Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40

Personal Communication

Is personal communication from an expert a reliable source?

— No. It is not good enough for you to talk to an expert in person or by telephone, or to have a written letter, e-mail message, or text message from a source. Reliable sources must be Wikipedia:Published.

I have a question regarding biographies, personal communication, and reliable sources. I am working on the page of Eddie Imazu, a notable art director for 35 years at MGM Studios. Eddie died in the late 70s but his two daughters, Darleen and Joyce, are still alive, as well as his late wife Aiko's cousin, the notable Yuri Kochiyama. The majority of the information is taken from two Reliable Sources, articles written about Eddie in the Pacific Citizen and the Mainichi Shimbun; however, Eddie's name (He is "Edwin" not "Edward" and birth month (he was born in November, not December) are incorrectly listed elsewhere on the internet, such as at IMDB. I am working with Darleen Fujita, Eddie's daughter, on this research and she is keen to have Eddie's data corrected here. The "Notes" section of the page contains a reference to that effect, and I have personally interviewed Darleen to confirm this information. Therefore, with respect to the Wikipedia community's stance on personal communication, how would one go about citing these sources? I posted a similar question on Eddie's Talk page and a user kindly suggested I ask here.

I might also add that I am a web developer and have been hired by the Family to develop a website about Eddie to serve as an archive of his works. I am in the process of digitizing his materials now and will be developing the site over the next couple of months. It is the family's intention that the site ultimately becomes a reliable source to for future Wikipedia editors.Herm71 (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal communications are entirely unacceptable sources for wikipedia. Reliable sources can themselves use personal communications. I would suggest that you investigate what kind of demonstrable editorial policy is required by RS/N if you are intending on publishing a reliable source. However, I can assure you that a commissioned biographical work, published by the author, would be an obvious Self-published source. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
You can correct spelling of someone's name and wrong birthday in a situation like this, just as they could themselves if they were alive, and should cite your source, in this case, family members, see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. Other personal information regarding the person cannot be used but could be the subject of reliable published information provided there is adequate editing and fact checking. The site you are developing can be used by others as a primary source, provided it contains useful primary materials. If you do a good job with the primary sources you are being given access to then you are providing the materials for development of reliable secondary sources either by yourself or others. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Bauder's statement "you can correct spelling of someone's name and wrong birthday in a situation like this, just as they could themselves if they were alive, and should cite your source, in this case, family members" may be incorrect, depending on how it is interpreted. A Wikipedia editor cannot cite personal communications with a family member; only reliable published sources are citable. A website containing interviews with family members and copies of a person's papers is probably a primary source, which can be a reliable source for some purposes. Secondary sources are usually more useful than primary sources, but that does not mean primary sources can't be reliable. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
If the source of information is unusual, or somewhat out of process, it is more important than usual to cite the source. This gives others, and the readers, an opportunity to consider what was done. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all for the info. It seems like Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves is where I should start, so I will review that page (still learning how Wikipedia works). Herm71 (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that you figure out the process for correcting IMDB. I believe they have a process for signing up as the person's official representative or something. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Rachels Challenge

SOAPBOX
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Every year The Child School Legacy High School does Rachels Challenge.When a speaker comes to the school to talk about the dangers of bullying and to help the students to be nicer to eachother and help prevent another Columbine shooting. In 2011 Rachels Challenge was the inspirtion potential plot(or prank) of a school shooting when a student threatened the staff and students by leading them to believe that he had a deadly weapon. Noone was hurt physcaly on that day, but a few were hurt mentatly from the exprience. The Child School has no metal dectors nor security guards, but it does have a lot of people who require threapy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.68.144 (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources with mixed truth content

Hello there editors!

If a source is being used as backing for statement A, but also contains untrue statements B & C, does this affect the reliability of the source regarding statement A?

In a recent case one site was used to provide anecdotes which were transformed into one statement on the subject at hand, but also contained incorrect citations from a report on the subject.

Should that have any effect? Should the mixed truth value of the source be problematized, should it just be overlooked or should the source be removed? 79.136.23.59 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

My personal opinion would be that it would be good to find a better source for statement A, and ditch the possibly-problematic one. Pesky (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
So you're saying the source is demonstrably unreliable? Don't use it. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks guys! 79.136.23.59 (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you'll find it's more complicated than that.
Darwin's Origins of Species contains many demonstrable untruths (including one of the two major points in the book: Darwin thought that if your father was a blacksmith, you would inherit bulky muscles as a result of his exercise). But that doesn't mean that you can't cite the source for all kinds of things.
If errors B and C are irrelevant or trivial (does "incorrect citations to a report" mean that the source misspelled the authors' names in the source's footnotes?), then it need not invalidate the source at all.
I think you should take your question, with a complete explanation of the exact sentence(s) and source(s) in question, to the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for a detailed examination. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Nemzade Hatice Sultan

It's very interessting now, that my Grandmom was claimed that she was a Seljuk Princess LOl Where are the Sources? LOL Dilek2 (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Doubtless there are interesting family stories... User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


Edward321 is the Editor, because I ask him all day's about his Sources that my Grandmom was a Descendant of Seyh Bedreddin...I see no any Sources in this Article...But he didn't give me a answer...Isn't it strange?

Also the Person of Yakub Alemsah, his so called sources, I looked it...this have nothing to do with this Name.

Who or what is Edward321?

Dilek2 (talk) 11:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Dilek2, you have serious competency problems, and wikipedia will not carry the can for you any more. Do not insert content into articles based on what members of your family have told you, or you will face sanctions. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Dilek2's response to Fidelffo's warning on their talk page was to insert content into articles based on what members of their family have told them.[1] Edward321 (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtless my fault, see above. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no any Sources who told you that Nemzade was a descendant of Seyh Bedreddin...In the Article is no any Sources given, so what is your Problem?... Dilek2 (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that family lore, however interesting or believable, is not an adequate reference. You need to quit your campaign unless there is something published in a reliable source. By the way, it does not need to be in English; Turkish will be just fine. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully clear explanation for the non-WikiLiterate

I've added a couple of short sentences which will hopefully clarify precisely what we mean, and why we have to do it this way.

  • An editor may have certain knowledge that their "source" is entirely correct. The challenge Wikipedia faces is that a source must be demonstrably reliable to the satisfaction of other editors and readers.


It was tweaked while I grabbed an apple! I think this is an important one, as we use the word "reliable" here in WikiLand in a slightly different way from that in which it is used in Real Life. (Excellent tweak, Fifelfoo; reads much better this way.) Pesky (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I think it was an excellent addition and I just sub-edited the brilliance. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid the wording opens the door to the concept of truth being the criteria for acceptability of a source and to the demand that a source for the reliability of a source must be found before a source can be used. Clarity for the novice is definitely not improved. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Ehh, that wasn't what I meant at all! I really thought it was clear. Could you take another look at it and see if you can come up with better wording which overcomes your uneasiness with it, rather than just deleting it? Adding: looking at it, I can;t actually see how that "door" was opened, at all. I thought the bit about makming sure that the source was "demonstrably reliable to the satisfaction of other editors and readers" specifically addressed the issues of an editor relying on the Truth™ in their favoured (but not universally-demonstrably-reliable) source. Pesky (talk) 08:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry - I made an assumption instead of checking the history! It was Wnt I should have been speaking to ... I didn't think the wording I had there actually changed or added anything to the policy in terms of meaning; it was just an attempt to show that what Wikipedia means by a "reliable source" isn't necessarily what an individual editor means by it (obviously then followed by the existing page contents explaining in detail how we demonstrate that a source is reliable). I always thought that one of the major points of using reliable sources was so that our readers could check up that what they were reading wasn't BS, too. Surely one of the most important functions of using reliable sources is for the benefit of the readers, not just for other editors or noticeboards? Did I get that wrong somewhere? (Please don't read that as snark, it's not meant to be; just, if I've got it wrong, I'd really like to make sure that I've got it right now.) Pesky (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I shortened this to "These qualifications should be demonstrable to other editors." I would almost say "...when discussed the Reliable Sources/Noticeboard", except that discussion might be less formal, and I don't want to encourage using a source that can't be demonstrated to be reliable until it's challenged. Besides, I wanted to be brief.
I think the duty to demonstrate is only toward other editors, not readers, because unless a reader decides to become an editor, he's not going to fix the article; he can only take what he's given. I think that the commonsense interpretation of "reader" is going to be someone who simply looks at the article; he's not going to go through RS/N archives to see whether the source has been found to be reliable, and so how is reliability demonstrable to him? Only an editor, because of the implied duty that in a protracted debate he'll eventually turn up at RS/N, would really find the reliability of the source to be "demonstrable". I think. (This is getting too far into philosophy for me to be totally comfortable with any conclusion) Wnt (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I can kinda see your point here, but if it's just a matter of interpretation as to who needs to know that sources are reliable, then it's yet another area where policy really needs to be clarified! I think, for the credibility of the 'pedia, surely the reliability of sources is one of the major things which media-types (with the knocking-Wikipedia agenda) need to be aware of. And our readers, too; in any modern scholarly work, thesis, etc., then sources are cited ... and not for the benefit of other writers of those works, but for the readers and judges of them? I really do think that the main reason is so that our readers can tell we're not just feeding them junk. Like the WP:V nutshell says , "People have to be able to check that you didn't just make things up." Sensibly, our main duty in this respect is to our readers – the people who are using us for their education and information? It might pay to get some more opinions in on this one, I think. Pesky (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Different points of view have sources which vary in reliability; nevertheless, all substantial points of view should be included in our articles, not as truth and anti-truth or denial, but as to their nature. Often one side or the other, sometimes both, are, frankly, full of it. However, we don't present their claims as fact but as the fact that they make that claim. Applying rigorous reliability standards, as to underlying reliability of facts, misses the point which is to find a reliable source for the fact we are presenting, that the position exists and its nature. This is a rather subtle point and not something to tangle newbies up in. People who have edited controversial articles for years however should understand this sort of thing or at least understand the issue. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Ummmm ... I'm not entirely sure with that ties in with what I was hoping to achieve. I can see what you mean, but I haven't managed to parse it into where I was coming from in the first place. Pesky (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
NPOV trumps reliability, if there is a conflict. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Well yes, obviously. But that's not what I was talking about. Not NPOV, not DUE, not any of that stuff. What I was talking about was just making it clear that it doesn't matter if editor X just happens to know that the guy who owns website Y is actually spot-on-right and has high-level insider knowledge of the subject; what matters is that Wikipedia needs to be able to demonstrate to its readers that website Y (used as a source on which we are relying) wasn't written up by Joe Crank-Bloggs from down the road, who might not know his arse from his elbow. That was my point. Pesky (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
That is a valid point. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A source being "demonstrably reliable" is different from the reliability of a source being demonstrated within an article. Demonstrating within the article is not feasible, especially considering that we must assume the reader is a novice with respect to the article's topic. So the reader only knows that famous sources like The New York Times are reliable, and doesn't know which specialized sources are reliable. Imagine citing a highly specialized source A, then citing a semi-specialized source B to show Ais reliable, then a famous source C to show B is reliable. Just not feasible.

