Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 48

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Unexpectedly low degree of certainty in medical examiner findings.

Consensus is against the proposal. Following extensive debate both here and at other venues there is no benefit to be gained from further discussion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We were discussing the reliability of a medical examiners cause of death finding over on the RS noticeboard, and we all or almost all, thought that an official medical examiner would be a reliable enough expert primary source to establish the fact of a cause of death, at least in the case of an uncontroversial finding. But then when I went looking at information about typical degrees of certainty in medical examiner findings, I found a document at the National Association of Medical Examiners website thename.org, A Guide For Manner of Death Classification (under General Info, Death Certification): https://netforum.avectra.com/Public/DocumentGenerate.aspx?wbn_key=38c0f1d2-11ec-45c7-80ca-ff872d0b22bc&SITE=NAME That states:

"In general, the certifier of death completes the cause-of-death section and attests that, to the best of the certifier’s knowledge, the person stated died of the cause(s) and circumstances reported on the death certificate. It is important to remember that these “facts” only represent the certifier’s opinion and are not written in stone or legally binding."

But it gets worse. It goes on:

Because the cause and manner of death are opinions, judgment is required to formulate
both for reporting on the death certificate. The degree of certainty required to classify the manner of death depends sometimes on the circumstances of the death. Although such issues will be discussed in further detail below, a general scheme of incremental “degrees of certainty” is as follows:

Undetermined (less than 50% certainty)

Reasonable medical or investigative probability (Greater than a 50:50 chance; more likely than not)

Preponderance of medical/investigative evidence (For practical purposes, let’s say about 70% or greater certainty)

Clear and convincing medical/investigative evidence (For practical purposes, let’s say 90% or greater certainty)

Beyond any reasonable doubt (essentially 100% certainty)

Beyond any doubt (100% certainty)
Seldom, for the purpose of manner-of-death classification, is “beyond a reasonable doubt” required as the burden of proof. In many cases, “reasonable probability” will suffice, but in other instances such as suicide, case law or prudence may require a “preponderance” of evidence—or in homicide—“clear and convincing evidence” may be required or recommended.

Notice that a finding of homicide MAY require a heightened standard of 90%. But that means that the finding MAY NOT require even 90% certainty. A medical examiner may well be using the 70% "Preponderance of medical/investigative evidence" or possibly even the 51% "Reasonable medical or investigative probability" standard. A medical examiner may well have found a higher certainty in a particular case. But until we know, it seems clear to me that we can't state the examiner's opinion of the manner or cause of death as fact in Wikipedia without establishing what degree of certainty the medical examiner is claiming. And we should warn readers that medical examiner's findings may be determined to a surprisingly low degree of certainty, if we don't know the degree of certainty.

I think we need to modify the reliable sources guidelines to warn other Wikipedia editors that medical examiner findings may be only 51% certain, and that if greater weight is to be attributed to such findings, then the medical examiner's degree of certainty level must be verified on a case by case basis. Mindbuilder (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

? People decide on what is likely true all the time, especially when, as here, they have a choice to say they cannot state what is likely true (undetermined). Same with, it is likely true it was a homicide (that is, a volitional act by a person causing death to another), and at any rate, the notes make clear that the examiner in a homicide case would have a higher degree of certainty than likely true. The notes also state that after "manner of death" (eg. homicide, accident, etc.) it is then followed by a clarifying note on circumstances (eg gunshot, hanging, etc)Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

We're not just talking about homicide here. Wikipedia editors also need to realize in non-homicide cases that the findings may be only to the "more likely than not" degree of certainty. And any following clarifying note may also be established only to a 51% degree of certainty. But even if the degree of certainty is at least 90%, I don't think even that is nearly high enough to establish something as a flatly true fact to be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Something closer to "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a more appropriate standard for establishing a fact. If there is a reasonable doubt about a fact, then that is worth alerting the reader to, and taking a neutral point of view. Especially for a derogatory fact in a BLP scenario. And also remember, these are suggested guidelines. We just don't know what particular degree of certainty an examiner is using in a particular case even in homicide. Some examiners might use a 51% standard to establish cause and manner of death in all cases, because criminal cases often become civil cases, but simply include a separate comment to warn when their findings don't reach a higher degree of certainty. If we don't know then we have to find out first. We can't just assume reliability. Mindbuilder (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

We do not assume they are wrong - they state what they have concluded ("manner of death") and we relate it. They are obviously certain enough to state what they have concluded. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

If you do not know if something is wrong or right, you should not assume it is right, just because you do not know that it is wrong. Nor should you assume that it is wrong, just because you do not know that it is right. The wise thing to do is not to assume it is right or wrong, but to just reserve judgment, and say you just don't know, unless you have sufficient evidence one way or the other. It was the assumption, thought to be obvious to almost all of us, that medical examiners would not declare an opinion unless they were certain enough to know the facts. But now it is clear that medical examiners will issue an opinion when they are not certain, and not even close to certain. If the degree of certainty does not exceed "more likely than not", then that degree of certainty means NOT certain, merely probable. According to Merriam Websters, certain means "not having any doubt about something" "Indisputable". A conclusion that may merely be "more likely than not" is nowhere close to indisputable. Mindbuilder (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not a forum. If you have an issue with the way medical examiners word their findings, take it elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeking consensus for changes to the guidelines for identifying reliable sources. I thought this was the place to do that. Is there somewhere else I should go to discuss proposed changes? Or should I just be bold and make the changes?

