User talk:Benison/Source analysis for WikiProject Film Indian cinema taskforce

NEWSORGINDIA

I hate to bring this up but feel it will need to be addressed at some point. Per WP:NEWSORGINDIA, many of the publications we are dealing with will likely contain sponsored content or churnalism. When it comes to company Wikipedia pages, this is a hard "no" for using the sources. However, I think that some of this is typical churnalism when it comes to film-related content. Wondering if we should discuss a bright line for these or if we should maybe put a cautionary note and use them for verifying basic facts such as cast, budget, etc. I would say definiately NOT to establish notability, but I am of the opinion that basic facts could be gleaned from these pieces. CNMall41 (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also had the same thought when you were talking about Outlook in the talk page. I think we could put out a cautionary note, like the ones about WP:FRUIT and WP:BLOG, in the guideline section here. You may add it in as you please now. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used the wording from Perennial sources and did some minor changes. Think we can work on it and then ask for feedback from others prior to adding. Just a thought. Also, I hate using "Indian" as it gets confusing. I was in a back and forth with an editor previously because they said one publication was from Pakistan. I believe the intent is actually "Indian subcontinent" so maybe using the words "news organizations in the Indian subcontinent region" to clarify. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed wording

Even legitimate Indian news organizations (print, television, and web) intermingle regular news with sponsored content and press release–based write-ups, often with inadequate or no disclosure. This is especially the case in reviews, films, and profiles of persons of borderline notability. This issue is distinct from that of journalism quality and bias, and that of sham news-style websites. Paid news is a highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian news media. Coverage related to the above mentioned entities requires extra vigilance given the diverse systemic approaches to paid news and the lack of clear disclosure practices in Indian media.

Exercise caution in using such sources for factual claims or to establish notability. Look at the tone and language of the article, its placement in the publication, use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter or reviewer, overlap in language with articles found in other publications and on other websites, and others. Examples of sponsored content include supplements published by The Times of India; the Special section of the Daily Pioneer; the Brand Wire section of ABP Live; the Press Release News or the Digpu News Network sections of Firstpost; the Business Spotlight section of Outlook; the Brand Connect section of Forbes India; the Brand Solutions produced content on The Indian Express, although problematic content is not restricted to these sections alone. If in doubt, consult the reliable sources noticeboard.

Looks good, but it might be a bit too long for a guideline. Hence, I summarised it and put a direct link to NEWSORGINDIA within the sentence itself. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]