Requests for comment/Discussing sources on the Croatian Wikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

This is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

Statement of the issue[edit]

On Croatian Wikipedia there are discussions (Reliable sources/Noticeboard) about the quality of the sources. Personal opinion about some source(RS), author- historian, etc, is used there as evidence that some source is not RS. Reviews, opinions of other historians, etc. are not presented as evidence, but personal private opinion of individual editors is used without any proof in something. Given that such a way of discussion is used and from the administrators themselves, this is not a normal situation because the other editors are not equal in such discussions. I have experience with the English Wikipedia and there sources refute sources. Our private opinion about a source means nothing in terms of evidence. We are talking only about academic sources, scientific papers or book of historians.

Use of private personal opinion in such discussions as if the administrators themselves are reviewers and historians cannot be a substitute for reviews or the opinions of the academic community. Sources must be challenged or confirmed by quality sources.

Academic consensus:[[1]]: "Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus."

This RfC argues that:

  1. The current state of Croatian Wikipedia violates the five pillars of Wikipedia - namely, pillars #1 ("Wikipedia is an encyclopedia"), #2 ("Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view")

Therefore, an outside intervention is both justified and necessary.


Discusion on Croatian (Reliable sources/Noticeboard)[[2]]

The administrator involved in the discussion is

  1. Ponor


Croatian (Reliable sources/Noticeboard) was only introduced last year as a possibility to discuss sources.

Proposed actions[edit]

To inform and order the administrators of the Croatian Wikipedia for permitted way of discussing a source, i.e. to put personal private opinion out of use if it is a substitute for the word of a historian, review of historian etc. Opinion is allowed and necessary, but it must not be a substitute for sources. Otherwise, any source(RS) could be put in or out of Wikipedia only based on the personal opinion of some administrator. In such situations just a personal opinion would be enough to remove or challenge any source, despite the positive reviews, the quality of the historian, of the publisher etc. This rule of discussion is followed by other editors as an example so possible consensus can be based on someone editor private personal opinion. That's not how Wikipedia works. Editors are not historians to present their reviews.


I stated my opinion in the introduction. Private opinions are not a substitute for the opinion of historians, authors, etc. On Croatian Wikipedia one administrator is enough to say his private opinion about some source and that source cannot be part of Wikipedia. What does a private review of a source ie of some editor have to do with the quality of an academic source? There must be negative reviews, positive if the source is correct, wider academic opinion, who is publisher, publisher review process, etc. It is the basis for us to decide about the quality of a some source. This one-sided way of discussion abolishes the equality of editors in a discussion. Some editors have to present reviews, sources, etc. and others can only say their personal opinion. This is not equality. Mikola22 (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]