If I was suggesting medical examiners should word their findings differently, I would go make that suggestion where medical examiners congregate, not here. I'm just saying that I and many other Wikipedia editors were mistaken to assume that the expert findings of medical examiners were reliable. We now know that those "official" findings may be based on merely a "more likely than not" level of likelihood. Editors and readers need to be warned of this surprising fact. Mindbuilder (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you're not "seeking consensus"; you're trying to avoid acknowledging it. You've already heard a consensus, that medical examiner findings are reliable sources for cause of death (for example, at RS/N). You don't agree with that consensus, and you're forum-shopping relentlessly to find a way around it. You're well into I-didn't-hear-that territory. While I can only guess at the motivations behind your crusade to discredit the M.E.'s findings in the Garner case, your behavior is disruptive and tendentious and will be grounds for being blocked from editing if it continues. You are free to raise questions or concerns about source reliability, but you are not free to disregard all input you disagree with, nor to keep asking the same question in different venues hoping for a different answer, particularly when you've omitted to link to other relevant ongoing discussions. Especially, you are not free to try to change a fundamental sourcing guideline to fit your personal agenda, when you've already been told by an overwhelming number of other editors that you're off-base. MastCell ^Talk 19:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I was not the one initiating the previous forum changes related to this issue. That was Dyrnych. Previously I was following his forum changes. And I'm not suggesting his forum changes were unreasonable. I only changed forum once to this forum because I thought it was a more proper place to discuss, not just the reliability of a single source for a particular article, but a change to the reliable sources guideline page with respect to medical examiner findings in a wide variety of cases, both civil and criminal.

Furthermore I think my discovery that medical examiner opinions may be based on no more than a "more likely than not" level of probability, dramatically changes the vast majority of our previous discussion. Previously even I had agreed that they could be considered reliable when they were not disputed.

But lets get things perfectly clear. Is it your opinion that it is acceptable for a medical examiner's finding that is established to a level of "more likely than not", or for which we don't know the degree of certainty, to be flatly stated as a fact in Wikipedia's voice? Mindbuilder (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

? Apart from the medical examiners conclusion, there is nothing else that states the medical examiners conclusion. It goes into the mortality and statistics books that way. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mindbuilder: It's my opinion that you're inappropriately trying to alter a fundamental guideline here in order to win a content dispute where consensus has gone against you. That's disruptive behavior.

The answer to your "more likely than not" question is mu. Seriously, spend a few minutes actually thinking it through. We report that the shortstop Omar Vizquel committed only 3 errors in the 2000 baseball season. But whether a particular play constitutes a hit or an error is a subjective judgement—an opinion—rendered by the official scorer. The threshold is for calling a play an error is "more likely than not", or 51%. But we report it as a matter of fact, in Wikipedia's voice, that Vizquel committed 3 errors. We don't include some sort of ridiculous, contrived nonsense about Vizquel's fielding percentage being a matter of opinion. Right? MastCell ^Talk 04:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Changing a policy to try to win a dispute is the lowest of the low. Hipocrite (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I intend to get the policy changed even if I do win the dispute. And if consensus is found that the policy needs to be changed, and that wins the dispute, then the dispute should be won, and there is nothing low at all about winning a dispute by improving the quality of Wikipedia. More on MastCell's baseball errors example later. By the way Hipocrite, do you think that a source that establishes its conclusions to a "more likely than not" standard should be considered a reliable source for statements of fact? Mindbuilder (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you should be topic banned from this topic for failing to hear. I'll probably suggest that in a few more cycles of you not hearing. You lost, get over it. Hipocrite (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That you dodged my last question is noted. It is understandable though, as your position is indefensible. And you act as if you have a strong consensus. By my last count it is only 6 to 4 against me since I made it known that medical examiner findings may be established to a mere "more likely than not" standard. And that changed the debate dramatically, so the previous opinions should not be relied upon unless they re-assert them.

