Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

Clarification of BESTSOURCES

I'd added a bit to WP:BESTSOURCES, and was asked to gain consensus first.

What we currently have is

In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources. If you need help finding high-quality sources, ask other editors on the talk page of the article you are working on, or ask at the reference desk.

I've recently seen confusion at an article talk on whether a list of BESTSOURCES (which often gets linked here) excludes other sources from being used, even if they have consensus for doing so, if they aren't on an article's BESTSOURCES list. I'm thinking it might be helpful to make it clear, with something like:

At some articles, editors may develop a BESTSOURCES list of sources that have already gained consensus for use. The creation of such a list does not imply that no other sources may be used in an article but only that content cited to other sources may require consensus for use of that source for that content.

Valereee (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Besides the confusion you saw at that article, are there other pages/disputes where this guidance would help? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't say I've personally seen the same arguments elsewhere, but I do understand where it's coming from and why there might be argument on both sides, with one arguing "Can't use it, not on the list" and the other arguing "But it's a minor point simply not easily found without a complete reading of all sources". In some CTs, it might be helpful to make sure there's clarity that a BESTSOURCES list doesn't limit editors from gaining consensus to use a source not on the list. Valereee (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. If there really are articles where editors have made a BESTSOURCES list, I fear that will help whoever comes first against change, like the FAQs on talk pages that say this has already been discussed so go away, but consensus is not required for what's on our list. I fear too that "source" will mean the publisher, as happens on WP:RSN too often. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan, can you expand? This is actually to clarify that editors can use sources not on a list, not that they cannot use those sources. I feel like your objection is to the opposite happening -- people saying "Not on the list, can't use" -- which is what I was trying to prevent? Maybe I'm misreading your post? Valereee (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Saying as policy that people may make article BESTSOURCES lists is blessing them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah! I understand, I think. Yeah, I didn't mean 'may' as in 'allowed to' (much less 'encouraged to'). I mean 'may' as in 'sometimes decided to'. Hm, it's a good point. Language, so important. Valereee (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I had the same thought when I saw you addition. The language in the sentence could make it seem that such lists have policy backing, rather than being a page consensus like FAQs. There's similar problems with "but only that content cited to other sources may require consensus for use of that source for that content.", as it could imply that editors need pre-approval to edit (rather than edits could be reverted and need discussion). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and a list of "best sources" can be used as a cudgel to WP:OWN an article. Even if created with the best of intentions, it is easily subject to misinterpretation and abuse. I think the current language is fine and does not warrant an addition. Coretheapple (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The current wording just says that they help prevent bias. This is pretty gentle for somebody to interpret as "can't use other sources". Also, a consensus for use would presumably mean picking bestsources by consensus. Finally, if somebody is just trying to use this clause to knock out certain viewpoints, wp:weight (flawed as it is) and other guidance weighs in towards including them. Plus a list idea sounds awfully prescriptive. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@North8000, at contentious topics, it's often helpful to maintain a list of sources that people with various viewpoints have agreed over time are among the best sources available. Such a list typically is created through a long process -- months and longer -- of discussion. It's to prevent every new addition being argued over because of objections to the source itself. Instead such objections are limited to only those that aren't yet on the list. :D So fewer such objections! :D Valereee (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. At first, I assumed that this was another dispute over Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, where the apparently level of discussion for many items was two editors agreeing with each other more than a decade ago, and their word is now holy writ for all articles, especially for their dis-recommendations.

Is the general idea here something like this?

• Editors (using their best judgement, etc.) agree that certain sources are appropriate and useful for a specific article (or a very small number of articles, e.g., COVID-19 and COVID-19 pandemic).
• For convenience, they post a list of what the sources are.
• If someone cites a source that isn't on the list of pre-approved sources, then reversions happen and complaints are lodged.

If so, then... I'm really not sure. On the one hand, if you're going to enforce that kind of agreement, then you probably ought to advertise it. On the other hand, pre-banning nearly every source in the world except the tiny fraction of sources already on the 'approved' list sounds like an extremely bad idea. What if a great source gets published tomorrow? Do you first need to have a discussion to put it on the approved list?

I think that broad categories would be more useful than individual books (e.g., don't recommend "21st edition of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine" specifically; instead, recommend "medical school textbooks", or, if you need to be more narrow, "medical books recommended by Doody's Core Titles during the last five years").

I also think that it would be more useful for editors to think about the sources that form the basis for the article vs those that are used for little bits. Using a Christmas tree as an analogy, you normally want to use a small number of high-quality sources to write the "tree" of an article, but you can use dozens of sources, from a wider variety of types and quality, for individual "decorations".

