Official policy for deleting answers that don't cite sources

Question

As discussed in this question, most users agree with rule of backing up answers with sources. Now comes the question, what is the official procedure for deleting answers that don't cite sources?

Two possible cases arise.

1. Answers by new and active users (including answers by all unregistered users) that don't cite sources.
2. Old answers (from 2014, before the 'cite sources' or the Back It Up! rule went into effect) that don't cite sources.

For the first case, we can give some time, say one week (seven days) for active users and a fortnight (15 days) for new users. If users are not able to provide references, knowledgeable active users can help them by providing references or sources to new users or other users in comment sections or by inviting them to chat rooms such as Hinduism and Vedanta and Philosophy.

Knowledgeable active users can also edit answers of unregistered users with references or sources, if possible. I think it will be best if we provide references to old answers of unregistered users, as far as possible and in case if it's not possible (like this answer which claims Ancient India used Shiva Lingas to hide Atomic bombs, for which genuine sources can't be fetched), we can delete those answers if they are too long or convert them to comments if they have useful content.

The second case is a bit complex and we can discuss that in the other question: Let's delete all old answers from early days of the site that lack any references at all.

Any suggestions and improvements are welcome.

Return to FAQ index

Answer 1

Update-1: Extended Time length and Exclusion Criterion
Update-2: Old unsourced answers are also subject to deletion now
Update-3: Time criteria is no longer a barrier and post-notice will be used in exceptional cases only

---

Yes, regarding new unsourced answers, the time span of a week for normal/regular users and a fortnight for new users is fine. I suggest to add "citation needed" post-notice before deletion so that users can get notified/warned. I encourage to improve answer (by adding sources) that are salvageable. Improved answers will be considered for undeletion upon flagging :)

Thus, according to the policy the following actions are supposed to be taken by community for new unsourced answer:

1. If answer doesn't cite any sources or references, comment and/or citation notice will be added to the answer.
2. If the answer remains unchanged within prescribed time span, it can be flagged for deletion and/or deleted or converted into comment by moderator.
3. If the answer is improved by citing proper sources, then it can be flagged for undeletion.

We're going to finalize this policy. If you're agree with it, upvote this answer. If you've any other suggestion/feedback then provide it as an answer.

Answer 2

_{Firstly, I'd like to thank the entire moderator team for creating this post in order to encourage more participation from the community in our site, rather than taking the decisions in the backdoor moderation private rooms.}

---

There are 3 ways in which we, as a community, can show our dissatisfaction with a post:

1. Down vote
2. Comment
3. Delete

Moderators, on the other hand, can:

1. add a notice to a particular post where in which they can mention that the post is not upto the mark.
2. convert a post to a comment.

That said, we all need to remember that Moderators are human exception handlers.

I would like to propose a middle path between the two ends of whether to keep or not to keep a post:

When there is a new post without sources

1. Let the community handle it:

   • The community downvotes the post and adds a comment
   • If the answerer remains stubborn and mentions that he does not want to add sources, then the community flags the post for moderator attention (assuming that the flag queue is quite low).
     • Once the post is flagged, the moderator can:
       • Add a post notice asking for improvements, if the answer is salvagable through edits by other community members. (and convert the post to community wiki after it is salvaged, if the effort needed to salvage the post is high)
       • Delete it, if it is unsalvagable.
   • If the answerer mentions that they will be adding sources soon, then
     • a moderator will add a post notice asking for valid sources and references. The community needs to wait till the edit, and then remove the downvote.
     • if the user does not edit within 60 days, flag the post for moderator attention, asking for deletion. The 60 day period is the cut off for holding the reputation gained on the post.

2. Let moderators chip in when an answer is very poorly worded:

   • If there is an un-cited answer that is both poorly worded and unsalvagable through edits, then a moderator deletes it then and there.
   • Convert the post to a comment if there is there is any merit in keeping the post on site. (There is a workaround to convert long posts to comments as well).

In the case of old posts

This again boils down to whether the answer is salvagable or not. Let us not go on a hunt to find out old answers that do not cite references. Instead, when we see such a post,

1. Comment asking for sources and informing the user that the site now emphasizes on a "must cite" rule.
2. If there is no reply, then flag the post asking for a moderator to lock it for historical purposes. (This is a bold proposal as, 1. we won't be able to vote on it 2. We won't be losing the answer).

Practical Examples

One of the use cases which Keshav mentions is:

Now one of the most important rules which I think ought to be enforced by moderation is the rule that answers should be backed up with sources. Why shouldn't this just be enforced by voting? Because suppose an answer says "Ganesha is the supreme god. In battle defeated Vishnu, Indra and other Gods. This is what my mother told me once." Such an answer may be heavily upvoted by Ganesha devotees, even though it cannot be verified by readers, unless they get the phone number of the user's Mom :-)

In this particular case it is to be noted that:

1. If a particular post without any valid sources is getting a lot of upvotes, then it is clear case where there is vote manipulation going on. "heavily upvoted by Ganesha devotees" implies that the "Ganesha devotees" are forming a voting ring and voting the posts. This must be escalated to the community managers.

