Talk:Circular reporting/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Citation needed for xkcd creating the term "citogenesis"

The comic itself doesn't say so. The only source that I could find was a slate.com article; however, the slate.com article was created after the claim was inserted into the Wikipedia article :/ Alshfik (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

With thanks for your discovery of the entry for the term at neologisms.rice.edu, I have rewritten the sentence such that it is Rice that credits Munroe, not Wikipedia. I think that I have solved the problem, agree? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman:There are two problems I still think need to be fixed. First problem is that there is still no citation for the first recorded use of the term being created by Randall Munroe. This first issue is easily fixable if you agree that I/you can use the neologisms.rice.edu citation for the claim. Second problem is that there is no citation for the claim that the comic is what brought the term into common use. The slate.com article doesn't mention anything about the second problem, and the https://neologisms.rice.edu website isn't even updated enough to say that the term is in popular use. Alshfik (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

First part: that was the intent behind 'attributed to' (which the Rice citation does). I thought it over picky to repeat the cite in successive sentences but feel free if you really feel it is needed.

Second part: sounds like a word order change needed. I didn't read it as you have, I seems clear to me that the comic first used it and the media adopted it, reported it, reported each other reporting it. You will have to come up with different wording. I certainly wouldn't expect the Rice database to say anything about the extent of usage, it is outside their remit. If we don't have evidence either, we shouldn't make any such claim. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This article confuses two concepts?

The article begins:
Circular reporting, or false confirmation, is a situation in source criticism where a piece of information appears to come from multiple independent sources, but in reality comes from only one source.

I don't understand how that can be called "circular reporting", it is more 'inverted pyramid': much ado being made about not very much. Citogenesis can certainly claim to be called circular reporting: Source A says X without evidence; Source B reports Source A as making that assertion; Source C reports Source B without qualification; Source A it revised to cite Source C as providing the evidence. But how common is that?

I note the opening citation (Canadian Army Military Intelligence) uses the phrase "circular reporting" of inverted pyramid:

Redundancy and Circular Reporting: Circular reporting will always be an issue in the intelligence function. One single event can and will be reported in a dozen different products (INTSUMs, INTREPs, DSRs, etc) and then re-reported yet again in the near future.

but then again Armies have their own way with words. However the second citation confirms this usage:

That is what is known in the intelligence business as circular reporting: the same information, coming through the same source, peddled through different channels, slightly altered to make it look like it’s coming from multiple sources.

So I guess the real question is this: are there actually two uses of the same phrase? One in source criticism and one in military intelligence? (we have citations for the latter but not the former).

Comments welcome! (I will leave requests to participate at the articles mentioned.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. Inverted pyramid is about prioritization in journalism, not related to circular reporting. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't realize that there is actually such an article. No, I was talking about the concept of a grand edifice being constructed on a tiny foundation. It is this that is the basis of my challenge. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It's true the concept is a relatively new one, but I don't think it is tiny. An early US military reference to the concept is the 1993 briefing about the "current" situation in Iraq. Another is a mid-1990s US government transcript of military hearings which introduces but fails to define the term. Before that is a 1991 US government transcript that places the term in the context of the US intelligence community, implying false secondary verification from sources that are themselves based only on an earlier source. There's also the 2002 book, Body of Secrets, again describing the intelligence community in the US. There's a 2000 book titled Captured: The Japanese Internment of American Civilians in the Philippines, 1941-1945 which includes a complaint about circular reporting,[1] but no clear definition.

For defining the topic, some decent sources exist which have not been cited. For instance, there is the video by Portland Community College. There is also the book Not Born Yesterday which contains a chapter titled "From Circular Reporting to Supernatural Beliefs", talking about how rumors and "vague sourcing" can lead people astray. Perhaps a paper submitted to the US Naval Postgraduate School can be cited: "Mitigating information overload" which mentions circular reporting as a factor. Binksternet (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't argue for a moment that the term undoubtedly is used to describe this phenomenon (which certainly exists!) of a lot being made from a little, lots of citations say so. The fact that I can't see what makes it circular is not relevant, "it is what it is".

No, my question is about the lack of citations for any other meaning of the term, any source that describes 'genuine' circular reporting (a => b => c => a) apart from our own navel-gazing about citology. Is there in fact only one common meaning (the intelligence one) and our text about citology is in the wrong article? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia citogenesis can actually be viewed as analogous to the military usage. The original source is the Wikipedia editor who posted the uncited information. That then gets promulgated into numerous external sources (much like the military cases described). One of those sources finding its way back on to Wikipedia thus going full circle does not make it something different to my mind. Wikipedia is just one more document that has been taken in by the original source. In fact, it is much the same – later military documents verify the original source by citing other documents, possibly without the knowledge that they trace back to the same place. SpinningSpark 14:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Moved content from this article to 'Circular reference'

Following on from the discussion above, it is clear that Citogenesis and the like are examples of circular reference, not 'Circular reporting': the material was originally contributed to the wrong article because of the similarity of names. Consequently, I have decided to WP:BEBOLD and have moved the circular citation material from this article to the 'Circular reference' article. Multiple editors have contributed to development of the section I moved and this note is to acknowledge them. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"It is clear" how? What's clear, from Binksternet and Spinningspark's replies, is that there is no support for such a move. I'm not entirely convinced this article is the best fit for discussing citogenesis either, but at any rate Circular reference is a poor choice because "reference" in that article doesn't mean "a citation". What's more, citogenesis typically involves a lazy (or pressed) writer for a reputable source relying on Wikipedia but not citing it, as no reputable sources do or should—which makes it not a circular reference, at least not a visible one, because the chain is broken. So can we apply WP:BRD now? Nardog (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

BEBOLD presumes acceptance of BRD as a possible consequence, so yes of course. It is just a pity that you didn't contribute to the earlier discussion.