When I wrote Breast cancer awareness, I leaned heavily on one book (33% of inline citations) and strongly on three other sources (11%, 11%, and 9%). These four sources account for almost two thirds of the article, and they provide a pretty strong basis for the article. The addition of an "unapproved" source here or there, even if that source has a wildly different POV, is not going to change the overall article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

As a minor point, I really dislike the phrase "a BESTSOURCES list". Editors might choose to develop "a list of recommended sources" or even "a list of relevant high-quality sources", but I dislike giving it an WP:UPPERCASE name. That implies that this is an institutionalized thing, and possibly even a best practice, rather than just an unusual thing that some editors might voluntarily choose to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree! Andre🚐 01:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

No. It's the way to go. It puts emphasis on what the collective we, should be doing and it is a best practice, finding and conveying the best sources we can. Not best practice is using crap sources for any old garbage, and even worse just stumbling along with crap sources for any old garbage. It is also likely among best process in those cases (which is far from every article, indeed policy/guideline is really not called upon extensively to settle most articles) when process to overcome extensive disagreements is needed. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. It can lead to unintentional gatekeeping or cherrypicking, especially if the criteria are arbitrarily defined. Weight is in all WP:RS and we are supposed to reflect all non-FRINGE minority POVs with proportionate weight. I agree with WAID that it's not a best practice and not an institutionalized thing, it's something that some editors are doing on particularly contentious articles, just like sometimes there are special consensus items or special FAQs. In general, it's not a scalable solution, and what people used to call anti-wiki. Andre🚐 10:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Your complaint then is writing every article is unintentional gate keeping and cherry picking. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a useful exercise. I think the output of a BESTSOURCES source survey could inform a lot of decisions about structure or weight for a lead. I like WAID's Christmas tree idea. But, I think that the policy should not prescribe the practice of going through assembling a BESTSOURCES list, for the reasons I explained. Andre🚐 10:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The reason we have articles is to have discreet bodies of knowledge based on sourcing. Doing our best work in that is the goal. And how we are supposed to arrive at those articles is through discussion and agreement. (At any rate, there are crap filled Christmas trees and very fine Christmas trees, too). Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I prefer not to call articles "crap," it's derogatory and it denigrates the good faith contributions of volunteers. I prefer to think of articles as living things that start out as embryos and eventually become fertilized and grow into little chickens that hatch. But a tree growing from a seed is good too. One of the main ways or reasons why Wikipedia works is because the process engenders aggregation. When disputes arise, there is discussion and negotiation, but that's essentially a blocking process. It's like instead of telling an ad hoc group, a task force or a tiger team, to go solve problems, you instead create a meeting with oversight and committees; WP:NOTBURO. Andre🚐 10:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

You're still not making sense, no one is told to go there, they are invited to discuss, and they don't have to if they don't want to. And it also makes no sense to say all articles must come into being in that way, good work readily finds agreement -- also, very fine, even great articles from the start (maybe they need a formatting fix here and there) are more than welcome - the more the merrier, in fact. We are literally for people making themselves knowledgeable about a subject and then writing. Finally, crap articles are not the responsibility of any one editor, they are the responsibility of the project. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Instead of saying I don't make sense, you can just say you don't agree with my theory of collaboration or my opinion on source selection process. Wikipedia works because of decentralization, good faith, a friendly environment for volunteers, and the fact that any task can be easily decomposed into many smaller tasks. The authoritative source list makes sense as a bulwark for disruption in some special cases, similar to ECP protection, but let's not advocate for it in the majority of cases or claim it is a desirable state. Such centralized, gated processes are a necessary compromise to keep the order and the trains running on time, but they are as I said what we used to call anti-wiki, meaning antithetical to the principles of collaboration that people are supposed to know and internalize. They lead to a system whereby a central process usurps the distributed nature of wikicollaboration. You may not agree but it's completely coherent as an ideology, continuing to say that I'm not making sense is uncharitable at best. Andre🚐 20:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: I really dislike the phrase "a BESTSOURCES list". Hm, fair point, and really, it may be the basis of the confusion I'm seeing. Maybe this is something that should go into an essay? Maybe WP:Developing a list of sources that have gained consensus at an article that would cover both the value of creating such a list and the fact that the creation of such a list doesn't mean other sources can't be used, but that they'd need consensus for whatever content is being cited to them? And also that consensus for what items are included on the list can also change. Valereee (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I think an essay would give you a lot more room to explain what it is, why it is, and how it works. I would recommend writing that page no matter what does/doesn't happen here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I've created a crappy draft at WP:CONSOURCE. Please all feel free to edit. Valereee (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

It is an institutional thing. It is a best practice. Levivich (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Is it really an institutional thing? Can you name 10 articles that have taken this approach, off the top of your head? I certainly can't. How many times have you seen people productively working on an article say "Hey, let's take a time out from writing and come up with a short list of pre-approved sources"? My answer is "never".

