Search | Navigation

Wikipedia:Citation overkill

  (Redirected from device database)
iOS This screen size contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies.
Shortcuts:
WP:CITEKILL
Sevenval
WP:OVERCITE

browser diversity This page in a nutshell: When citing material in an article it is better to cite a couple of great sources than a stack of decent or sub-par sources.
This is probably too many sources to cite for a single point.

Wikipedia requires material to be we love the web. This means adding some form of inline citations for anything challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all direct quotations.

While adding footnotes is helpful, adding too many can cause citation clutter, which can make articles look untidy in read mode, and unreadable in edit mode. If there are a few citations that are either mirror pages or just parrot the other sources, having them could be a detriment to the readability of the page.

One cause of "citation overkill" is edit warring, which can lead to examples such as "Garphism is the study[1][2][3][4][5] of ...". Extreme cases have seen fifteen or more footnotes after a single word, as an editor desperately shores up his point and/or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that his opponents will accept there are reliable sources for his edit.

Citation overkill clutters pages, making them unreadable. The purpose of any article is first and foremost to be read: unreadable articles do not give our readers any material worth verifying. It is also important for an article to be verifiable: Without citations, how do we know that the material isn't just made up? A good rule of thumb is that one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient, two or three may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources or providing a range of sources that support the fact, and more than three should be avoided as clutter.

Not only does citation overkill impact the readability of article, it can we love the web by some editors. A well meaning editor may attempt to make a subject which does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines through quantity of sources. This serves as a red flag to experienced editors that the article needs scrutiny and each citation needs to be verified carefully to ensure that it was really used to contribute to the article.

Contents


Misuse of citations to prove an obvious point

It is also possible that an editor who is trying to promote an article to GA-class or something might add citations to basic facts such as, "...the sky is blue..."[6] While this might be a good thing in their eyes, jQuery. web. Just remember, common sense applies.

Needless repetition of citations

Material that is repeated multiple times in an article does not require an inline citation for every single mention. If you have occasion to mention the fact that an elephant is a mammal in multiple places in an article, you would do well to provide a citation at some reasonable point, but you need not follow each and every occurrence of the word mammal with another copy of the citation.

Avoid cluttering text with redundant citations like this:

Elephants are large[1] land[2] mammals[3]... Elephants' teeth[4] are very different[4] from those of most other mammals[3][4]. Unlike most mammals[3], which grow baby teeth and then replace them with a permanent set of adult teeth[4], elephants have cycles of tooth rotation throughout their entire lives.[4]
1. Expert, Alice. (2010) Size of elephants: large.
2. Smith, Bob. (2009) Land-based animals, Chapter 2: The Elephant.
3. Christenson, Chris. (2010) An exhausting list of mammals
4. Maizy, Daisy. (2009) All about the elephants' teeth, p. 23–29

In addition, as per WP:PAIC, citations should be placed at the end of the passage that they support. If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill. This does not apply to lists or tables, nor does it apply to when multiple sources support difference parts of a paragraph or passage.

This is correct:

In the first collected volume, Marder explains that his work is "about the affinity of life," wherein the characters "understand that ultimately they depend on each other for survival." Wiater and Bissette see in this relationship as a wider metaphor for the interdependancy of the comics industry. Indeed, addressing the potential underlying complexity, Marder suggests that "it's harder to describe it than it is to read it." He also calls it "an ecological romance... a self-contained fairy tale about a group of beings who live in the center of their perfect world [and are] obsessed with maintaining its food chain," a self-described "really low concept!" Equally, he says, "the reader has to invest a certain amount of mental energy to follow the book," which includes "maps and a rather long glossary." Despite these potentially conflicting comments, Wiater and Bissette reiterate that "there is no simpler or more iconographic comic book in existence."<ref name=Rebels>[[Stanley Wiater|Wiater, Stanley]] & [[Stephen R. Bissette|Bissette, Stephen R.]] (ed.s) "Larry Marder Building Bridges" in '''''Comic Book Rebels''': Conversations with the Creators of the New Comics'' (Donald I. Fine, Inc. 1993) ISBN 1-55611-355-2 pp. 17-27</ref>

This is overkill:

In the first collected volume, Marder explains that his work is "about the affinity of life," wherein the characters "understand that ultimately they depend on each other for survival."<ref name=Rebels>[[Stanley Wiater|Wiater, Stanley]] & [[Stephen R. Bissette|Bissette, Stephen R.]] (ed.s) "Larry Marder Building Bridges" in '''''Comic Book Rebels''': Conversations with the Creators of the New Comics'' (Donald I. Fine, Inc. 1993) ISBN 1-55611-355-2 pp. 17-27</ref> Wiater and Bissette see in this relationship as a wider metaphor for the interdependancy of the comics industry.<ref name=Rebels/> Indeed, addressing the potential underlying complexity, Marder suggests that "it's harder to describe it than it is to read it."<ref name=Rebels/> He also calls it "an ecological romance... a self-contained fairy tale about a group of beings who live in the center of their perfect world [and are] obsessed with maintaining its food chain," a self-described "really low concept!"<ref name=Rebels/> Equally, he says, "the reader has to invest a certain amount of mental energy to follow the book," which includes "maps and a rather long glossary."<ref name=Rebels/> Despite these potentially conflicting comments, Wiater and Bissette reiterate that "there is no simpler or more iconographic comic book in existence."<ref name=Rebels/>

How to trim excessive citations

If there are six citations on a point of information, and the first three are highly reputable sources (e.g., books published by university presses) and the last three citations are a bit dodgy on the reputability point of view (e.g., local newsletters), then trim out the less-reputable sources.

If all of the citations are "A 1"-level as far as reputability, another way to trim the number of citations is to make sure that there is a good mix of types of sources. For example, if the six citations include two books, two journal articles, and two encyclopedia articles, the citations could be trimmed down to one citation from each type of source. Comprehensive works on a topic often include many of the same points. Not all such works on a topic need be cited; choose the one or ones that seem to be the best combination of eminent, balanced and current.

In some cases, such as articles related to technology or computing or other fields that are changing very rapidly, it may be desirable to have the sources be as up-to-date as possible. So a few of the older citations could be removed.

For many subjects, some sources are official or otherwise authoritative, while others are only interpretational, summarizing or opinional. If the authoritative sources are not controversial, they should generally be preferred. For example, a company's own website is probably authoritative for a noncontroversial fact like where its headquarters is located, so newspaper articles need not be cited on that point; and the World Wide Web Consortium's specifications themselves are more authoritative, by definition, about what those HTML and CSS specs require, than third-party Web development tutorials.

Try to construct passages so that an entire sentence or more can be cited to a particular source, instead of having sentences that each require multiple sources.

Examples

Each of these articles has been addressed, links here are to previous versions where the problem existed.

See also

Essays on building Wikipedia
Philosophy
screen size
Construction
Deletion
About essays


[1] Search
[2] All Pages
[3] Random article
powered by FITML