2. We must also note that "Ganesha devotees" are not the only ones who visit that particular post. We, community, must understand that our individual downvotes do matter! This does provide a platform to inform the users that they need to vote more. Though the reputation, might not be reversed by downvotes, but the post score can be reduced. I would not like to seem like a rude user, but I'd certainly like to call it out loudly here:

   Dear community, please downvote the bad posts.

3. Taking a philosophical approach, it is clear that the "Ganesha devotees" are doing an immoral act here, they should be voting on the authenticity of a post and not because the answer has praised their deity.

Even then: I'm for the deletion of that post, adding an answer like:

"Ganesha is the supreme god. In battle defeated Vishnu, Indra and other Gods. This is what my mother told me once"

is indeed equivalent to cruft and is just noise. It would be the best to remove those from the site immediately. However, if the answer does have a proper structure, like:

"Ganesha in battle defeated Indra and other gods by doing <explanation of an act>"

and does not cite sources, then let us not delete those immediately. Instead let us downvote and comment.

The question that arises now is, Where do we draw the line between a poorly structured answer and a good answer without citations? Here, I feel that we need to use our common sense. It is not rocket science to differentiate between a good answer and a bad one.

It all boils down to:

We need answers, not opinions

Answer 3

Old or new, for answers that don't cite any sources, we need a very simple rule going forward. Either delete them all or keep them all. It is very time consuming and also unfair for new users to follow the strict standards of citing sources especially when several answers with 20-30 upvotes but no references are still lying around from 2014 and early 2015. What would you tell a new user who points to an old answer such as this and then asks, "Although lacking sources, my answer is much better than that, why is their post still up but mine is taken down?"

That is the whole reason why I proposed this (to keep things simple): Let's delete all old answers from early days of the site that lack any references at all

For the first case, we can give some time, say one week (seven days) for active users and a fortnight (15 days) for new users. If users are not able to provide references...

I don't understand what is being proposed in the above. If references are NOT provided, the post needs to be deleted or converted to a comment first. Maybe a citation banner makes sense for new users. But after a month it can be deleted or converted to a comment. I suggest mods track such answers and revisit them after a month to delete them.

Knowledgeable active users can also edit answers of unregistered users with references or sources...

Assuming you are referring to what should happen to an answer post-deletion or after adding a citation banner, as I stated in this post, there is absolutely no incentive to high-rep users to go edit others' answers and update them with proper references. Why not just write new answers altogether? Even after you edit the post, what's the guarantee an unregistered user will register and stick with the site? We have to remember this is a Q&A site first where several users write competing answers. This is not Wikipedia where every post is a work in progress by several users. So I think edits should be limited to strictly correcting grammar or adding 1 or 2 minor obvious references that are missing.

like this answer which claims Ancient India used Shiva Lingas to hide Atomic bombs, for which genuine sources can't be fetched

It's over a month and the user has not returned to update his answer, so it needs to be deleted and converted to comment. But again, to be fair to that new user, posts such as this one need a citation banner as well and later taken down if they're not updated with proper sources.

Answer 4

"Any suggestions and improvements are welcome."^[1]

Actually this has been discussed before few times.
The answers without sources should NOT be deleted. If the site wants to grow in a true "Hinduism" way, then allow all kind of philosophical thinking. If the "scriptures" thing is hard pressed, then we may end up becoming an incestuous^[2] community where people just pat (upvote) each others.

At the same time, to keep a good check on authenticity of given philosophy^[3], use the quality banners for unsourced answers, as suggested in this post. Mods have lot of choices among banners as described in this post.
Why to go behind deleting answers & create disharmony among users?

_{"If users are not able to provide references, knowledgeable active users can help them by providing references or sources to new users or other users in comment sections ... Knowledgeable active users can also edit answers of unregistered users with references or sources ..."}

This has been discussed before as impractical or next to impossible.

---

^{[1] Was pinged by of the Mods recently & hence visited here after a while. Nice to see that the Mods are taking the consent of community.}

^{[2] No offense in "incest" word is intended. It doesn't only mean "sex among close blood relations". In this context, it indeed means: "not being heterogeneous/diverse enough to function properly" Plz see "adjectives" in http://www.dictionary.com/browse/incestuous.}

^{[3] None of my existing answer is without source, yet I think we should allow others to express without scriptures. If we think recursively, then surely there would be a time when there were no scriptures. Also, just because something was written in Sanskrit doesn't prove it's authenticity. What if they were written in 19th or early 20th century?}

Answer 5

While I agree with the answer above, I would like to add a point about answers from own experiences.

Some answers about religious practices will stand good even without a external reference. For example consider my answer here, where my main point is my personal experiences. Such personal experiences can hold good for questions regarding practices and beliefs.