I suspect this exists only in a handful of articles about heavily disputed subjects, solely because it was voluntarily adopted by the regular editors of that article. By "heavily disputed", I mean way more disputed than Donald Trump, which presumably wouldn't be citing 800+ sources if restricting articles to a handful of pre-approved sources were truly an institutionalized thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I view the main problem with this kind of list (whatever you call it) as creating a potential WP:OWN issue in articles about subjects that have evoked strong feelings, such as popular culture figures with fan bases. One in particular comes to mind. A book came out on the subject of the article, arguably the most thoroughly researched book ever published on that person, which delved into the darker aspects of that person's persona. The book was immediately slammed by the editors on the page, in my view without sufficient basis. I happened upon the book some years after it was trashed on the talk page, and was surprised to see that it had been used as a source in only a very limited basis. While a "best sources" list was not created, because thankfully the proposed paragraph was not in the NPOV policy, such a list no doubt would have excluded that new book, which made the popular culture figure seem less heroic than was portrayed by other sources. Local consesnsus can at times be skewed by prejudice and POV issues. Consensus can change. Editors come and go. So what a consensus of editors (sometimes just three or four people) view as "best" at any given time should not be stated in semi-formal language on a talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Anytime editors don't agree with a local consensus, an RFC can be bought to challenge it so that is not a valid objection imo. Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Re: If someone cites a source that isn't on the list of pre-approved sources, then reversions happen and complaints are lodged. No, the general idea is to prevent this from happening by establishing that the simple fact there is a list of sources that have consensus does not mean other sources cannot be used, just that they may need to gain consensus for the content they're being used for. Valereee (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I am involved in active dispute on this. I agree with North8000 and Peter. The policy doesn't prescribe the creation of lists of BESTSOURCES. Editors can still do that, but the policy does not prescribe this activity, and I have serious reservations about making that a formal part of NPOV, because it could accidentally and unintentionally encourage a blind spot in source selection or an exclusivity of some sources to the expense of others. Andre🚐 22:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, of course, it makes sense to agree on a list through discussion. To actually take "read widely" seriously, then a reading list is just the thing. Evaluation of "new" sources will also have a template to later follow. You are going to have to have some agreement, and many interim agreements, regardless, because the reading list will also in general be in the article's sources. (maybe just drop the last clause). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I have to say that I really do not understand why anyone would object to a consensual effort to produce a list of the best sources, particularly for complex and controversial articles. The ideal would be to deal with issues of weight so that not so great but acceptable sources do not trump great sources by virtue of number, edit warring or anything else. Not saying it should be required as policy but why not encouraged as policy? Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It's astounding. How do you collaborate with people who think that gathering the best sources is somehow a problem? It's step one, and if anyone thinks it's not step one, well, I got nothing. Levivich (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Because the policy doesn't say "gather a list of the best sources." It says that you should use the best sources, which are the most reputable books and journal articles. It does not say that you should create a prescriptive list. Again, I think that can be a useful exercise, but the policy should not and does not say that inclusion and exclusion criteria should be so exacting. Andre🚐 20:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Not only does this seem like hair splitting but the "prescriptive" and "exacting" bits are strawmen.Selfstudier (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are intentionally vague and open-ended to account for the general nature of the project and the fact that many different things have different treatments. Andre🚐 22:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I find Wikipedia policies to be fairly clear; the interpretation of those policies, however, is incredibly dynamic. For example, "use the best sources" means "you do not need to use the best sources, other sources are OK to use, too." Levivich (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

That's kind of what I mean. the wiggle room is there for interpretation. Wikipedia:The rules are principles. So talking about a specific activity or action should be less used unless it's very clear that this activity or action is prescribed, which making the list isn't, currently. The point is that there is more than one path through a process to a principle. Andre🚐 00:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I am very against such WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on sourcing and would frankly add a line to WP:BESTSOURCES reading Which sources are the best sources is determined solely by the state of the field at a given time. Settling on a specified list of sources necessarily means excluding some of the best sources and is therefore discouraged. Loki (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

While I don't want to add this to the policy either necessarily, I do agree with you that this is kind of my opinion or the reason for my opposition to the opposite policy change. Andre🚐 03:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Examples

I stumbled across this today and thought it might be helpful to provide examples of where the idea of a list of sources that editors at a topic or article have gained consensus are good has been used. Valereee (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/Sources
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources (Masem (t) 18:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC))
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Booklist and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links
• WP:LDS/RS Levivich (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  Aren't these project RS lists, I thought this was about approved source lists on article talk pages? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't use the word "approved" but, yeah. This is a little self-centered, but I'm only really aware of the articles where BESTSOURCES lists have been compiled where I've been directly involved, so here are some examples I remember:

  • Talk:Zionism#Best sources
  • Talk:Nakba#Core sources
  • Talk:Alexandros Schinas/Archive 2#Sources
  • Talk:Murder of George Floyd/Archive 4#Source analysis table
  • Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 36#TOC Analysis

  The last two are basically BESTSOURCES lists although I didn't call them that. Levivich (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  So, WAID requested a bar of 10 articles (Is it really an institutional thing? Can you name 10 articles that have taken this approach, off the top of your head?), which, if there were an institutional best practice, I would assume should be attainable, after all, 6.5m articles in enwiki, and 6500 featured articles, so if my numbers and math are at all correct, that's 0.10%, or one tenth of 1 percent featured articles, and you've given 5, which is .07% of that. One of them is not a good example as it's a current evolving situation, so hardly counts, the one prompting this attempt to change policy. If I do the numbers with 40,000+ good articles it's even more stark. At 50% of the incredibly skimpy bar, with that caveat that all of the examples involve the direct involvement of you. 10 articles is an exceedingly low number, I would say, if there are over 6000 featured articles, and over 40,000 good articles, which is a really impressive number, don't get me wrong, community, but also a staggeringly tiny number considering Wikipedia has existed for over 20 years.

