Wikipedia talk:Likely to be challenged

Something to think about

I appreciate essays like these and the people who are willing to write them. But I can't help but thinking the particular meaning of 'likely' explained here is slightly off the mark. I am a little apprehensive about defining the word in terms of 'if it is actually likely to happen' alone. To me it is better to combine that with a meaning closer along the lines of 'if it would be likely to happen, upon a basic review'. So what I mean is, if a normally-educated person were to read a given statement, would it be likely to be challenged? If so, it needs an inline citation. The current version is about assessing whether or not you actually think it will happen, but there are tons of articles that barely anyone reads, and thus have claims that nobody will ever challenge, or won't for a really long time. But they are still very controversial and should have citations, as far as I am concerned. By the definition in this essay, these claims would not seem to require citations. NTox · talk 20:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you can safely assume "if a reasonably normal number of people are reading the article", just like you can safely assume a reasonable timespan ("likely to be challenged in the next year or two" rather than "likely to be challenged before the heat death of the universe"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Likelihood as definitive factor in supplying inline citations

If the likelihood that a statement be challenged is below 50%, then the page claims one does not need to supply a citation. But the 50% assessment is subjective to the individual at hand. If a different individual challenges the non-cited statement, then a citation must be supplied. Is this a correct interpretation? If so, we should include a clarification in the page. Certainly the omnipresent "content without references may be challenged and removed" blurb that we often see would agree with this interpretation. Viridium (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarification on "Substantial challenge"

I would like to add, that for this pre-policy guideline/essay to make sense, a challenge needs to be substantial. Creating an unsubstantial challenge, with no effort & triggering this policy, is now far to easy. And is also quite common in the form of "not sourced - removed"... what is in current practice sadly often the case & in conflict with WP:PRESERVE.

I would like to see a clarification that a more substantial challenge and conflict with major goals and polices of WP needs to be brought up: "non NPOV as ...", "weasel words as ...", "not represents full "state of the art, XXX missing", is a "minority position only, misses YYY", etc.

In general I would like to see on content removal, when no obvious conflict with vandalism, NPOV, controversial position, personal facts etc exists, to shift the burden on checking reasonably for the non-existence of supporting sources on the removing author, when (s)he decides that tagging is not sufficient. He/She always has the save and easy option to tag, in case of doubt, therefore removing should be made harder. Shaddim (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The likelihood of an unlikely challenge

One thing experience has taught me about WP… unlikely challenges occur all the time… they are actually quite likely. Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Another truism: subject matter experts are really BAD at determining how likely it is that a challenge will be made. Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Reasonable definition of likely challenge.

For a challenge to be reasonable it should be from a verifiable reliable published source same as the entry that is being challenged. Otherwise any fact "likely to be challenged" or not is personally challenged anyway by someone personally likely to be totally ignorant of any relevant facts. Just anyone with the time, and inclination to be a nuisance. That's why citations lists have gotten longer than articles, and valid facts are removed unreasonably.

Allowing all the personal challenges of every fact destroys the concept of "not every fact has to have a citation" or the "sky is blue" rule. It's what opens the door to what are widely recognized, in verifiable reliable published sources, as Wikipedia's worst vandals. It's what drove 90% of authoritative, published editors away from Wikipedia 15 years ago as noted then in verifiable reliable published sources.

These days a common way of disparaging a person's intelligence, often by talk show comics, is to say "Where did you get your facts? Wikipedia?"

2600:8807:5400:600:D0B2:3983:9366:1A8B (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)