This means that a reader who doesn't know if a source is reliable must either research it him/herself, or ask on the talk page. But if (s)he asks on the talk page, (s)he is an editor, not a reader. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

We're still not quite in tune (I must have been expressing myself unusually badly! Wouldn't surprise me ....) My point was kinda explaining to our editors why our sources have to be reliable (so that we're not feeding BS to our readers), and also obviously reliable to people with both wits and nasty agendas (like newshacks wanting to say how unreliable Wikipedia is). It's sort of a two-pronged thing. One would hope that any decent journalist worth his / her salt would be able to distinguish between a reliable and an unreliable source. Except for perhaps Fox News .... But, in explaining to editors (particularly newbie editors) why we want sources to be reliable, it's really our responsibility to our readers that we're (surely?) talking about. Does that explain it? Pesky (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you can solve this problem by saying "other people" without getting into the details of whther those people have clicked an edit button. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Excellent! Yes, that's clearly the right solution. Pesky (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Detecting and dealing with Journatic and other content-farm-esque stories

I moved this from WT:RSN as suggested

As discussed on the June 29, 2012 episode of This American Life, the Journatic company has been providing "hyperlocal" content to many newspapers since "after 2000". The content has been revealed to be written, or merely collated, by outsourced low-paid writers in countries such as the Philippines, under assumed names, referred to as "false bylines".

It is my understanding that Wikipedia has long held that a newspaper is a reliable source, as a long-term publication, independent of the subjects about which it writes, supervised by an editorial staff, with fact-checking capabilities as part of the publication process.

  1. Can Wikipedia presume that hyperlocal content is not fact-checked, but is instead merely "poured-in" content?
  2. Can Wikipedia continue to trust any hyperlocal microsites?
  3. How do we detect contracted content by Journatic or Narrative Science (GigaOm story)? Should we be wary of "Special to the Tribune"-type bylines? If newspapers ever publish a list of fake bylines, should we maintain that as a blacklist of unreliable content sources?

Basically, do we exclude such content broadly, or narrowly, or at all? --Lexein (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

We should keep a watching brief. Most local newspapers are reputable and would have nothing to do with this. Stories that are really hyper local would rarely meet notability for us. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Itsmejudith. If someone technically analysed news citations, and discovered a disturbing pattern; or, if a bunch of problematic stories came up before RS/N; then, I'd think we'd want to consider blanket banning newspapers so yellow that they engage in this kind of journalism habitually. We regularly consider news sources who have consistently fallen below the mark to be irredeemable. Others are only "partly" acceptable due to the quality of their reportage. Until then, we ought to watch, aware of these perverse practices. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Approval of quotations

The information in this New York Times article is proposed as an addition to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#News_organizations. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do you think should be added, and why? Do you think, for example, that NPR's habit of deleting "um" and "uh" from radio interviews makes the material less reliable? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Radio or television editing is another matter. This is about interviews by newspaper reporters granted only on the condition that the subject has the right to edit and approve any quotation before it is published. Used by many politicians, intensively by the Obama campaign, acquiesced in by nearly all media, including those we recognize as reliable sources, such as The New York Times which in this article admits the quotes they publish may differ from what was actually said. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I suppose just a short note that newspapers may not be reliable sources for quotations by politicians who have been interviewed due to general use of this sort of agreement permitting editing and approval. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Really it is a warning that reliability of sources is questionable. -- Avanu (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Not for our purposes. "Reliable" doesn't mean "exact, complete, verbatim transcript of all quotations, including mispronunciations, stuttering, speech disfluencies, grammar errors, as given on the first attempt to answer the question, according to the reporter's (notoriously erroneous) notes".
The NYT article says that none—none, as in zero—of the changes involved changes of meaning. The changes seem to involve things like changing "I got an idea" to "I have an idea" or simply refusing to have a statement published. I don't see any challenge for reliability here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
You do realize that is simply a lie, yes? If it doesn't change the meaning, why are these campaigns and politicians so interested in it? Why does the story itself say: “We don’t like the practice,” said Dean Baquet, managing editor for news at The New York Times. “We encourage our reporters to push back. Unfortunately this practice is becoming increasingly common, and maybe we have to push back harder.” Just maybe? Why worry about it if it means nothing, and means nothing different? You're simply buying the lie that it doesn't change the meaning if you accept that statement without questioning it. -- Avanu (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Maintaining the idea that quotations as the written results of a speech and the speech itself are identical is specious. Both are approved by the speaker, and in the case of a private interview (as opposed to a mass speech) we have no access to alternate forms. Emendation of speech is quite common; it was regularly practised (and still is) on working class expression in order to bring them into line with what is acceptable, or in some cases to bring unacceptable working class politicians statements in line with a deeply held belief (I'm thinking Hawkes' "Any boss who sacks anyone for not turning up to work today is a bum!" which I learnt differently). This isn't a big thing. Newspaper publications of historical speeches often are the publication of the edited final version, after the speaker mulled over the response and found their last typos. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how exactly I feel about this, but part of me is a bit concerned over Wikipedia's role as a neutral observer. We hold a mirror up to the world and summarize its knowledge to our readers. If the world tiddies up quotes a bit, I'm not sure it's our place to say that the world is wrong or that sources are less reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The article above from the New York Times isn't just talking about speeches. It is talking about every bit of material being delivered from these politicians. Interviews, speeches, press releases, etc, all of it. Our reliable sources policy says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors ...." If the level of editorial control by politicians is as pervasive as the article above represents, we are not getting 'reliable authors', only reliable parrots. Would we permit a politician to rewrite an article here at Wikipedia simply because they didn't like the way they said their quote? The word 'tidy' seems far too light. Approval by the speaker rather than an honest reporting of the person seems to belie any supposed veneer of truth. I can see a justification for removing empty words like "uh" or regional inflections like "gonna", but we aren't talking about that. We are talking about VERY careful and deliberate management (or manipulation) of what the press gets to report, under threat of losing their access to the newsworthy personages. To shrug it off and say no problem is to ignore our duty to ensure high quality sourcing. Perhaps we have no way of knowing for sure what is and is not changed, but at the very least, it should make us question these supposedly reliable publishers that are in bed with the very people upon whom they are supposed to be shining the light of truth. -- Avanu (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Guess what newspapers have always done? This is why as time progresses we switch from reportage to scholarly political history. Until higher quality sources are available we're left with the corrupt and venal Times and New York Times who have ever pushed pro-bourgeois lines and doctored minor grammar so as to bring speech into line with written expectations. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Remarkable! However, it is the politicians who insist on this rather than the newspapers; my suggestion is only that newspapers should not be considered reliable sources for quotations in this context. They admit they are not themselves and their inability to do much about it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
"If I had a pound for every time one part of the universe looked at another part of the universe and said, 'That's terrible,' I wouldn't be sitting here like a lemon asking you to bring me a cup of coffee, but I don't and I am." - Ford Prefect. I honestly don't know if your responses are somewhat sarcastic or silly or serious. But hey, what else can we do with these corrupt and venal quotes than attempt to put them to some use? -- Avanu (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
It's always been done. Quotations of senior executives in press releases are almost always made up by the publicity department. A few fastidious people even then read the made-up quotations out loud, thus making the assertion that they "said" those words 100% accurate. Editors have always corrected spelling errors in letters to the editor and other written material: do you believe that failing to preserve and reproduce a typo is "inaccurate"? What about a grammar error? What about stray profanity? That's the typical kind of thing the article says they're dealing with: "The changes were almost always small and seemingly unnecessary...“There are times when this feels like I’m dealing with some of my editors. It’s like, ‘You just changed this because you could!’ ”." "Small and seemingly unnecessary" changes do not sound like a matter of accuracy to me. Furthermore, how do you know that they didn't actually say the slightly amended words, too? The stories rarely say things like "At 3:42 p.m., while in the speaker's office, with my tape recorder running during an interview, Joe Important said the following words verbatim:" So what if he said "I got" during the interview and "I have" when he reviewed it?
Then let's talk about the other half of this: the reporters say that the quotations can be used, just without the person's name. Is a lack of attribution—is referring to the speaker "as a “top Democrat” or a “Republican strategist”—a matter of accuracy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
That isn't the point being raised here. This isn't a matter of helpful corrections or reasonable summation. It isn't even a matter of just avoiding being misquoted. It is a matter of political manipulation, a deliberate distortion of the facts in order to portray something in a way that isn't necessarily realistic. The fact that the press doesn't feel right about this should raise a red flag for you. -- Avanu (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
You what? They're the bourgeois media, they deliberately distort the facts all the time in order to portray somethings in ways that aren't realistic. They accept police sources verbatim, don't attend events, take the bosses' line on lock-outs and call them strikes. That the news is not "news" is not news. They're still "reliable" under the wikipedia criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
As your examples illustrate their reliability has its limits, as does scholarly authority. And, yes, both are still reliable under our criteria; they just need to be used appropriately. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

On the Topic of Allowing arXiv and Physics Essays References

There exists disagreement on whether or not articles should be 'allowed' (for lack of better word) to include references to papers published in the peer-reviewed journal "Physics Essays". To summarize the case "for allowing", in short -- Physics Essays comprises an editorial board of 25 accredited scientists. To summarize the case "against allowing", Physics Essays is a 'fringe' journal in that they appear to have made up their own rules when it comes to the peer-review process employed therein. I argue the case wherein the latter argument "against" is not valid when applied to Physics Essays, but in some cases, as it relates to non-peer-reviewed journals, it may indeed be a valid argument. I strongly favor "allowing" references to Physics Essays papers not only in the main Wiki article, but also in the Lede.