  Maybe not all of those articles are at all disputed or controversial, but even if you say that there are only 1000 controversial articles on the level of a major political figure, ideology or a major crisis or atrocity, I would still think that if this were an institutional best practice and something employed at any reasonable percentage of article writing, we should be able to find well over 500 examples. The fact that we can't even get 5, or 1% of that, isn't a good sign that this is actually a common practice or something that the policy should specifically prescribe doing or encourage, or that there's a project-wide consensus that this is how we must do things. Now again, I do think sometimes it is worth doing. In the examples you gave, at least for 2 of them I can completely understand and endorse keeping out journal articles, even if published in a reputable journal with academic credentials, because not all material published by reliable academics isn't FRINGE when it comes to the Holocaust. And I can imagine a similar scenario about reliable current events and news stories for the George Floyd thing. But for a 20th century political ideology or event, where there are multiple reputable journals in the topic area, defining a source list as only books is arbitrary and capricious. And you can say I shouldn't bring that up here because this is WT:NPOV not Talk:Zionism, but you just listed that as one of your examples, of 5. Andre🚐 05:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think talk pages discussing the reliability of sources is a problem, but they shouldn't be used to stop other editors from editing. Edits might be reverted because they need discussion, but should never be reverted because they don't come from a pre-approved list of sources. That is just pre-approval of edits with an additional step and goes against being bold.

  I think part of the problem here is language, using 'BESTSOURCES list' implies that there can be no others, but that's not what WP:BESTSOURCES is about. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think using 'BESTSOURCES list' implies that there can be no others, and have seen no evidence that it's ever taken that way. For example, at Talk:Zionism, literally not one editor thinks that or has suggested it. At none of the examples I've posted has even one editor suggested it. I've never seen anyone suggest that or interpret it that way. Levivich (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for posting the list of five articles that have made lists of sources. There are non-list approaches (e.g., the one-off message on the talk page), and there's also what you might call the 'WORSTSOURCES lists' (e.g., WT:COVID-19 still has a note about Worldometer being disrecommended, and WP:VG disrecommends a long list of websites).

  This makes me wonder whether the point here has little to do with "making a list of the best sources" and instead is more like "sometimes we already have a consensus about whether _____ is an acceptable source for this article, and sometimes we even write that down for your convenience, so you can quit asking already thankyouverymuch". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  +1. That's how I was reading the policy. Valereee (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

These are not at all the same thing. It's long been the case that separate topic areas and wikiprojects developed their own mini-RSP, that's not the same as developing a list on a specific article. The reason why video games developed their own source list for reliability is because they use things like gaming magazines or websites like IGN which probably wouldn't be reliable for anything else, so they're developing a list of sources that is typically less reliable by normal standards, but still usable for that topic area. That hasn't been the case for history or politics, which have more stringent standards than video games. If the WikiProject Jewish history or Judaism developed a recommended source list for Zionism, one would assume that it would include a number of Zionist sources, wouldn't that be a fair assumption? Probably a bunch of Israeli Zionist sources in Hebrew. It doesn't make sense to say that selecting a group of authoritative history books is the same thing as having a list of gaming industry publications that are or aren't reliable, it's a huge stretch. Andre🚐 19:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I've seen Paul Siebert taking a similar approach, tho not always creating an explicit "list". As i recall there was even a paper written about one of the articles involved? It is nice to see this section get some attention and hopefully the useless "try the library", "look online", "ask at the reference desk" can be replaced with some real guidance on what "best sources" means and how to find them. fiveby(zero) 13:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Drafting

Here's the current contents of this section, numbered for convenience:

1. In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
2. When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements.
3. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources.
4. If you need help finding high-quality sources, ask other editors on the talk page of the article you are working on, or ask at the reference desk.

It appears that the goal is to add something like "If editors have formed a consensus about the suitability of certain sources (pro or con), it would be collegial if they shared that somehow instead of just yelling at editors who are trying to help for not magically knowing about prior discussions." Also, maybe be careful about making lists, because they create risks for bias and ownership.

I think this new goal could fit between sentences 2 and 3.

Looking at it more generally, sentences 3 and 4 are maybe not providing a lot of value. Would it be better to point at a page like Wikipedia:Find your source (or something better than that)?

Sentence 2 might benefit from being broadened to explicitly mention sources from varying POVs (e.g., World War II shouldn't be written entirely from sources from just one of the belligerents).

One of the missing things is a statement about what The Best™ Sources are. I don't know how to write a sentence that says "The best sources are...", because it varies so significantly by subject. The best type of source for a current event is not the best type of source for a historical event.

