Significant coverage" examples
A memoir mentioning a person used "an IBM
computer" is not significant coverage of IBM
A book-length study of IBM, or biography of
its founder, is significant coverage of IBM
"Reliable sources"
● The reliability of sources can depend on a
number of factors:
○ The work itself (genre, scope, method)
○ The author(s) (credentials)
○ The publisher (methods, reputation,
affiliation)
[[WP:RS]]
"Reliable sources"
● Sources should be "published"
● Sources do not have to be in English.
English is preferred on English Wikipedia,
but any language is acceptable.
● Sources do not have to be available online.
Online sources are convenient.
[[WP:RS]]
"Reliable sources"
● Context matters: Sources should directly
address the topic.
○ E.g. An authoritative book on African art
may be a good source on African art, but
provide a mistaken date for Nigeria's
independence in a side comment.
[[WP:RS]]
"Reliable sources"
Context matters: Even generally-biased
sources may be useful to cite.
● A Marxist Web site may have a strong point of
view on economics, but can probably be cited for
the names of books published by its editor.
[[WP:RS]]
"Reliable sources"
● Time matters: 19th century sources on
literature are valuable. 19th century sources
on physics are not.
○ Sources can be too new, too
[[WP:RS]]
"Reliable sources"
● The best sources are generally academic
sources reviewing, discussing, studying,
criticizing the articles topic.
● Serious news sources are good sources for
current events
○ (eventual) academic works on current
events are better sources
[[WP:RS]]
"Reliable sources"
● The rest depends on context (e.g. sports
statistics sites; government data; etc.)
● Source lists exist:
○ [[Wikipedia:Current science and
technology sources]]
[[WP:RS]]
"Independent of the subject"
● For a source to be independent of the
subject, it needs to be outside the subject's
control, not just formally, but in practice.
● It also needs to not be related to the subject
strongly, e.g. relations of kinship, debt,
employment, etc.
[[WP:IS]]
"Independent of the subject"
● A musical band's official Web site is not
independent. (May still be a reasonable
source for some things.)
● A newspaper is not a reliable source for the
business deals and interests of its owner
[[WP:IS]]
"Independent of the subject"
Topic Independent Non-independent
Business
News media, government agency Owner, employees, corporate website, sales
brochure, competitor's website
Person
News media, scholarly press book Person, family members, friends, employer,
employees
City
National media, scholarly book Mayor's website, local booster clubs, local
chamber of commerce website
Book, movie, etc.
Newspaper or published magazine review, Production company website, publishing
scholarly press book (or chapter) company website, website for the
book/album/movie
[[WP:IS]]
Remember:
● Not every source you site has to be
independent, disinterested, and free of
conflict-of-interest.
● But the sources used to establish notability
do have to be independent, disinterested,
and free of CoI.
[[WP:IS]]
And those topic-specific guidelines?
● Several topics have specific notability
guidelines in English Wikipedia:
● Films, books, music, academics, events,
organizations, astronomical objects, ...
● Full list here: [[Category:Wikipedia
notability guidelines]]
[[WP:IS]]
Sources in the
African Context
The Bad
● Not enough sources
● Great gaps in secondary sources on even
very important topics
● Lack of easy/free access to sources that do
exist
● Notability arguments and deletions cause
bad experience to newbies. Some are lost
forever.
The Good
● Things are improving
● A lot (more) can be done with there is
● A little education/help goes a long way
● While short-term solutions are scarce,
investment in long-term solutions, such as
documentation projects and digitization
efforts, will pay off.
Meanwhile... here are sources!
Recommended by African editors
● [Link] ● [Link]
● [Link] ● [Link]
● [Link] ● [Link]
● [Link] ● [Link]
● [Link] ● [Link]
● [Link] ● [Link]
Remember: context matters! These are not
necessarily reliable, and not necessarily
appropriate for every topic.
A word about oral citations
● We strive to share "all human knowledge".
Not all human knowledge is written and
published in peer-reviewed journals.
● Oral knowledge may contradict other
knowledge
● Not everyone with an opinion is an oral
knowledge bearer.
Okay, two words about oral citations
● Oral citations can become a part of
standard Wikipedia practice.
○ Meeting the "published" criterion.
○ Meeting the "relevant" criterion.
○ Careful experimentation is needed.
Again and again.
The Ugly
● Wikipedia is edited, and monitored, by humans
● Some humans are mean. Or rude.
● Some just have a bad day, or lost their patience after
defending Wikipedia from 100 spammers and vandals
in the last two hours.
● Some are downright bigoted.
● But really, most people who are inappropriately
obstructive of work on African topics, do so only out of
ignorance or weakness, not with bad intent.
A word about conflict
● Wikipedia can get frustrating. Even infuriating.
● Don't overdo it. It's just an encyclopedia. If you're
getting worked up, stop, step away from the screen, get
some air. Come back another day. Or week.
● Take criticism as a learning opportunity. Filter out the
noise or inappropriate tone; focus on the substance
and the learning for yourself.
● Wikipedia always wins. Don't bet against Wikipedia.
Okay, two words about conflict...
● If you see yourself editing Wikipedia for a long time,
get ready to lose some arguments. Take it in stride.
● The important thing is sharing free knowledge. Not
your ego. (Nor that person's ego, but if you realize it,
you can step away even if they don't.)
● Talk to others. Ground yourself in the opinions and
advice of peers you appreciate. Let them convince you.
Can we get back to the Good part?
● Sure!
● Invest in:
○ Careful newbie training (more prep! more focus!)
○ Excellent training materials; experienced and
competent trainers
○ Digitization (either directly or through advocacy
and partnership with bigger orgs)
○ Partnerships (GLAM, gov't content donations, ...)
Verifiability
Exercise
1. Reliable or not?
Determine whether the named source can be considered
reliable for the particular fact:
● A band's official Web site for the names of the
members of the band
● A library catalogue for the names of a band's albums
● A news site regarding a terrorist attack
○ Which? When?
1. Reliable or not?
Determine whether the named source can be considered
reliable for the particular fact:
● An artist's blog for the sales figures of their albums
● A politician's official Web site for her date of birth
● A politician's official Web site for his
accomplishments for his constituency
● The Lagos Times for a decision made by Lagos State
● The Lagos Times lifestyle section for the efficacy of
diet pills
1. Reliable or not?
Determine whether the named source can be considered
reliable for the particular fact:
● A TV news segment on YouTube for casualties in a
disaster
● The national bureau of statistics for the incidence of
infant mortality in the country
● A surgeon's professional Web site on the beneficial
effects of plastic surgery
Notability
Exercise
1. Notable or not?
Review available information about a local politician or
artist, and determine whether they are notable or not.
Explain your determination.
In conclusion...
In conclusion, remember...
● Use reliable sources to establish notability and
support your (neutral point of view) article text.
● If you're not sure a source is reliable, ask for help[[WP:RSN]]
● If you can't find sources, ask for help [[WP:FACT]]
● If you still can't find sources, don't write the article.
(Perhaps you can encourage the creation of sources.)
● You will make mistakes. It is generally enough to
apologize, undo (delete/remove), and do better next
time.
THANK YOU
Keep in touch!
asaf@[Link]