When we compare the relatively strict peer-review process of Physics Essays with the completely and unarguably non-existent peer-review process of the online repository "arXiv", then it is clear that it's not Physics Essays papers which should be banned, rather, it's arXiv papers that should be banned based on the "against" argument above. However, in a very ironic and inconsistent series of past edits on various pages, some of those making the argument "against" have indeed modified or supported the modification of a given page to include references to papers "uploaded" to arXiv, while ironically, they've simultaneously made arguments to disallow Physics Essays papers after having posted references to arXiv papers. Some will argue that "some/most" arXiv papers go on to be published in peer-reviewed journals. This may indeed be the case, however, in this case it is the responsibility of the wiki editor to refrain from posting arXiv papers until they've been published in a reviewed journal, at which point the wiki page may reference the paper in the reviewed journal directly, and avoid the arXiv reference.

arXiv primer, demonstrating absence of formal editors and peer-review structure, instead replaced by an unaccountable upload "moderator/moderation" policy: 

   http://arxiv.org/help/primer

Physics Essays List of Editors & Peer-Review Structure: 

   http://physicsessays.org/page/about

Now, in conclusion, and to make my intention clear, I make the above arguments given that there are those who wish to "ban" Physics Essays papers while at the same time these very same people are referencing arXiv papers in their wiki edits. In that case, and that respect, then if any journal is to be "banned", it should be arXiv (which is not peer-reviewed -- it is moderated), not Physics Essays (which is peer-reviewed). In other words I'm also making the point that you can't have it both ways. I believe _both_ journals are worthy of good standing on Wikipedia because in truth, they are _both_ very well maintained, very well controlled, and very well protected by a number of people (whether you call them moderators or editors or peer-reviewers), people who have advanced scientific and mathematics degrees who would not intentionally allow substandard or inconsistent work to be published. If vast numbers of the scientific community are taking advantage of both of these journals, and it's good enough for them, then it should be good enough for Wikipedia. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it the concerns that were previously raised about Physics Essays at wp:RSN still apply. It isn't that the publication seeks garbage, but their reviews are still not binding on their authors. This makes it a magnet for anyone who wants to publish anything that reviewers elsewhere would reject. Just being in that publication does not make the paper wrong, but neither does it confer credibility. For that, we must wait for independent secondary sources to comment on it. Similar concerns apply to arXiv. It is good that these publishers provide an archived public record of what these authors are saying, but that is not sufficient to assure a reader that the contents represent the best of considered informed thought on the topic. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
In a regular old magazine, people write stuff and someone (an editor) decides whether to publish it. How is this different? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, it may be that it is like a magazine. Most of our good sources in science aren't magazines but journals. Each proposed article goes to two or more qualified people for anonymous comment. The editor makes the final decision, but only after taking those comments into account. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

My 2 cent regarding arxiv (i'm not familar with physics essays but that might be a similar case):

I think arxiv is primarily useful to provide (convenience) online copies of otherwise published materials (preprints or earlier or revised articles with essentially the same content). Occasionally it may also be used as an additional source for uncontroversial information, but it cannot be used as the primary (as in main) source for any controversial or disputed content or really new knowledge/theories. The main reason for that is, that the reception & review by the scientific community and ts penetration of the scientific community is not sufficient enough. Any really important article/content which is accepted or reviewed by the scientific community at large is or will be published elsewhere as well, so in that case this other publication should be cited and the arxiv version can be provided as a convenience link. The new knowledge/theories and/or controversial content published in arxiv only cannot be considered as established or notable.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikinews as a reliable source

Reformulating RfC to comply with complaints of bias by original poster

Does the English Wikinews meet Wikipedia's standard for a reliable source (publisher), as stated at Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources, specifically:

  1. It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
  2. It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s).
  3. It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing.
  4. It is a third-party or independent source.
  5. It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes.

Please keep debate on topic, and replies should be based on an evaluation of the criteria listed. -- Avanu (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I'm going to ask you to assist in fixing this supposedly awful RfC. The idea that we have no idea what our standards are for determining new reliable publishers seems absolutely ridiculous. Your quote: "The 'standard' for reliable sources inheres in the policy and hundreds of consenses formed". While I can see that each new reliable publisher must meet a consensus before being accepted by the community, the idea that we are going to have to read through hundreds of consensus decisions to make a decision here is simply irrational beyond any hope of recovery. I'm going to ask you once more, either help, or move along. You seem to want to contribution little of positive value to the discussion while claiming everyone else has it all wrong. Be collaborative, or be gone. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
You do not get to give ultimata like that, Avanu. This RfC is in itself not collaborative, but simply an attempt at shopping for a more favorable consensus. Nothing collaborative about that. Now for collaboration the policy/guideline that decides what is a reliable source is WP:RS - it says "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." and "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
No, actually I *do* get to give an ultimata like that. Through WP:Civility, WP:Consensus, WP:Etiquette, WP:NotBureaucracy, and more, we have an expectation that editors work in a collaborative fashion. If all we can hear is how badly formed something is rather than a proactive editor just stepping up and fixing it, that editor is not being a community partner, and may be engaged in WP:Disruptive editing or WP:Tendentious editing. The goal of this RfC is clearly to establish a consensus, based on clear standards, of whether Wikinews can be considered a reliable publisher. Sidelining the discussion with off-topic commentary is not helpful and not needed. Either be positive or go find another part of Wikipedia in which you can contribute positively. -- Avanu (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
If you make another comment in which you try to establish yourself as a judge of who is helpful or positive and who gets to comment and how I will report you to ANI for ...disruptive editing. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Maunus, I invite you to do as you see fit, but you have no business in calling my plea disruptive when it is a plea for collaborative editing. I'm a bit offended that you're on about this, when it is obvious the goal is that we stay on target rather than engage in these side discussions. Again, be helpful or be gone. -- Avanu (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
You don't get to decide who is or isn't a "problematic editor". In this case you're simply wrong. You repeat your mantra "be helpful or be gone" - then perhaps you shouldn't be here. This RfC wasn't helpful to begin with and neither have you been.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
USEPRIMARY is an essay, but that particular section directly summarizes this guideline. Most of the items listed there can be found in a single sentence: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The quoted material is also taken from this page, and you'll no doubt recall that there's a whole section on self-published sources.
On the less immediately relevant point, "essay" is not a fancy Wikipedia word for "page whose contents are wrong or safely ignored". WP:Five pillars is "just" an essay. WP:Tendentious editing is "just" an essay (and you can get blocked for ignoring its advice). WP:BOLD, revert, discuss is "just" an essay. USEPRIMARY is "just" an essay because nobody's yet bothered with making a WP:PROPOSAL to have it formally adopted as a guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't fix the fundamentally broken nature of this RFC without radically editing it. See [[2]] for what a more neutral RFC might look like—but that is still in drafting because I want to ensure that both Brian and myself would agree on the wording of an RFC before publishing it. In particular Brian might like to comment on the number of links to previous en.wikipedia discussions; and, I might like to comment on whether the characterisation of en.wikinews' editorial process is suitably neutral. Even if I did radically intervene by editing this RFC, it would have all of the deficits of my own editorial position. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I requested this be constructed into an RfC, which I have little-to-no knowledge regarding, but that too became a point upon which to attack and stifle discussion. The WP:RS policy states that, even for widely accepted "reliable sources" their use is only taken on a "case-by-case" basis. The discussion is littered with gross ignorance and more ad hominem from Wikipedians than I've seen in a very long time. Can someone independent from the discussion please help turn this into a proper RfC where people are looking at the matter from an informed viewpoint, not biased ignorance? --Brian McNeil /talk 23:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


