W2. [Citation Needed]! Wikipedian Protesters. - Gyongmin Moon 문경민

What is this comic about? Can you explain it?

Citation is a mark you can easily see in Wikipedia and almost every website which claims to have information of approved trustworthy. Because without citation, we might not find any proof that the information that we are reading is a fact, or just a story made up by the writer who is pretending or thinking that he/she is posting up a fact.

So, if you find [citation needed] sign next to a paragraph or on the top of the article, it means that the website, or a patrol of Wikipedia is asking the you, if you are the writer, "How can you prove this?". This is a policy strictly applied in Wikipedia because, reliable sources of information are the very core characteristic of Wikipedia's success. If you just ignore this, your article will never be able to reach a good article class.

Now, back to the comic. Through web surf research, I found that the above picture is a comic published by popular webcomic 'xkcd' and is named 'Wikipedian Protester'. It is showing -I think- a man holding a [citation needed] sign in front of -I think- a politician. Probably, meaning that the man is trying to tell the politician that "I have no idea what made you end up with the result of what you're saying right now." This use of sign worked out well for the Americans and it became a meme throughout the country. Well, at least for those who know Wikipedia.

The website 'Knowyourmem.com', where the explanation for all kinds of memes are, explains that "Probably in reference to President Bush's 2007 Fourth of July speech. This illustration is the earliest known instance of using the Wiki meta-tag outside of its original context:" and "Then in early 2008, Matt Mechtley announced the launch of a culture jamming operation on his blog, which entails putting "citation needed" stickers on corporate advertisements in New York City:"

And it eventually ended up having the stickers all over the places. Even though this is just a meme, inside, it contains how much people care about the grounds of trustworthiness. And from what I see, people nowadays do have a little bit of distrust against society. If not, I don't think this kind of incident would have happened even though the citation needed comic was published.

While doing edits in Wikipedia yesterday, I had a problem related to citation. I was editing the article for Defense Security Command, and wrote down the reason it was dismantled. But there wasn't any study of professors or reports of inquiries. The most reliable source was the news article. To add insult to the injury, there wasn't an article that perfectly covered what I wrote, the most exact one covered about 80% of what I wrote. So, I thought 'it will be better than nothing' and put the news as a citation. 

In cases like this, do you think it is enough just finishing the citations with a news article? If not, what can be done to make the Wikipedia article you write trustworthy?