What else could we improve in this paragraph? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I find all of the above insightful and largely agree. I think the spirit of sentence 2 and 3 is basically - use better sources if they are available, reliable books and journals are better than less reliable books and journals and websites and news links. I don't like "best" in general as a superlative as in best practice, we just mean that better sources are better. I agree that something about WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is part of it. I also definitely agree that balance and weight are part of this. This reminds of a point you once made - WP:DUE really only talks about viewpoints. Maybe this is a place to remind people about WEIGHT and NPOV being something that theoretically produces an WP:IMPARTIAL tone. Andre🚐 04:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that if we are going to add a line like this somewhere, it doesn't go in WP:BESTSOURCES. WP:BESTSOURCES is about preferring the best sources (and not merely treating any reliable source as equal). Saying "if you make a list of sources you should publish it" doesn't fit here. (And I'm not just saying that because I think that such list making is categorically against the policy to begin with. :P ) Loki (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I think WhatamIdoing's observation re Sentence 2 is especially important and valuable. Coretheapple (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate this discussion and WAID's point about Sentence 2. NPOV is about representing the range of viewpoints found in reliable sources and helping the reader understand why issues are controversial. Our experience in many topic areas is that using higher-quality sources helps us meet these goals because the x best sources represent the body of reliable sources on the topic. However in some topic areas this might not be the case, and restricting source usage could have the effect of excluding some points of view. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

For a subject like WWII, we could find high-quality scholarly sources for all major POVs (e.g., reputable books from academic publishers in each country). For a subject like Anti-psychiatry (in which the people with institutionally recognized power have a different POV than people without that power) that may be less true. In that case, even an exactly matching rule could have unequal effects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Clarification for known issues or criticism sections

It seems like known issues or criticism sections are not allowed in Wikipedia acording to @InfiniteNexus see Talk:Pixel_9#Known issues section and neutrality. I am deply worried on this agresion on the neutrality of Wikipedia. Many articles have similar sections and discussions in the past settled these sections as valid. See Talk:Pixel 5#Known issues section blanking Could someone clarify? 90.167.218.96 (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

This user is beating a WP:DEADHORSE. It has already been explained to them that a section for "known issues" is (1) unencyclopedic and contravenes WP:NOTCHANGELOG, being an indiscriminate list of trivial matters that belong on a help center or issue tracking system, not Wikipedia; (2) non-neutral, as it directly goes against WP:CSECTION and WP:TRIVIA by having a section dedicated to non-notable software bugs, which also has issues with WP:UNDUE; and (3) unnecessary, as any major controversies can and will be integrated in existing sections, as it is currently being done. I'll once again remind the user that (1) two wrongs don't make a right; (2) consensus is not determined by the number of raw votes but by the strength of the arguments presented; and (3) they should stop going around in circles by simply repeating their arguments. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

A more neutral framing is "Reception", which makes room for the full range of opinions. Calling the section "criticism" is non-neutral because the heading naturally excludes positive comments. Yes, you can find articles from the past that fail WP:NPOV. But they should be tagged and fixed, not used as examples of why we ignore WP:NPOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I will move the issues under the Reception section. 84.78.243.26 (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

84.78, you need to do three things here:

1. Use neutral language, like "Reception". "Reception", by the way, implies that it's about what relevant experts think.
2. Don't put any criticism in a separate section if it could be reasonably placed in an existing one. It's better to have something like "It has 12345 GB, which has been criticized as too little storage" than to have "It has 12345 GB" in one section and "It has been criticized for having too little storage" in another.
3. Don't include every single known or suspected problem. Only include the problems that multiple independent reliable sources believe are significant. For example, if multiple computer magazines say "This device only has a foo, and it really ought to have a baz", then that's probably fine, but you probably shouldn't include anything that can only be sourced to a single source. If it's a significant problem, then you should be able to find multiple reports. If you can only find one website (especially if it's largely driven by sales commissions, customer reviews, or social media), then you shouldn't include it.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

What the others said. Plus such section headings tend to towards including things that would otherwise not merit inclusion.North8000 (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)#3 is the key point. Not every software bug is notable — in fact, most of them aren't. Only if they have attracted widespread coverage from reliable sources, of if they have special significance/relevance, do they warrant a mention. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The later part of this thread focused on neutrality issues but another might be the primary one here. The guidelines / policies that others are referring to (with WP:Not at the core of them) are in essence emphasizing that we are an enclyclopedia covering topics in enclyclopedia-type articles. So this is not "all information" and so you might be seeking to include information that is not enclyclopedia article type information. North8000 (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean that notable issues with a product should not be allowed in wikipedia and thus be removed? Please, calrify and I will start removing any notable issue from any product page in Wikipedia. 80.103.136.237 (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

No, that is not at all what North meant… notable (or perhaps noteworthy) issues with a product (ie those widely reported on) should be mentioned. However, we don’t mention EVERY issue with a product. Trivial issues can be (and usually are) omitted. An examination of the sources, discussion and consensus determines whether a specific issue is noteworthy or trivial. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks. All the issues that @InfiniteNexus is trying to hide are notable (accoding to Wikipedia notability definition). 90.167.219.84 (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

... No they are not. Please substantiate your arguments rather than simply continue to make claims like this. What "definition" are you referring to, and how so? I also don't appreciate your continual bad-faith assertions that I am making Wikipedia non-neutral, trying to hide information, or seem like a Google employee. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I assume that 90.167 means WP:Due weight instead of Wikipedia:Notability. Notability is Wikipedia's jargon for whether a subject deserves at WP:Separate, stand-alone article, and I don't think they mean to say that each of these consumer complaints deserves a completely separate article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Good point… DUE vs UNDUE (which is determined by coverage in sources) is the criteria here, not Notability. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The page Wikipedia:Notability does not apply to content within articles, but "notable" is often used generically as a synonym of "noteworthy", i.e. worthy of inclusion on a Wikipedia article. It's important for the IP user to recognize that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, so just because they can find a source for something doesn't mean it is not trivial and interests a general audience. This is discussed at WP:INDISCRIMINATE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

These issues are supported by multiple sources. So, they are considered WP:Due weight. I think Wikipedia needs to clarify if these are allowed or not as there are many similar articles. 80.103.137.123 (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The first issue was added like this:

• Some owners are reporting a camera tilt issue. Google has not made any comments yet.