Note that the OP failed to disclose in this RfC that they are a "long-term Wikinews contributor" and therefore has a potential Conflict of interest. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This is forum shopping, plain and simple. Your calling those who disagree with you Nazis at WP:RFCB is inappropriate. You are being a tendentious editor, quit it. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Are you claiming I've Godwinned myself? I suggest you re-read the remark a good deal more closely, I did not call anyone in the discussion a Nazi; I made a comparison regarding what the process of the discussion resembles. The request for the issue to be turned into an RfC was in place before an involved editor closed the discussion, so placing this here - as a 'best guess' as to where the RfC should be put hardly qualifies as "forum shopping" (WP:TEND being yet another piece of Wikipedian jargon which is great at putting off would-be editors). --Brian McNeil /talk 23:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In looking at the debate from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Wikinews_is_reliable., the problem was that nobody bothered to lay out what the rules for determining a RS were for a publisher, and then match Wikinews against it. It was all a big blah blah blah, I'm Right - You're Wrong debate. So the whole debate was on the wrong footing. Have a real debate on it, using a defined set of criteria.
Also, let's tone down the rhetoric and stick to objective facts as much as possible. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Brian McNeil, the effect is no different. The statement you made was the following analogy:
You:others::black gay men:national socialists.
Whether you just make the comparison or outright call them that doesn't matter, you are equating those who disagree with you with Nazis.
You are going between multiple venues because you are dissatisfied with the results you find at others, until you find one place that doesn't say "no" so you can wave that around as evidence that you're right. That's forum shopping.
Your behavior is off-putting to anyone who is concerned about maintaining the encyclopedia instead of trying to win battles. This is not a battle nor game to win, this is a cooperative project. If you don't like it when consensus doesn't go your way, accept it or leave.
EDIT: Also, your comparison is disgustingly insulting to those who suffered in the Holocaust. We have no tried to take your human rights away from you. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, this is completely off topic now. Holocaust or not, the magnitude of what the Nazis did had a lasting impact on the way the world views them and their actions. Much like the Vandal tribe of old, that tribe's name is not simply a literal description of them, but is now a word that means destruction. You have to know that the word 'nazi' has taken on some of these connotations. If you need to continue such a debate, take it to Brian McNeil's talk page. This page is not for our personal debates, but for Reliable Source discussions. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
In looking at that discussion, it appears that nothing was really decided by consensus. I see a lot of tit-for-tat and mine vs. yours. Have a real discussion firmly based on a set of guidelines, not a bunch of yelling about who's this or that. -- Avanu (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Numerous uninvolved editors participated in that discussion (including myself) and all reached the same conclusion: WikiNews is not a reliable source. But if you want yet another round of uninvolved editors telling you the same thing, so be it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
So let's start with a simple question, what are the criteria for something to be a reliable source? We know there are three components of that, Publisher, Author, and Article. Can you have a reliable author if the publisher as a rule is unreliable? How do we go about go about determining that a new publisher is actually reliable? We must have a set of standards for this, yes? -- Avanu (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, as a point of fact, a source (not: a reliable source) is defined three ways. The criteria for determining reliability are actually five, and are listed at WP:NOTGOODSOURCE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Has the March 2010 RFC on this topic been mentioned, in all of this? Just wondering; it's archived here. (If there's been a more recent RFC on the subject, I'm unaware of it.) There was some interesting discussion, as well as some (to be honest) anti-Wikinews vitriol; I'd the impression a prominent objection was dearth of mainstream citations of Wikinews at that time. --Pi zero (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
It might be interesting to put some of our mainstream sources through the same ringer that our editors put WikiNews through. After all, it is generally simply taken for granted that these big name news outlets are reliable, but how much scrutiny do we actually give them? -- Avanu (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
If it is not formulated right, propose a fix, or just fix it. -- Avanu (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
That's not my responsibility. I fulfilled mine when I advised the OP to seek the assistance of a non-involved adminitrator to formulate the RfC correctly. This isn't an RfC that can be "fixed". It needs to be completely rewritten and resubmitted in a suitable forum. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
You don't have any responsibility to do anything here, even to express your opinion that the RFC could be more perfectly formulated. But it happens that imperfectly formulated questions aren't grounds for closing an RFC. The OP can voluntarily withdraw the question if he chooses to, but resolution of the question is the only actual grounds for closing an RFC. Consequently, anyone who believes he (or she) can contribute to answering the question should be speaking up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


