Jump to content

Africa Growth Pilot/Online self-paced course/Module 3/Avoiding weasel words

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Moving on to another example of being un-encyclopedic. This is something called "weasel words". Look at this cute weasel! This cute weasel says: "some people say that weasel words are great.". I'm here to tell you, don't trust the weasel!

"Weasel words" are the nickname on Wikipedia for *unsupported attributions*. That's just a fancy way of saying quotations without a quoted person, or claims ostensibly by some authority, without proof that that authority indeed made them. Things that make you believe something was said or something was determined without actually saying *who*. Who said that? Who found out?

So when you see phrases like "many say", "it is widely believed", "experts agree", "research has shown" -- these are *weasel words*. Do not trust them. Do not use them on Wikipedia!

What does it mean, "research has shown"? What research? Where? Who is the researcher? Where is the research paper? And if you *have* the specific research paper, say that! Say "Professor Smith from the University of Whatever in this paper in that journal from that issue on that year has shown..." That would not be "weasel words". But merely saying "research has shown" is irresponsible and unsuitable for Wikipedia's Voice.

Incidentally, many of you are used to hearing such phrases. "Experts agree" etc. Where do you hear them? In, magazine-style writing; in *promotional* writing, in ads. If you read about, say, some fashionable diet pills, you will often see "proven by research!" in the text. *Which* research? *Where?* You don't know. "Proven by research", "experts agree". "Nine out of ten dentists endorse this toothpaste!".

These are all weasel statements. You shouldn't trust them on Wikipedia. And you should also not trust them on toothpaste, just as a little life tip... On the encyclopedia, never, ever find yourself saying things like "it is widely believed". If it is widely believed, you shouldn't have difficulty finding a *reliable source* that shows that it is widely believed.