The source added for this issue was:

• Some Pixel 9 Pro XL owners are reporting a camera tilt issue

That's one (1) issue with one (1) source. One source ≠ multiple sources. Each complaint needs coverage in multiple sources. How else are we to know whether that's a widespread problem, or just something that a couple of people complained about? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I will add more sources. 90.167.218.158 (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Either the IP user is intentionally being disruptive or unable to understand the relevant policies and guidelines, as they have once again restored the list of known issues despite being told multiple times that it violates WP:NOT and WP:CSECTION. They have also ignored repeated requests not to edit-war and wait for consensus to fully develop before altering the status quo, so I can no longer assume good faith.

The "sources" that the IP has just added are not reliable (WP:RS). Virtually all of them are newsblogs, and at most two can be considered marginally reliable. The absence of significant coverage from reputable sources is an indicator that these software bugs are not noteworthy for inclusion, and the IP user should WP:DROPTHESTICK at this point. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

All of the sources in the page are either from other weblogs or the primary source. Sould we remove the whole article altogether for lack of reliable sources? 90.167.203.206 (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not true. The article cites the Associated Press, The Verge, Wired, The New York Times, Bloomberg News, and more. If you're not sure what constitutes a reliable source, please consult WP:RS and see WP:RSPS for a list of common sources. Your tone here is combative, and you seem to avoid addressing the issues at hand, namely, WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, and WP:CSECTION. Editors have explained to you that an indiscriminate list of software bugs is unencyclopedic and does not belong on Wikipedia, and only if a particular issue has contextual significance and has received significant coverage from reliable sources can it be integrated into other sections in the article. If you are unable to understand this, or simply refuse to work with Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, then let's close this discussion and move on, because competence is required on Wikipedia, and you must be willing to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and work with other editors. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus, I think this is what the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution processes are for. I doubt the IP has enough experience to know how it works, but they do seem to be trying to comply with all the rules. Would you be willing to show the IP how it's done, by starting a discussion on the talk page, and marching through the list, from Wikipedia:Third opinion all the way to RFC if necessary, addressing each individual item at a time? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Although I have tried to assume good faith, it no longer seems to me that the IP user is trying to follow our PAGs. They have been asked several times, "Please don't edit-war, please don't restore your edit until consensus is reached", yet they continue to do so. They have also been told (by at least four editors), "A standalone list section dedicated to software bugs is unencyclopedic, please don't add it", yet they continue to do so. This discussion has been a de facto 3O request, so I am not optimistic additional discussion will be any more productive. I'm also not sure what an RfC would look like — a question along the lines of "should a list of software bugs be included" would likely yield the response I summarized above: "no, but if a particular issue is noteworthy they can be discussed in other sections" ... which is what I've told the IP since the beginning! I also recognize there may be a language barrier (the IPs geolocate to Spain), but competence is still required and this is not an excuse for disruptive behavior. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

We could stop the edit warring at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but I think the open question (i.e., the point upon which you and the IP differ) is whether the sources provided indicate that the material is DUE. An RFC question could look like "Shall we include <this sentence>, using <these sources>?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say it seems pretty clear that newsblogs are generally unreliable, especially if they lack meaningful editorial oversight, have a poor track record, tend to publish anything for clicks, and are rarely cited by other reputable sources. I think to justify an exemption to WP:NOTCHANGELOG, there would need to be stronger sources like the ones listed at WP:RSPS — at the very least, it should be reputable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. But what are your thoughts? As I said, this discussion is essentially an informal 3O/RfC/DRN. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the subject area to know what the usual sourcing standards are. For all I know, these could be highly reputable websites. Alternatively, they could all be AI-generated fakes. I don't have the background information to be able to tell them apart. I find it much easier to evaluate academic sources than news-ish websites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus These news outlets are being used for references in many Wikipedia articles if you want to challenge them then you should challenge them Wikipedia wide. 85.48.187.242 (talk) 09:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm starting up a new observation, I have an interest in a particular article, see my log. I'm seeking an analogy to the exception about hearsay evidence - that you can in fact establish that somebody said something - a speech act - while refusing to say that in any sense the truth of what they say is established. So, rather than focusing on the truth of a claim, whether that claim has been stated by a reputable source, that it could be established that a given claim is "out there", which to my way of seeking would involve a lower threshold to establish that - as compared to the truth of what is being claimed. If the current set of wikipedia ideas do not allow for this, I suggest that be a modification. If that is not possible, well, *groan* JohnAugust (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

So, there are two policy issues related to this:

1- verifying that the person said it, and that Wikipedia is quoting them accurately. This is covered in WP:V and WP:RS.