  • I see here that three objections have previously been made and responded to:
    1. It's a wiki, anyone can edit it—but they use FlaggedRevisions, so a second, presumably trusted person has to agree before a change is visible.
    2. It's self-published—but some of the participants double-check other participants' work.
    3. Wikinewsies are not 'qualified' journalists—but various famous journalists did not obtain university degrees in journalism.
  • The "rebuttals" seem weak to me. Two "anybodies" is still "anybody". The authors are still the people deciding whether their work sees the light of day, and that's self-publishing. A university degree is not what makes a journalist qualified; recognition by a recognized news organization is what makes a journalist qualified. It's not exactly "having a press pass", but something close to having a press pass from an organization that other people with press passes think is legitimate. So IMO all of these are still valid points, although some of them are not closely related to the five criteria that really matter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing, first, thank you for actually addressing the RfC with a standards-based argument. I've put the criteria for RS from WP:NOTGOODSOURCE up top. -- Avanu (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
One point I think I'm seeing here, that I feel moved to remark on. Not just "anybody" can review an article. Each article is reviewed by an authorized reviewer who is independent of the writing of that article. We're cautious, at Wikinews, about who we authorize to review (grant the reviewer bit to); there was a case a while back of an admin who lost the review bit for several months. Like any news organization, the quality of the editorial staff (for Wikinews, that's the reviewers) has a big impact on the quality of the output. You can't judge the reliability of a newspaper merely by its written policies and organizational structure; the personnel and organizational culture matter, too. --Pi zero (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This RfC is not formulated neutrally it presupposes that the posters conclusion is right and that those who disagree with him are not. No point in commenting. A real RfC is formulated as a question not as a series of unsubstantiated claims.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Would you like to explain how my reformulation is in any way biased? I pointed to a standard and asked if Wikinews meets that standard. If you have a better standard to point to, we can easily substitute it. Otherwise, please remove your comment above (and this reply to it). -- Avanu (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
No Avanu you don't get to refactor other's comments or tell them to go somewhere else if they say something you don't like. Your formulation states Brian's unsupported claims about wikinews as fact. That is bias.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • commentWho is the responsible editor for wikinews? What kind of responsibility does he assume over content? Is he legally responsible for content published there? How does the peer review process function? Is it blind? (so that you don't exchanges of mutually favorable reviews), or is it hierarchic so that someone is editor in chief who is ultimately responsible for the review process (also legally). Does wikinews allow anonymous authorship? Does wikinews require editors to be legally respnsible for what they publish by having their own real and legal name connected to their articles? If the answer to one of these questions is no then wikinews can never be as reliable as professional newsmedia, but is in essence like any other source generated by anonymous volunteers. And hence it falls clearly under the definition of an inadmissible source in WP:RS.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment It should be noted that Avanu[3], William S. Saturn[4] and Brian McNeil[5] all have conflicts of interest, and Brian McNeil appears to have been canvassing for support.[6] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
You guys are really trying my patience. In what way do I have ANY conflict of interest here???? I expect your comment to be gone immediately unless you provide a solid rationale really fast. The ad hominem stuff is getting old and this is almost to the point of harassment to disrupt consensus building. -- Avanu (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Well for starters, y'all are members of Wikinews. If someone is trying to change Wikipedia policy in favor of some organization they are a part of, that's a conflict of interest. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Ian: try checking the contributions there, for that matter you too probably have a talk page there. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I tried opening the link you sent me, but all I'm getting is "Bad title." A search didn't pull up anything. Are you sure I really have a talk page there? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a talk page there based on the unified login, as does Avanu. Neither Avanu nor I have made any edits there. Your login / account may vary, but the existence of an account isn't an indicator of editorial activity. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
This diff appears to show evidence of off-site canvassing with the intention of disrupting or vandalising en.wikipedia. I'm really not sure how to proceed in relation to it, because it seems to be rooted in ignorance of how seriously en.wikipedia treats off-site collusion. I would suggest that the editor who made those comments off-site remove them from the off-site location, but their signature redirects their talk to the off-site location. It isn't GNAA territory, but it isn't amusing either. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, seriously, enough is enough. Have you ever heard of a UNIFIED LOGIN? I mean you make me seriously wish I could just spell out the exact phrases that come to mind right now, and if it weren't for civility being a core pillar here, I would. But your actions are beyond disruption, tenditious, and downright wrong. As far as this supposed canvassing between William and Brian, wow... what a nice stretch to call that canvassing. You guys are showing a desperate side that is really not welcoming or appropriate for Wikipedia. I suggest you take a break. -- Avanu (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ian was wrong about the unified login, and should probably note this. Having people suggest off-site that they come here are wreck the place isn't a sign of good faith. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I was mistaken in that I just saw there was an account, and did not bother considering the unified log in. If one is having trouble posting while being civil, that's also probably a sign that they need a break. If that stress is preventing them from acknowledging that off-site canvassing has occured, they are biased in the matter and should step out. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Ian, the problem is when there is a stated goal and yet instead of focusing on the stated goal, the various opponents of the goal attack their fellow editors or the form of the request. I have seen only a couple of editors actually take the time to answer based on a reasonable set of criteria, and with suggestions for improvement. The rest of you have been doing everything possible to derail this. I don't consider that kosher. If you can't be helpful, then take your toys down the road. Your accusations of bias are inappropriate, they're off topic, and I have been very patient throughout. -- Avanu (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Please, show me where I have attacked others. I have pointed out inappropriate behavior on the part of a couple of other users, and was responded to inappropriately and hypocritically. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is a reliable primary source for content about Wikipedia, when a specific revision is cited. For example, we should feel free to cite to a certain day's version of WP:SOPA as a source for our article SOPA, to document that Wikipedia held a vote to favor opposing the measure. Like many primary sources, this is best but not necessarily accompanied by a secondary source, and any user interpretation must be done carefully. I would not call Wikipedia a secondary/tertiary source unless you have one particular history revision and you get a list of several respected, independent and unbiased editors (who probably need to be named or otherwise certified as knowledgeable experts) to say that they've read that revision beginning to end and agree that it is factual and "ready for print" in all details. People checking a line here and there, in between edit wars, political redactions, and vandalism, does not a secondary source make. Wnt (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
It's about wikinews not wikipedia and they work somewhat differently.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, looking into it a little further (I'm not an expert with Wikinews) the distinction I see is that there is a wikinews:Wikinews:REV policy, for peer review of an article by one accredited reviewer. Re-reading this now, I see that reviewers now have to have their own revisions "sighted" by someone else afterward. So the notion of a defined revision, reviewed by others, is largely in place - except, as I understand it, it is still one other. That's a tougher call. Wnt (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Offering a Wikinewsie's perspective on this — Ultimately, review is by one other, required to be independent of the writing of the particular article, belonging to a select group of folks authorized to review, following a procedure of rigorous checking against standards set by policy. I suspect that, from a Wikipedian perspective, the most alien part of the whole arrangement is the process by which we judge who to authorize for review. The social infrastructure of Wikipedia is oriented toward spreading responsibility as widely as possible (an approach both facilitated and necessitated by WP:AGF); the social infrastructure of Wikinews, toward accumulating evidence about individual users (c.f. n:WN:Never assume). --Pi zero (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Another important thing is, that the news articles get blocked from editing upon archiving. In that sense they have a similarity to a particular revision of an Wikipedia article that has been proof read and declared "ready for print". In that sense you might see Wikinews as a reliable source, at least it seems to be as reliable as any other published citizen journalism if not even more so. Independent of the reliable source for WP question, I'd personally prefer Wikinews any time over various opinion news channels, that many people like to consider as "reliable".--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Who is legally responsible for the content generated and reviewed by anonymous volunteer users at wikinews? Real news agencies and reporters (or their editors) are legally accountable for the correctness of their news reports. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Just a quick site note. The legality question is separate issue and a lack of direct legal accountability does not implicate reliability. Reliability needs to be assessed on its own. In fact Wikinews is probably a good example to illustrate that point.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
If somebody got sued (or criminally charged) for something that was published on Wikinews, the folks with the legal bullseyes painted on 'em would be the writer and reviewer. --Pi zero (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
And how would they be identified? Is anonymous editing of wikinews disabled?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Treating that as a serious question, it suggests a surprising level of naivety about the nature of "anonymity" on the sister projects. "Anonymity" makes it harder to casually harass someone. --Pi zero (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
So that means "no", wikinews users are editing anonymously and are therefore impossible to hold responsible for for what they write?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
So-called "anonymous" editing does not prevent users from being held legally responsible for what they write. I hope, for your sake, you haven't been operating on the assumption it did. --Pi zero (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Besides, legal responsibility seems like something of a red herring. For example, a British author would be more readily sued than one in the U.S. - does that mean that British sources are more reliable than those in the U.S.? I don't believe it - because I don't believe a court will be any better at getting to the truth, as opposed to what is convenient to power, than anybody else. Wnt (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
That makes no sense - all respectable news agents are expected to have a responsible editor who can respond to legal problems with content, if editors are anonymous that is impossible. The frequency with which news papers are sued is immaterial.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course it is not, we are assessing the reliability of a source (for accurate) reporting. If a news medium constantly getting sued for incorrect characterizations, it does of course influence our assessment. The question of legal accountability is one structural point (out of many) that should motivate a news medium to be accurate. However the emphasis here is on "out of many" and "should".--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. Accountability is what makes it possible for news sources to claim to be reliable. A news source with no accountability cannot be reliable. There must be an accountable editor that can publish retractions and apologies, decide when a reporter is no longer fit to write, and who is the ultimate legal respondent in case anything goes wrong. Think New of the World. Ultimately accountability is what distinguishes sources published by a publishing house from a selfpublished source. Anonymous reporters and reviewers cannot be accountable and there for cannot rise above the level of a selfpublished source. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
We are assessing reliability not the difference between selfpublished and a publishing house. News of the world did face not face legal consequences for inaccurate reporting but for illegal wiretapping and other criminal activities. In fact News of the World or other yellow press are rather showing that "legal accountability" doesn't really keep them from inaccurate reporting.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry but you are consistently missing the point. Wikinews is a selfpublished source. Selfpublished sources are ipso facto not considered reliable. Wikinews has none of the characteristics that make professionally published sources reliable such as accountability. The point with News of the World was that its activities had consequences for the editorship - that is what distinguishes it from anonymously published unaccountable sources. For a professional source malfeasance has consequences - no such consequences could exist for wikinewsies who edit anonymously. The point is not that accountability keeps form inaccurate reporting it shows that real publishers are accountable for what they write. A publisher that cannot be held accountable can also never be reliable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems to be the other way around rather, i.e. you miss the point. The discussion is about reliability and not (legal) accountability. You cannot equate reliability with accountability as you do in your last line, but accountability is "just" one criterion for assessing reliability. Wikinews cannot simply be treated as a self published as it differs from self published in rather decisive aspect. Self published do not have an editorial process, but Wikinews has one. Also self published sources actually are usually not anonymous and hence to possess accountability. Independent of that it is also not correct self published sources are not reliable per se, but they are just usually not a reliable source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Wnt, may I recommend that you read WP:USEPRIMARY? Fact-checking doesn't have anything at all to do with whether something is a secondary source. Secondary sources provide analysis and synthesis. "Two plus two equals four" can be fact-checked by a thousand different newspaper editors, and it's still primary source material. "Two plus two equals four, and therefore the butler did it" is secondary source material, even if nobody ever checks any of the facts. "Secondary" does not mean "good". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
True; my point was that sometimes Wikipedia acts as a primary source (when you're directly documenting what happens here) and in that case there is considerable reliability (i.e. you can generally trust the article histories to honestly tell you what was said when, even if you don't trust the article itself to be NPOV). But I'm afraid my comment, meant as a starting point for consideration, was only a distraction this time. Wnt (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • No, Wikinews is not a reliable source, according to the guideline "Indentifying reliable sources", for the reasons given at WP:USERG, mainly that it is a collaboratively edited site whose content is mainly user-generated. G. C. Hood (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The cited principle (WP:USERG) is irrelevant to Wikinews. Users who try to use Wikinews as a forum for self-publication find out the hard way that our review process doesn't allow it. -Pi zero (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for Summary Close of this RfC Given the discussion between Editor:Fifelfoo and Editor:Brian McNeil at User_talk:Fifelfoo#If_the_RfC_on_Wikinews_is_not_legit..., I would propose that the current version of the RfC be closed if community consensus agrees. Brian McNeil originally started this RfC, stating right up front that he had limited experience in formulating RfC's and asked for help in getting this in order. While some discussion has taken place, it appears that Fifelfoo and Brian are now working on a better formulation for this, and it may be best to simply close this RfC and await the completion of the collaboratively formed RfC by these two editors who are from opposing sides of the debate. -- Avanu (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Brian can de-list this RFC any time he wants by removing the RFC template from the top of the section. Otherwie, a bot will de-list it in 30 days from the first time stamp.
In the future, please be aware of the date stamps in RFCs. Look at the listing here to see how your re-formulation was being advertised. It's really no wonder that nobody responded to it, is it? (I'm fixing it for you now.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - You dont have to cite anything from Wikipedia on Wikipedia. If you want to refer to something, simply add a Wikilink or a redirect, or a disambig to the article or news in question and add an explanatory text. If the news article (or the parent article) gets deleted then your wikilink would become a redlink which can bee looked into by other users-Wikishagnik (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sympathetic news coverage

"...some editors warned the activists in the winter that the news coverage would no longer be sympathetic because the support they gave the protests last summer had scared off advertisers." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/world/middleeast/israel-protesters-somber-after-self-immolation.html

The subject of the article is an Israeli social movement; the point is that there is such a thing as sympathetic and not sympathetic news coverage. I'm not sure how this fact should be integrated into the article. Note the citation of advertisers. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this discussion is better suited for the discussion page of the article where it is supposed to be used. If it is not clear whether the New York Times describes an known and otherwise reported phenomenon or fact, make sure you use an explicit (intext) attribution to the New York Times.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I have little interest in editing an article about the Israeli social movement; what is remarkable here is a candid discussion of the nature of journalistic coverage which raises questions of the reliability of journalistic accounts that advertisers might consider objectionable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I have advocated for months that we address the question of bias. Being biased for or against a subject does not make a normally reliable source become unreliable for questions of fact. If a rabidly liberal newspaper or a knee-jerk conservative one says that Joe Important gave a dance in front of the governor's home on the taxation of widgets last Thursday, then we can accept either source as being reliable for that purpose.
Editors need only consider the question of bias in the context of NPOV and especially WP:DUE weight. A known bias might make one wary of using the source for more subjective information, e.g., that the dance was a moving tribute to the region's widget makers, or that it was the stupidest publicity stunt seen this year, or for blowing it out of proportion, e.g., doing a month-long daily feature on the editor's fear that his kid is going to lose his job if the taxes aren't lowered. Most of that can be addressed with WP:INTEXT attribution rather than declaring the source to be unreliable, e.g., "Activists with the People For The Promotion Of Widgets said..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
This is exactly how I understand policy. Except that I would stress that opinion needs to be notable. The paradigmatic case isn't politics at all but culture. Reviews are necessarily subjective. For a Hollywood movie, we look for reviews in the magazines that review Hollywood movies, for a classical CD we look in the places that review classical CDs. For a decision of the UK government we can use commentary in the Guardian, Telegraph, Independent and Times, but we're not interested in the view of some non-notable blogger. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with what you mean, but sources don't actually have to be WP:Notable to be reliable. It confuses new folks when we say things like "opinion needs to be notable" when we mean opinion needs to be significant, from a reputable expert, published in a respected publication, WP:DUE, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's always best to have a wide variety of sources. In the case of an Israeli social protest movement, try to find sources ranging from left-wing Ha'aretz (which would support the movement) to centrist/right The Jerusalem Post (which will be neutral) to neutral The Times of Israel (whose editors vary in their bias, but are generally neutral). Foreign sources should also be good. For sources that editors believe there is a legitimate problem, those should be reviewed on an individual basis in the context of what the article discusses. For example, if a user feels that what's written in Ha'aretz is too sympathetic and therefore wrong, and can prove the info is wrong, then the reference and info should be removed. However, even when an article is sympathetic or has a bias, Wikipedia editors should do everything they can to report only the facts, in a neutral tone, and without the bias. If you have any questions on these sources, feel free to ask me, I know much about Israeli politics and the social protest movement. Thanks. --Activism1234 03:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Confrontation