I assert that 'it is clear' because 'Circular reporting' is about taking an original fact (or assertion, in the case of Iraq's WMD) and citing it in multiple parallel reports, some of which cite each other (which I think is the basis for using the word 'circular' – the etymology is not at all obvious). What it is 'not' about is a full feedback loop that seeks to validate the original fact/assertion by reference to the subsequent reports, which I believe is a mete-definition of a 'circular reference' (the Excel example is a clear mathematical example but it happens in real life too). Or at least that is my reading but hopefully my BEBOLD has provoked others into debate? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

When you wrote What's more, citogenesis typically involves a lazy (or pressed) writer for a reputable source relying on Wikipedia but not citing it, as no reputable sources do or should—which makes it not a circular reference, at least not a visible one, because the chain is broken, I think you have taken two steps at once. It would certainly be just a case of circular reporting if a lazy (or pressed) writer for a reputable source relying on Wikipedia but not citing it and I agree completely that this makes it not a circular reference, at least not a visible one, because the chain is broken. [Hopefully you noticed that I left in place the list of cases of writers using false info in Wikipedia.] IMO, Citogenesis only arises when the circular chain is complete, when each reference is to a previous one in the circle, when A=>B=>C=>A. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what a "mete-definition" is or why it would be "a case of circular reporting if a 'lazy (or pressed) writer for a reputable source relying on Wikipedia but not citing it'" (unless the writer wrote the information on Wikipedia themself or Wikipedia cited them), but in any case you seem to be saying all cases of citogenesis involve circular reporting, which makes the move seem even less warranted. And I'd say leaving the the examples made it worse because now the discussion of a closely related topic could only be found if one followed the (broken) WP:EGG link. Nardog (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion after reversion

I accept the BRD reversion but that still leaves us with the need to discuss.

I don't see how citogenesis fits the description of "circular reporting" (same defective origin repeated through multiple chains of command, giving senior decision-makers a false impression of reliability). The fact that the false information came from a Wikipedia spoof is not significant.

My concern with the articles as they stood (stand) is that the citogenesis material in the circular reporting article leads readers to misinterpret the whole concept, because it emphasizes an aspect of 'circularity' that does not arise in the normal usage of the phrase in the MI community – they are talking about reports cross-referencing each other.

So assuming that the citogenesis material is to stay where it is, we need a better intro that identifies it as a special or even extreme case. I've had a go, you didn't like it, your turn. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed for Munroe's contributions to awareness about citogenesis

This section is similar to that of 1 September 2021 Talk:Circular reporting

While it is clear that Munroe's comic coined the term citogenesis, it is not clear that his comic popularized the term or raised awareness about citogenesis. It is also not clear who is referencing the comic. Alshfik (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I have attempted to fix the issue by referring to Slate Magazine as the source and removing unverifiable statements about Munroe's effect on awareness of citogenesis. Alshfik (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Julius Pringles

This is both a hoax and an apparent case of citogensis, seems like it should maybe be mentioned here. [2] I realize Mashable isn't the New York Times but they seem to have got their ducks in a row on this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Console generations an example?

@Masem: I see you added this section. I can't say I agree with it here, though, for two reasons. First off, the "Winners-Take-Some Dynamics" source is very weak - it does not appear that this article was ever published (e.g. in a journal), and none of the authors appear to be super-famous. They don't have Wikipedia articles themselves, at least. So this is basically like sourcing a random academic's website. Secondly, even if we do accept the source as good enough to use, it doesn't say "circular reporting" or "citogenesis" anywhere. Rather, it merely says that Wikipedia has a separate classification system. That isn't the same thing as circular reporting. (In fact, it's even a tad tautological: if Wikipedia did anything except accept one specific academic's classification entirely, which is unlikely due to minor consoles or consoles released after an academic's work, then Wikipedia would have its own classification system.) The author complains about Wikipedia's system, yes (Sometimes unfairly/incorrectly, IMO, but a side issue), and of course wants to hawk their own system, but merely stating that Wikipedia's system is popular is not the same as circular reporting. It's too much apples and oranges.

Finally, even if we ignore both of the above, the talk about "overriding the academic analysis of console generations" doesn't seem to accord with the source. If the "Winners-Take-Some Dynamics" source is to be trusted, then it's also stating that there was no academic consensus to override in the first place. That's specifically the point of the paper, to point out the inconsistencies between academics, and propound their system as better. SnowFire (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

You may be right that this is not an example of circular reporting, but I would accept the source as reliable. The paper is unpublished, but is cited in published sources, for instance here, the main author {Kemerer) is a professor holding a named chair at his university [3], and he is previously published in his field [4]. That is an easy pass of WP:SPS as a self-published expert imo. The other two authors are also previously published [5][6].

I can't recall the details right now, but I have seen other cases of terminology invented on Wikipedia finding its way into published sources and becoming accepted. That's a similar process to circular reporting but not actually the same thing. Using a particular terminology is not in itself making a claim, so there is no verification of the claim in RS being traced back to the original (unreliable) source. SpinningSpark 21:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I largely agree with this. I've stated my piece on this before, but to the extent something novel happened, it was in the *terminology*, not the concepts. Despite complaining about Wikipedia's system, the "Winners-Take-Some Dynamics" article actually backs up the general concepts Wikipedia used: that there's some cluster of consoles around the time of the NES that was a generation, there was some other cluster with the SNES/Genesis, another cluster around the PSX/N64, and another cluster around PS2/GC, regardless of what the name used was. The edge cases were things like how to count the borderline consoles (the Turbo Grafx, the Dreamcast) or how to handle the early Atari era & pre-history, which were always going to be tough because the consensus of reliable sources was less consistent there too. SnowFire (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)