2- establishing that Wikipedia should mention the quote in the first place. This is covered at WP:NPOV, and specifically by WP:UNDUE.

Essentially, we want to cite the original (primary) source for Verifiability purposes, but want to cite Secondary sources for DUE Weight purposes. Thus, best practice is to cite both. Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The challenge is that saying "So-and-so said ____" implies that ____ is not only true but also relevant/important.

In some areas, we can move to a higher class of sources (e.g., replace social media posts about politician's hairstyles with scholarly sources that look at the same politician's policy stances). In other areas, that's not possible.

Editors will always have to use their judgment to determine whether a given point actually belongs in an encyclopedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. I'll see how I go applying this in the next few days.JohnAugust (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Well sourced, journalist written, mainstream corporate media based critical contents is nowhere near as problematic as Awards & Accolades section citing the award granting group, other .org, trade groups. Graywalls (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree in theory, and I think this particular example hinges on whether you recognize these websites as "journalist written, mainstream corporate media" vs just some websites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Rearrange again

This paragraph:

Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.

is currently under ===Balance===. Since it is about viewpoints rather than facts/content more generally, and since it actually links to WP:DUE, I think it should be moved up into the DUE section. Any objections? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

"Balance" and "due" are covering a lot of similar ideas. I can see why we may need to shuffle them together. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been thinking about separating the ideas: DUE for 'viewpoints' ("Deontologists say that the means don't justify the ends, but consequentialists say that they can") and BALANCE for 'facts' (e.g., biographies indicate when and where the person lived, even if sources don't go into great detail about this). However, there is quite a lot that applies to both. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Due and undue weight and articles on religion: potential guidelines for ordering for neutrality

For articles on religious topics which do have a broad and NPOV material (not just the views of a single denomination), should there be some editorial guideline for ordering to the presentation of semi-controversial information to reduce undue weight or cumulative non-NPOV?

The guidelines that come to mind are:

0. Editors should NOT order the sections merely according to their length or the order they were added, unless the sections have already been arranged so that the length reflects some reasonably objective editorial metric or system: due weight or notability or chronology or genericity etc.

1. If the presentation starts chronologically/historically, the article should generally continue chronologically/historically. I.e. for Christian-related topic, a series like Ancient/Patristic/Catholic-Orthodox/Protestant/Non-conformist/Liberal or whatever. E.g. Biblical_inerrancy.

1a. Where chronological listing might give undue weight to some marginal information, it could be put at the end, or grouped into a subsection like "Other". This may help flow of reading too.

2. If the material is best thought of as a series of parallel developments without strong interaction, then organizing by topic/stream/denomination could be appropriate. For example, the Essence–energies_distinction article has its main split into an Orthodox section then a Catholic section, with chronological considerations in the paragraphs not the sections.

2a. In this case, the issue of the order of denominations is also appropriate to consider: I suggest that where some idea is notably or primarily or most simply associated with some single denomination or group (e.g. Orthodoxy and "energia" or Catholicism and "essence" or perhaps "sola fide" and Protestantism) then that denomination or group should be treated first.

2b. But where the topic applies to multiple denominations where none is clearly the most notable, and then I suggest that notability should use the proxy of the numerical strength of that denomination, following List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members. This would mean Catholic section first, Protestants second, Orthodox third, Church of east fourth, others at end.

Would it be legitimate for an editor, e.g. me, to take an article e.g. Biblical_inspiration and rearrange it chronologically/sizewise (to the order Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical, Liberal, Neo-orthodx) just on these editorial considerations, without being accused of pushing a particular wheelbarrow?

This came up because I saw (or imagined) a pattern where many articles have a large Protestant section first then a small Catholic section later: the order suggests a logical priority which is surely not appropriate or intended: for individual articles...who cares? But cumulatively an ordering in many articles favouring particular smaller groups might be create a form of bias.

(Currently, there are many articles on religious topics (Christian, presumably others) that feature only or mainly the view of one denomination or belief system. This is unavoidable, of course, given that some articles are sourced from e.g. the Catholic Encyclopedia or written by people interested or specialist in one tradition. (For example, the old article on Priesthood of all believers had only Protestant material.) However, in the long term we hope that articles reform themselves as editors attend to WP:NPOV and undue weight etc. That is a different issue.) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

the -est, "one of the first", in xxx superlatives in articles

How do we feel about the liberal use of such sensationalistic superlatives in a lot of articles? I am seeing them everywhere. "the biggest, the first, was featured in best/top 4,523 list of xxx" in the township/Bay Area/region/state/country/time zone. and so on. Even if it's mentioned in reliable sources, I'm seeing this used excessively. Graywalls (talk)