It seems User:Bobrayner will keep removing reliable information from the Chinese Zodiac and not from the Western Astrology articles. I keep informing the user if you keep remove per WP:BOLLOCKS the user should have had the common sense to remove the BOLLOCKS information from the characteristics from the (Western astrology) section as it also pertains BOLLOCK book sources. If the user does not do anything with the Western Horoscopes. I don't want to star a war, but if the user can't delete characteristics from Western astrology as BOLLOCKS I will keep the information of the Chinese Zodiac signs if the user does not do away with Western astrology characteristics per WP:IRS, I already noted this to WP:RSN and please inform the user why the user did not complete the rest of BOLLOCKS information from other Chinese zodiac signs.--GoShow (...............) 17:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Best evidence rule

I'd like to have some input on Wikipedia's stance regarding "best evidence" (i.e. original publication sourcing). I'll give my specific circumstance first, but I'm really interested in a generalized view of this issue. I've posted a link to this discussion at WT:VG/S.

I have a number of copies of the influential Japanese gaming mag, Famitsu. Scores from Famitsu are often reported in English media sources because of Famitsu's clout and due to the fact that many video games come from Japan. Because the whole magazine is written in Japanese, the English reviewers sometimes translate portions of the Famitsu review and attribute it to Famitsu. In general these translations and especially the raw score reports are very accurate (especially if the English source is a WP:RS), but on more than one occasion I've found errors when comparing the score reported by the secondary (English) source to the score in the actual Famitsu magazine.

In video game articles here at Wikipedia, Famitsu scores are reported if available in order to expand international reception and reduce POV. The question I have is whether these sources with one degree of separation (i.e. secondary English sources) should be (a) left intact as the only source, whether they should be (b) left intact and the direct Famitsu citation added as a second source, or whether they should be (c) replaced with the Famitsu citation as a primary source.

Wikipedia's rules regarding Primary and Secondary sources (promoting secondary sources over primary) don't seem to offer much help since as far as I understand it they refer to sources that are primary/secondary with regard the article's topic, and not regarding the source-based analysis of the article's topic. My gut instinct is that the primary source should be used to replace the secondary source in cases where they conflict or where the secondary source is non-RS. But in cases where the secondary source is an RS and agrees with the primary source then should the primary source replace it? Should it be added? Or is the primary source redundant in this situation? If the primary source is important, then can this be expanded to the point where we should request the primary source in all cases like this? -Thibbs (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

b), because the preference for secondary sources extends to all content in the article. Appending this primary source alongside the secondary one is appropriate use of a primary source. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The Japanese source, Famitsu is a secondary source regarding reviews of video-games. You claim Famitsu's reviews are inherently notable, due to the status and stature of Famitsu (let's leave aside determining that claim at the moment). For Famitsu scores, cite Famitsu—Famitsu is already an appropriate secondary source for "Video Game X" or "Video Game Y" if X or Y is reviewed in Famitsu. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm... I'm not sure how I gave the impression that I was claiming anything about inherent notability, but let me disavow that notion. My view of Famitsu's use as a source at Wikipedia's game-related articles comes directly from WP:VG/S. But putting that aside, are you saying that the Famitsu ref should replace the existing "republisher" ref (also an RS) or that it should be added to the article alongside the "republisher" ref? -Thibbs (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd cite only Famitsu, which is a primary source for the score they assigned to the game—but so is any publication that happens to repeat that score (without commentary on the Famitsu score). Reprinting a primary source does not magically make your reprint into a secondary source. Second-hand does not always equate to secondary. (And, yes, you may WP:USEPRIMARY sources.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Given that Famitsu is assigning the scores, and by appearances appears to be an appropriate venue for high quality reviews of video games, wouldn't it be a secondary source in the same way that literary criticism is a secondary source regarding literature? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Famitsu's claim that _____ rates five stars (or whatever their scale uses) is Famitsu's own original claim, and therefore Famitsu's publication is a primary source for their rating. Other parts of the review (assuming they do more than a laundry list of scores) might be secondary, e.g., comparisons between two similar games. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah that's sort of how I was seeing it too. If the "reprinting" sources were truly doing nothing more than reprinting the scores then I can see how they might be considered akin to a primary source, although they do differ in that they are prone to mistakes (as is any source that passes on second-hand info in a Chinese whispers-style). But the reality is that it is actually quite rare for such an article to reprint a Famitsu score without any commentary. -Thibbs (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Not a comment on this specific case, but I've encountered a similar problem. In cases where a reliable, secondary source is making an assertion about a primary source (for example, summarising a speech by someone), but a check with the primary source reveals there had been a fairly obvious error in the secondary source's interpretation, what's the best practice? In these cases, is it best to just defer to and cite the primary source? —Zujine|talk 05:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
It depends entirely. Secondary sources with a reputation for fact checking may in fact "define" what the speech was for Wikipedia's purposes—often they record speeches "better" than primary sources. Yes I am considering audio-recordings and the like, they don't embody retractions, clarifications, or the standard textual correction of "mis-speaks". This is entirely a contextual situation. Somtimes it is valid to use primary sources to expand an established point to specificity "The moonlanding happened in the 1960s, Buzz Aldrin's biography says it happened in 1969." Sometimes, as with medical issues, it isn't. If there is any interpretation of the primary source required do not use the primary source, as this would stray into original research. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I'm having a hard time recalling a good example, but that's more or less what I expected.—Zujine|talk 06:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The easiest example is mis-quotation of a printed work: the original source is authoritative, even if misquotations are popular. The (badly edited) secondary source can still prove that the quotation is important and relevant, but you're free to cite the authoritative, accurate work for the actual words in the quotation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So I'm seeing one argument for presenting only the original source (WhatamIdoing), one argument for presenting the original source in addition to the already-present republisher source (Itsmejudith), and one argument that using the original source is acceptable (Fifelfoo). The only thing that seems to be emerging in terms of a consensus view is that the original source can be included as a ref in the article. Is there any policy/guideline that goes to the question of whether a ref for the original source should be used to replace the republisher source or whether it should be used in addition to (i.e. to corroborate) the republisher source? Or is this purely dependent on context?

If the sources disagree then I imagine the original source should replace the republisher source and the secondhand claim made in Wikipedia should be altered in order to agree with the original statement. I can't really see any harm to reffing a claim with two RSes that agree, but it does strike me as a strange thing to do if we say "Book1 said Quotation1 (source: Book1 & Book2)" instead of simply "Book1 said Quotation1 (source: Book1)". I would tend to think that the Book2 source becomes redundant with the addition of a ref to Book1, but is a ref to the Book1 source desirable or is it merely a neutral addition? And if the Book2 source is redundant then is that problematic for the article? -Thibbs (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Redundancy is unnecessary but normally harmless.
Pretend there were no rules and no wikilawyers and no bickering. What would you like to do here? If it was just you and the article and the readers, what approach would make you happiest? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm torn on this issue. I agree that the original source is an acceptable addition to the article and I'd even say that it is a desirable/valuable addition, but as for which of option b or c (from my original example above) should be used, I can see arguments for both positions. Are you saying that the difference between these options is just a matter of editorial discretion? -Thibbs (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

So what I think I'm seeing now is that this is a matter of editorial discretion without any clear policy one way or the other. That being the case, I would like to bring the question before WP:VG so that the WikiProject's sourcing guideline can be clarified. I am anxious to avoid policy/guideline-level forking/incompatibility so before proceeding I'd like to hear some confirmation of my suspicion that:

  1. There is no preference for using the original source of an attributed claim to ref the claim in Wikipedia over using a reliable "reprinter" source, but adding the original source is allowed.
  2. Whether or not the original source of an attributed claim is used to replace a reliable "reprinter" source or is simply added alongside the reliable "reprinter" source is purely a matter of editorial discretion.

Is this a fair assessment? -Thibbs (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Seeing no response I've made a formal request for comment below. Please feel free to add your thoughts below. -Thibbs (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Rfc: Use of original source versus use of a reliable second-hand source for the same claim

  • Considering sources of equal reliability, should the original source for a claim be used preferentially over a reliable reprinting of the source?
  • Considering situations where the original source and the reprinting source agree on the claim then if the original source is available then should it be (1) used to replace the reprinting source? (2) Used in addition to bolster the reprinting source? Or (3) should it not be used because the reprinting source was the first to be used and it is redundant?

To give a concrete example: in 1952 the New York Times reports "37 people died in a neighborhood fire in the Bronx". A book written by an eminent historian in 2011 states "According to the New York Times, the Great Bronx Fire of 1952 claimed 37 lives". Now in 2012 in an article on the fire, Wikipedia says "According to the New York Times, 37 people died in this fire". Wikipedia cites the 2011 book source. Should Wikipedia switch to using the New York Times source directly if this is available? Should the New York Times source be added to the Wikipedia article as a reference to bolster the 2011 book source? Or should the original New York Times be left out of the Wikipedia article because it is redundant?

