Wikipedia talk:Deprecated sources/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Deprecated sources as reliable reference to their own texts?

WP:Deprecated sources fairly states, Deprecated sources ... fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances." Can the other circumstances include use for direct, interpretation-free reference to their own materials? I'm thinking that a source might be cited perhaps solely with a link to archive copy from a close to publication time. GregKaye 05:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I can't think of an exception right now. Literally ALL content here must come from, or be filtered through, RS.

Deprecated sources have zero due weight, so actual RS that discuss or quote them would have to be used. That's the only way we can document many fringe views that are unnotable in mainstream RS, so we are then forced to resort to the WP:Parity rule, because sometimes only skeptical or quackbusting sources mention such fringe views.

A deprecated source does not have any due weight, not even enough for WP:ABOUTSELF, so if parity reliable sources don't mention it, it gets no mention at all here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, Valjean, that "A deprecated source does not have any due weight, not even enough for WP:ABOUTSELF" but I'm thinking about using it as a WP:PRIMARY source for its own text. As an example, in the case of media articles that have been the centre of libel lawsuits such as the article[1] in The Sun at the centre of the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd dispute or, in the case of Depp v. Heard, that article along with an article[2] in The Washington Post which gey both referenced, just with one without a citation. In the second case (where I've been involved in editing) I'd have thought it could present readers with possibilities if they were provided with ready reference to both articles to facilitate comparison between arguably very different article contents. Web archive present copies[3] of the Sun article from May 6 2018[4] for a "27th April 2018, 10:00 pm version following a 7.58am title change[5]. My thought was that, in a situation like this, web archive might act as a reliable and direct primary reference of what texts said/still say. GregKaye 13:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, there are exceptions to every rule, so why not show us the version right here, with the sources and quotes, that you're talking about. Then we all can look at it and maybe come up with a version that doesn't break too many rules. It sounds a bit too complicated for me to understand all the nuances without actually seeing it in practice. There are also others here who can chime in with their advice.

Regarding The Sun, WP:RSP says:

"The Sun was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that The Sun is generally unreliable. References from The Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article and they should not be used for determining the notability of any subject. The RfC does not override WP:ABOUTSELF, which allows the use of The Sun for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Some editors consider The Sun usable for uncontroversial sports reporting, although more reliable sources are recommended."

So ABOUTSELF use has an exception "for uncontroversial self-descriptions". That is only about "self-descriptions" of the site itself, not about commentary on others, especially per BLP restrictions against using questionable sources for BLP matters like this case. An archive copy doesn't ameliorate any of this. If the issue is significant (has due weight), reliable sources will have commented on it. Otherwise, it would likely be OR to use different archived versions to make a point not made by RS. If RS make the point, then quote them and their quoting of The Sun, IOW the content is "filtered through a RS". I hope that all makes sense to you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

File:Freddiehamster.jpgI think the main potential reason here not to cite the The Sun article could be in potential applications of BLPPRIMARY. But for this, I think that the lead for Depp v. Heard worked as a better base for reader comparisons here were readers could directly compare the (incendiary) Sun article [6] (not judged as defamatory) to the (relatively subtle) Washington Post article [10] (judged as defamatory). Readers could compare both article contents with parallel means being provided for reference. I don't see how the archived writing of The Sun can be depreciated as reference to the writing of The Sun. "If a bear shits in the woods" and the shit was rapidly archived then that archived shit would surely represent a reliable source regarding the activity of the bear. Personally, I do not think that RS are necessarily reliable in regard to their potential bias when covering topics relating to defamation and free speech. (Also personally, I've been significant in arguments against the lead inclusion of a "wife beater" reference, which was very temporarily used by The Sun online. However I still think that inclusion of direct article reference can, in some circumstances, can provide reliable direct reference to the to the content of that article). GregKaye 08:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

If it does go in - which I am entirely unconvinced it should, the judgement suffices IMO - it should be an archive as close to publication as possible. Deprecated sources can't even be trusted as to their own websites, we keep finding. Or an image of a print version.

(also, all of this is really one for RSN.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

An archived copy is a mirror version, and a mirror of an unreliable source is just as unreliable as the original. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a snapshot of the unreliable source at a particular time, though, which is relevant if it's being used as a primary source link - David Gerard (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as long as it's only used for neutral self-descriptions, as described above, and only if the RS which discusses the issue has mentioned it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

yep, absolutely. e.g. In the few cases we include a Daily Mail primary source, I've made them early archives - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Identifying the deprecated reference

I made an edit here (User:Semsûrî/sandbox/3) where 78 references were added and when I saved it I received a notification telling me that I was about to add a deprecated source. I still went ahead and saved the edit. Now, my question is, how do you figure out what reference is the problematic one? I did check Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources but couldn't immediately figure out which one it is. Semsûrî (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Semsûrî: I recommend using the WP:UPSD script, which highlights sources in the reference list based on their status at RSP. Currently the deprecated source in your sandbox is ref 118 (Telesur). Sunrise (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Interviews an acceptable use?

Do interviews conducted between an article subject and a journalist for a deprecated source fall under acceptable use criteria? While not optimal, there are instances when an interviewee may share a potentially important piece of insight relevant to the article. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

As per #Effects of deprecation, "quotations should also be avoided, since they can be manipulated or fabricated. If the source contains material that cannot be found in more reliable sources, it may be valid to assume that the material in question is incorrect". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)