• This is done to establish notability. Blueboar (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• Is it accurate? If so, then I don't think it's a problem, especially if it's just one or two claims per article. I'd rather read "First pizza joint in the Bay Area" than "It's a pizza joint in the Bay Area". It's not sensationalism to report 'favorable' facts.
  Also, Blueboar is correct. Our notion of a Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance pretty much demands that editors add some sort of information along these lines, so we can't complain too much when they do what we insist they do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the issue is the overly liberal use of such superlatives. I do not think that any reasonable editor would object to describing Yuri Gagarin as the first human to journey into outer space. The quality of the sourcing is also important. If the preponderance of reliable sources describe the topic as "the first", then I have no problem including it. But sometimes these claims are sourced to low quality, lazy listicle journalism. As in so many other areas of editing Wikipedia, a healthy dose of common sense and good editorial judgment is required. Cullen328 (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

And also, "Awards and Accolades" section being considerably larger than criticism even if there's just as much critical information based on news reports. Graywalls (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, listicle formatting may give a false impression there (a list of three awards takes up more screen space than a prose sentence naming the same three awards), but the problem with unbalanced attention isn't really about the superlatives. Someone can be widely recognized as the best guitarist and a person with serious personal problems; a business can produce the finest widgets and the biggest polluter of the town's water supply. And because of the effects of Outrage journalism on WP:RECENTISM, it is sometimes the case that what looks big at the moment turns out to be a temporary blip. It can be difficult to get the balance right, even when you're trying hard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly noteworthy to say that they're the worst town polluter though, along with being the finest maker of widget Y. Graywalls (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

"was the first restaurant in township to phase out single use flatware, and has the largest solar generation among all sit-down restaurants in the county" sort of thing is what I was referring to. Graywalls (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Assuming that they got some attention from (e.g.) the local newspaper about this, what's wrong with that? That might be what they're actually notable for. Maybe the next paragraph (or next year's version of the article) is going to say that the owners campaigned for a local plastic straw ban, or that their solar array caught fire and burned down the entire historic district. If that's what the sources give attention to that restaurant for, then deciding that this is unimportant is what this policy calls "editorial bias".

In some cases, what's important is that it happens at all. In such a case, the article might say less about "first" and "largest", and instead say something like "The owners are interested in environmental issues and have consequently stopped providing single-use flatware and installed a solar power system". But you really would have to consider everything the source says before deciding what to write. "They're eco-conscious" isn't a good explanation if the facts are that the solar power company was having a contest, and the super-competitive owner was determined to beat his arch-rival, Other Restaurant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

But in grand scheme of thing, those insignificant claims like the biggest snail ever seen (on my property) usually don't belong in an encyclopedia. It can be in editorial gray zone, but those "first in township" like claims are clearly comparable to that watermelon example.

Although I'm not exactly known as being an inclusionist while some others are extreme inclusionist. Graywalls (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

If independent sources make a big deal out of _____, then it doesn't matter if _____ seems insignificant to a Wikipedia editor. Instead of imposing our personal biases on the sources (why did they waste space on that unimportant cruft?!), we should reflect the sources as best we can.

Sometimes there are ways to represent the facts in a less-enthusiastic tone. "The biggest, oldest, and best restaurant in Smallville" may become "the only restaurant in Smallville". But ultimately, if the main reason the sources are writing about the restaurant is because they have solar panels on the roof, or a record-setting ball of twine in the garden, or because George Washington Slept Here, the Wikipedia articles really do need to reflect that fact.

Sometimes it's not actually obvious why some "trivia" might be more important than it looks at first blush. For example, "24-bed hospital with the only emergency room within 25 miles of town" probably sounds like pure promotionalism to some editors – but they wouldn't think that if they knew what effect that particular combination of size and distance has on unlocking US federal funding. There could be a hidden importance behind other kinds of "unimportant" facts, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree if the attention is brought upon by the independent source in an intellectually independent way.

I'll use real example.. " LA Weekly listed it as one of the ten best "Online Resources for Metal Knowledge" in 2013." in Metal Injection, I find questionable. It's just in a list, but it was an editor decision to bring up that it's in a list. Graywalls (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm repeating what other people have said, but this is the easiest way to clear the WP:N hurdle, if it exists. I agree it can start to feel sensationalistic. That's why we avoid saying "X is the greatest movie of all time", and instead say "X was named the greatest film of all time by publication A, B, and C." The first is an opinion, the second is a fact (about an opinion). Shooterwalker (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Comedy is subjective

I see comedy hasn't been discussed in the archives. I added it to the subjective section. We should be careful about overweighting articles with suggestions of offense or the like, sourced to conventional sources. Consider that those not offended are unlikely to be reported on, resulting in POV issues. Thoughts here? SmolBrane (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense I see you reverted without explanation, would you like to discuss? SmolBrane (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Not really, I don't feel the need to justify reverting a unilateral addition to site policy. I did explain it, though: there's an "etc." on that list for a reason. Remsense ‥ 论 19:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:Bold edits are a conventional way to collaborate on the project though it may feel a little strange sometimes! Objections/reverts are best received when discussed or explained. Do you have an opinion on comedians and how sources can get WP:TABLOID-y? SmolBrane (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Right. You made a bold edit, and I reverted it. We've completed the classic pattern, as I've already explained my reasoning both in the edit summary and in a reply here. Remsense ‥ 论 04:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I have notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comedy. SmolBrane (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)