To give a concrete example: in June 2010 the New York Times runs an editorial in which it states "It is our view that the print medium will outlast all forms of electronic communication". An editorial in Forbes published July 2010 states "According to the New York Times, print media are bound to outlast digital media". Now in 2012 in an article on the modern-day reduction in newspaper sales, Wikipedia says "According to the New York Times, print media such as newspapers are not likely to be replaced forever by electronic news sources such as blogs and social media". Wikipedia cites the Forbes July 2010 source. Should Wikipedia switch to using the New York Times source directly if this is available? Should the New York Times source be added to the Wikipedia article as a reference to bolster the Forbes source? Or should the original New York Times be left out of the Wikipedia article because it is redundant? -Thibbs (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC) (struck and modified example due to confusion -Thibbs (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC))

Your example is spurious as the criteria of "equal reliability" isn't met in your example. The second source you mention provides historicity, whereas the first is a primary source in relation to history. There isn't redundance, the first source is inadequate for the claim as newspapers usually are on historical articles.
This appears to be the crux of the RFC: you don't understand reliability and source quality in relation to facts or claims. Scholarly works provide a higher level of reliability than original publications, because scholars have the capacity to assess and weight differing claims and pronounce on their credibility even to the point of criticising other scholars and rejecting their works. Scholars, major newspapers, and the like are founts of reliability, spewing forth "facts" and "notable opinions" in wikipedia's senses. The repetition of an obscured newspaper claim in a scholarly work draws attention to the original claim, and reassures it. In relation to history, as the original would be primary, the scholar's work is the best suitable case (and in many cases may be the only due to the potential for original research from primary sources in history).
In a case where two sources of equal quality exist (consider: Al Jazeera and The Guardian) both can be cited. In the case where an article has been printed, and then reprinted, SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT and cite what you read. If you later read the original, then based on discussion at the talk page editors can consider ignoring the original (difficult to find regional presses, for example), ignoring the reprint (readily located original), or having both.
None of this changes the Further Reading section, or External Links section, where interesting or useful primary sources can readily reside if they improve the reader's experience and meet the criteria of those sections. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Fifelfoo, although I overall lean towards citing the book rather than the newspaper, I'm surprised by your assumption that this unnamed book is a scholarly source. It could easily be in that class of books that you deride as being "popular". Not all books published by historians are intended for a scholarly audience. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Where's the historicity come from then? If it is from an appropriate trade, local or hobbyist history set (for instance, Railways enthusiasts regarding a railways fire publishing in an association for railways history newsletter that possesses an editor) then the historicity is derived from the newsletter and the newsletter is a superior source for history than the journalism of The Times. The central issue is that the assignment of historicity is something that happens in a text other than a newspaper article. We can't go trawling The Times and writing about small riots in the 19th century as editors, historicising these would be the provenance of UK local history associations, social historians, historical archaeologists, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
IMO, the historicity comes from the fact that anyone (except us) thought the subject important enough to write about later, even if neither the author nor the publisher included "history associations, social historians, historical archaeologists, etc." But I see from the new example that Thibbs really didn't intend to have any question of your idea of what constitutes proper history in this question at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I can see that the example I have used has caused more confusion about the nature of my question than it has shed light on the issue. To quickly clarify, let me say that this is distinctly not a question about a specific source or a specific article (which I should think belongs at WP:RSN anyway) nor is this a question regarding scholarly versus reportorial sources. So I've struck through my original example and replaced it with a modified version which I hope is less confusing. Thanks to those that have expressed a view so far. Please keep them coming. -Thibbs (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I like your new example better. Both New York Times and Forbes editorials are reliable sources for weighty opinions in relation to newspaper publishing. I don't believe there is any reason to prefer one source to the other source. I, myself, would suggest on the talk page that if the issue is the opinion of the New York Times then the NYT is best to cite for that, even though Forbes would reliably report NYT's published opinion; but, I would not become anxious about it. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
(New example) Because the text in the article is an attributed statement, I might prefer the original New York Times editorial. When you are supporting a claim that X said Y, there is no source more authoritative than the publication in which X actually says Y. But I think that either the NYT or the Forbes piece would be adequate to the task: both of them meet the minimum standards for reliability for this statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Why does it say the following under "Overview" in this article?

Articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

Shouldn't the lede be consistent with the article? MathewTownsend (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that the lede should also be emphasizing the importance of secondary sources? That would seem to be a reasonable point to make—why isn't there even a mention of secondary sources in the lede? Bus stop (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
That's what I want to know. This guideline seems to have become jumbled. A while ago it said that newspapers, books and articles by reliable sources etc on a subject were secondary sources, and that an encyclopedia was a tertiary source (a source that complies secondary sources) like the Encyclopedia Britannica, and therefore less preferred than secondary sources. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
It may be more confusion. WP:Secondary does not mean independent, and WP:V says that articles must be based on reliable third-party sources, not reliable secondary ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:PSTS says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Colin°Talk 10:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
True, but not especially relevant. WP:RS is about WP:V, which says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" in its WP:SOURCES section. WP:V does not require the use of secondary sources (although it mentions the fact that PSTS does).
The question here is about the wording of the ==Overview== section, and this particular sentence was copied straight out of WP:V. It doesn't make sense for us to copy a sentence out of WP:V and then change it to say something different. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I've always felt that different kinds of facts (Wikipedia statements) require different kinds of sources:

Secondary sourcesPrimary sources
  • Facts presented as truths (ie. accepted by most people)
  • Facts that are opinion and interpretation
  • Facts that are attributed (ie. JFK said "Ich bin ein Berliner")
  • Facts that are reported without spin, (eg. Harry Potter wears glasses)

--Iantresman (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hollowverse

I notice this used as a source for the article on Emma Watson. Is it a reliable source? I can't find any editorial details for it, but will look again. 14:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)Britmax (talk)

hi my system mechanio pro is not working — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD02:7600:BDF5:44EF:D79B:B2F2 (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

What am I doing's edits

These surely need careful consideration, one by one. I have no idea what is meant by the idea that newspapers are not required to publish their editorial guidelines. Of course it is up to them how much they disclose about their internal matters. In fact the major media are very transparent about how they work, as you can see by googling. We are still looking for a reputation for fact checking, are we not? Practically, if responding to a post on RSN about a website, I look straight away for an About Us section. Often, I find a lot of reassuring detail, with names of obviously competent people. But also, I find websites that are really just individual blogs, worthy efforts in their own way, but useless as sources for us. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"About us" is not the same thing as an editorial policy.
We are having an ongoing problem at RSN with some editors saying that major daily newspapers can't be reliable because the editors can't find a page on their website labeled "editorial policy". Which, by the way, I've been unable to find at any of the major US newspapers I've checked so far. Perhaps you'd like to give it a try for, say, NYTimes.com?
Generally, it's been my experience that web-only media sources, especially those of somewhat dubious provenance, include pages about their editorial policies to reassure folks that they're legit, and that established sources, especially print-oriented sources, don't bother. I think that it's important to end this myth before anyone else embarrasses themselves by declaring the 18th largest daily newspaper in the US is unreliable because there's no page titled "editorial policy" on the paper's website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There are standard ways to format Newspaper websites; these include indicating that an editorial policy exists on the site where the content is published. In my experience, the only people who give away their content in crazy deals that makes them look like a street based elderly cat collector is a newspaper we ought to have no business citing. The argument being put by WhatamIdoing allows any content to be "justified". Reliability must be demonstrable; and I don't give two hoots that a particular anglophone's publishing industry has gone to shit, in fact the argument that newspapers from a particular country ought to get a free ride because they were bought up by an aggregator is deeply nationalist and offensive, see the regular discussions of the quality of Indian newspapers. If it has gone to shit and a newspaper can't even name the meat of its editor on its avowed and marketed official page then it is unedited. No contact details, no editors, no editorial policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm mystified. Will someone give me a way into this discussion. We are looking for fact-checking, no? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, most of us are. But some editors apparently aren't looking for fact-checking so much as they're looking for a page that says "Editorial policy" at the top. So Fifelfoo recently declared at RSN that a daily newspaper founded before the American Civil War and with a current weekday circulation in excess of a quarter million print copies isn't reliable. The sole grounds for this determination were "I can't find any editorial information regarding the purported newspaper The Plain Dealer". Everyone else disagreed with Fifelfoo in the instant case, but the fact is that "A Wikipedia editor can easily find editorial policies online" has never been our standard for reliability. We apparently need to say that here, to stop the made-up claims that it's required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
It relates to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Alternative_reliable_sources_for_personal_info_in_an_article. You're still welcome to demonstrate that cleveland.com can be trusted as a news archive, because cleveland.com doesn't demonstrate any reliability. Because the article in question has never been alleged to exist in The Plain Dealer's printed edition. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Cleveland.com is the news web site of The Plain Dealer. It says so at http://www.plaindealer.com/ -- "Get today's news, classifieds (careers, autos, real estate, etc.), sports, and complete local coverage from The Plain Dealer, exclusively on our affiliated Web site, cleveland.com!" Meanwhile, http://www.cleveland.com/aboutus/ says, "We are the online home of The Plain Dealer featuring real-time news, sports, entertainment, lifestyles, politics and business news from Ohio's largest newspaper." I would consider the regular article content (as opposed to user-generated content, if any) from Cleveland.com (even if the article appeared only online) to be as reliable as an article in the print version of The Plain Dealer, and that would be reasonably reliable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the solution is to add text to the guideline, not until we've worked out why there might be a problem, anyway. The reliability of local and regional newspapers has often been discussed, and we know that the quality is very variable. Here www.theargus.co.uk is a reputable British one. I only have to click on the Contact tab to find a list of named senior editors, specialist editors and reporters, with contact details. That is less easy with the www.cleveland.com website. I had to nose around the site before I found the equivalent details, http://www.plaindealer.com/contact/. But from there with some further clicks you can get a lot more info, including the executives' biographies. It all looks standard or good for a local paper. In contrast, I can't find any contacts or about us at all on the websites of the big French regional papers. Let's work out here how we can guide editors in working out whether a local news website is for real or not. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd think that when we're talking about a quarter million paid subscribers for your daily printed newspaper, where "printed" involved tons of tangible, recyclable newsprint and barrels of soy-based ink, it would be a pretty easy call, but apparently Fifelfoo disagrees, and all that really matters is whether it's easy to find editorial policies and employee names online.
What I really want to stop is the repeated claim that newspapers aren't good sources unless they publish an editorial policy, not just the names of the editors. I haven't seen a normal newspaper yet that does so, and I can supply you with a long list of lousy sources that do so. "It's easy to find an editorial policy online", in my experience, is inversely correlated with reliability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Named meat editors with position titles is usually sufficient to indicate that some policy must exist. My dispute isn't with plaindealer.com/contact; but, is with the expectation that we believe that cleveland.com and plaindealer.com are covered by the same policy. Cleveland.com ought really to indicate what covers its content, and it doesn't. There's no way to tell what is a blog, or not, from a plaindealer.com author; whether the work was published by plaindealer in any format; etc. Like a coloured insert without either "Advertising material" or "Newspaper Title" printed on it, how are we to know whether this insert on glossy CYMK is covered by the list of editors printed on page 2 or page 12 of the news section printed black on newsprint? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Named meat editors with position titles is usually sufficient
I don't think so. Corporate newsletters name editors. University alumni magazines name editors. Wannabe blogs name editors. That does not turn these publications into news media. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but bullshit newspapers have a habit of failing to name their editors, such as gossip rags, advertiser run newspapers, and low quality political or religious newspapers. Its one of the reasons for the contextuality of an appropriate demonstration of fact checking. And after years on RS/N, US regional newspapers of note do name their meat. Their meat tends to be quite jealous of it. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Some places do, and some places don't. That's why we can't rely on it as proof that they are or aren't a reliable source. And "naming their meat" isn't the same as publishing an editorial policy, which you advocated for here and which disturbs me far more than requiring the name of an editor. I'd be astonished if you could produce a single example of a major print newspaper that actually publishes its entire editorial policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I haven't seen a worse case of hostile eisegetic misreading since I last talked to a text-oriented fundamentalist. I suggest to you the only way you could suggest that I advocated for explicitly published in full editorial policies is by reading my contributions with such a level of interpretive hostility that it borders on violent misreading. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are some of your recent comments that can be found in the RSN archives. These are reasons that you gave for rejecting sources:

Because it isn't reliable; they do not have an effective editorial policy…. an unedited gossip blog with no editorial policy…. unreliable for the claims as there is no fact checking policy…. No editorial policy, no editorial staff, no indication that "Simon" has Expertise in the meaning of WP:SPS. Not reliable…. unreliable. It is a pseudonymous unedited blog. It lacks an editorial policy and editorial board…. no fact checking or editorial policy. This is a definitional example of an unreliable source…. None of the sources listed have a suitable fact checking editorial policy…. unedited aggregator with no editorial policy…. has no editorial policy….

Regardless of whether we agree on the ultimate question of reliability for each of these individual sources, this sounds very much like you are pushing this idea that the absence of a published "editorial policy" tells you that the source is unreliable, without requiring any sort of misreading, eisegetical or otherwise. You aren't the only one to make such statements, but your comments account for almost half of such comments in the recent archives, and one other editor accounts for almost as many. So basically two people have made up this supposed rule, and I want it to stop. Sources can be reliable even if you don't get to read their editorial policies. If they publish an editorial policy, then it might tell us something useful, but the absence of a published policy does not prove that the source has no appropriate policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"this sounds very much like you are pushing this idea that the absence of a published "editorial policy" tells you that the source is unreliable"—there are epiphenomenal indications of editorial policy, some of them are relatively standard such as adequate sub- and copy- editing, standards required for contributions to be acceptable (which isn't necessarily "editorial" in nature—the quite simple "unsolicited manuscripts are not accepted" can with other context elements tell you quite a bit) or an address listed for editorial contacts or corrections. Other houses go so far as to say, "This [outlet] does [this] in [this way]," which is common in news magazines, political and scholarly journals. Finally, a third set of outlets may merely publish the name of an Editor in Chief, but obviously possess the variety of structures indicative that they do possess an editorial policy. There's no demand from me for a published editorial policy—there is a demand that an editorial policy exists. The eisegesis is that you're reading that I want a published externally facing written policy. What I demand from a certain kind of outlet is that such a policy exists, and exists to support fact-checking. This assessment is unlikely to stop as possession of an editorial policy, if not publication, is one of the best ways (apart from an SPS exemption due to expertise) to establish a reputation for fact-checking—it is a key diagnostic criteria between publications that have someone who claims to edit them but does not, and publications that are edited even if they do not have a named editor. It is highly contextual and depends on the genre and form of the work in question—trade paperbacks have different editorial signals to sub-cultural reviews. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
If you don't intend to say things like "no fact checking or editorial policy", then I suggest that you stop saying them. If you actually mean "this source is so full of grammar errors that I doubt they do anything right, including fact-checking", then you should say something like that.
You're an influential participant at RSN, and when someone like you asserts that a source is unreliable because there is no published editorial policy, then inexperienced people frequently believe that having such a page is an actual requirement. It's not. We have never required news organizations to publish their editorial policies. It would be helpful if you quit contributing to the myth that any such requirement exists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I've worked with Fifelfoo and respect Fifelfoo for many reasons, including having standards that are so high that they prevent them self from adding content.  :-)  :-) But, on the specific topic, this sounds like a defacto addition of a categorical condition (that one can demonstrate/prove that a source has an editorial policy) to use as a source. That isn't in policy and I think we already have too many out-of-context near-categorical conditions. IMHO if the metrics of the source are such to credibly establish the particular item which cited it that is enough. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
If you demand that I establish a causal chain between possession of an editorial policy (not publication, but possession), and our criteria regarding "fact checking" each and every time I mention it in relation to works in genres that are expected to possess an editorial staff and policy (newspapers, news magazines, cultural reviews, political journals), then I will. Writing an online gossip magazine in a format where there are none of: named meat authors, named meat editorial staff, a willingness to take responsibility for content published in an editorial fashion (rather than a subsequent action on reportage liability manner) such as having a contact address for editorial correspondence, an "open" contribution policy rather than an editorial policy regarding the nature of unsolicited contributions, or the lack of a published editorial policy then I shall. With the number of low grade items that fail to have any other means of asserting a standard of fact checking (named meat authors, named meat editorial staff, a willingness to take responsibility for content published in an editorial fashion (rather than a subsequent action on reportage liability manner) such as having a contact address for editorial correspondence, an "open" contribution policy rather than an editorial policy regarding the nature of unsolicited contributions) it rapidly falls towards having an adequate published editorial policy and/or EXPERT exemptions to demonstrate appropriate fact-checking systems. Often the "cascade" towards saving conditions happens rapidly. As you would know determining the reliability of a source for a particular claim is an exercise in interpreting sources in relation to a few bright points of policy, and a thousand examples of consensus formation on the topic. I apologise if I have insufficiently displayed the hermeneutic I use in interpretation, generally I have avoided showing "all my work" because it is both tiresome and displays interpretive clues such as a full exposure of a "check-user"'s work, which again relies on the interpretation of minor elements of style and expression. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
This diff is an example from today of what I consider "full working," I would appreciate your critique and review. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Your "full working" perhaps overstates the necessity of being a scholarly source, since we are aiming for "the sum of all human knowledge" rather than "the sum of all scholarly knowledge", but it's basically a good explanation of your thinking about the source.
However, I'm not actually asking you to 'establish a causal chain between possession of an editorial policy (not publication, but possession), and our criteria regarding "fact checking"'.
I am asking you to say what you actually mean, in plain English. For example, if you mean, "I see no evidence that they engage in fact-checking", then I want you to say, "I see no evidence that they engage in fact-checking". In that instance, I do not want you to say, "They have no editorial policy"—a statement that you don't actually know to be true, that is easily misunderstood by inexperienced people, and that comprises far more than the Wikipedia-relevant bit about fact-checking, since it is possible to have an editorial policy of not doing fact-checking, i.e., the apparent situation at The Onion, which shouldn't generally be used, but which does appear to have a well-developed set of policies about what they choose to publish. "Editorial policy" is not a fancy way of spelling "engages in fact-checking". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The usual claim in low grade web outlets is that Jane knows they engage in fact-checking because they once emended a typo. The quality of the source needs to fit the quality of the article and claim. Claiming that Althusser killed his wife and went mad from Le Monde is perfectly acceptable, but claiming that Althusser's research programme was madness requires E.P. Thompson (and even then, attributed as opinion). Quite often the standard of claim is one which requires journalistic selection—therefore an editorial policy. The "facts" that require checking include an expectation of "newsworthyness," which some fact-checked papers provide, and others don't. In relation to pantheism the standard is scholarly or practising professional writing in the professional mode. The source needs to fit the claim, because Jane's Marxist gossip blog (edited and fact checked) might be great for Althusser's domestic life, but isn't at the standard of Science and Society or Historical Materialism where claims about methodology would come forward. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Dr Prof Syed MUjeeb zafar Anwar Hameedi is a noted , wel known hildren writer from pakistan.He is a keen scholor and senior mopst educationist. Dr Mujeeb Zafra Anwar Hmaeedi wins 19 award and one unicef(u.n.o) award in 1990 RELIABLE REFERENCE www.facebook.com/mujeebzafar anwar hamidi www.uno.com/unicef/children literature in pakistan/prof mujeeb zafar anwar hameedi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasbi syed (talk • contribs) 00:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Archive_37&oldid=1137435569"