In the baseball errors example, anyone that cares about the exact accuracy of the error number is likely to quickly find out that the true number of errors depends on some close calls by the official scorer. They're going to know that the precise value is not a highly reliable number. And even if for some reason some people don't figure it out, it doesn't really matter much. The precise true and fair number matters to the particular player as far as negotiating his salary, but anyone negotiating the salary of a baseball player most certainly knows the official number is not precisely reliable. And they know that Wikipedia will be reporting the official number, not Wikipedia's own finding. And they can do their own video confirmation of each error if they care to. Furthermore, for most purposes, a wrong close call or two probably doesn't mean much to the over-all reputation of the player. Few fans will probably care about a slight error in the exact number of errors. The cited Omar Vizquel article doesn't even mention Vizquel's career or yearly error numbers. Also, it's just a game. If Wikipedia's misses letting people know that the official baseball statistics aren't perfect, the omission is not that big a deal to the credibility of Wikipedia. And there is nothing wrong with Wikipedia flatly stating as fact what the official stats are. MLB probably has an official process that establishes the errors, and then probably that is the organization's final declaration. A medical examiner's finding is official, but it is nowhere near final. It can be easily changed upon new evidence, or overruled by a jury.

On the other hand, with medical examiner findings, I think few people will realize that they may be determined to such a low degree of probability. And people may be unlikely to find that out even when they look into a case deeper, as we have done. Finally, life and death findings can be very important to society and the parties involved.

@MastCell - Since you answered my question in the negative, that apparently means it is NOT your opinion that it is acceptable for a medical examiner's finding that is established to a level of "more likely than not" to be flatly stated as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. So what are we disagreeing about? Are we disagreeing about the situation when we don't know the level of probability the medical examiner found? Mindbuilder (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is nothing less than forum shopping and disruptive. Maybe ANI should lead the way for this editor.TMCk (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

As the initiator of the RS noticeboard discussion and one of the parties involved in the content dispute, I'm kind of shocked that I wasn't informed that this discussion was going on here. That smacks of forum shopping to me, especially when my initial change of forum is being brought up as a defense for moving the discussion to this page; I notified every editor involved in the discussion and posted a link in the previous discussion, neither of which has happened here. Also, can someone explain why we should accept the section of document that Mindbuilder has cherry-picked as authoritative and discount this statement from the "Preface and Caveats" of the document (page 2) as irrelevant? "This book is a Guide. The recommendations contained herein are not standards and should not be used to evaluate the performance of a given certifier in a given case. Death certification and manner-of-death classification require judgment, and room must be allowed for discretion on a case by case basis" (emphasis mine).

Mindbuilder's notion that there is not a robust consensus for accepting an ME's report as a reliable source for fact (unless disputed by equally qualified experts) is laughable. Not one of the editors opposing the acceptance of an ME's report as an RS has cited Mindbuilder's rationale for doing so; their objections mostly boil down to the fact that an ME is fallible, which is true but (in my opinion) irrelevant in the absence of expert dispute. We are not qualified to assess whether they have erred or not, and stating the mere possibility of error is not anywhere near enough to raise doubt about an ME's conclusion. On the other hand, most editors—both before and after the "bombshell"—have accepted the argument that in the absence of qualified dispute, an ME's report should be accepted as a reliable primary source for a cause of death. Dyrnych (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment (reposting from RSN): I can't believe it took me this long to notice this, but the fatal (if you'll pardon the pun) flaw in Mindbuilder's reasoning is that the excerpted segment applies to manner of death, not cause of death. Mindbuilder is conflating the two (whether from carelessness, ignorance, or whatever other reason), but they're entirely different; cause is a medical determination, while manner is not. So even accepting that this cherry-picked material has any application to this matter (which I don't), the thesis is that a medical examiner may require as low as 51% certainty before deeming a death to be one of the following: suicide, homicide, accident, or natural causes. That has no application whatsoever to the degree of certainty of the determination of the cause of death, i.e., the medical circumstances that ended the life of the decedent. That is the question: whether the medical examiner's report is a reliable source for the cause of death, not the manner of death. Dyrnych (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Using otherwise reliable sources that (without directly saying so) borrow details from Wikipedia

Obviously this page already rejects using Wikipedia and its derivatives as sources, but recently on Talk:Akira Toriyama someone tried to argue in favour of the status quo because an several external sources had copied minor stylistic details ("The subject is known for this and this") from Wikipedia. I've seen people do this in requested moves and the like as well ("X-source spells his name the same way we do on its title-page because that is the more familiar spelling of this very obscure person's name solely as a result of English Wikipedia. Therefore we shouldn't change the title.")

In my experience when it comes to minor stylistic details like this, otherwise reliable sources quite frequently copy Wikipedia just because the Wikipedia status quo is currently prominent online. When it comes to romanization and order of Japanese personal names, I know the Iwate Prefectural Government does this from time to time since I, on discussion with my other non-Japanese colleague, was the one who proposed it.

Anyone else think we should include a proviso warning against this kind of potential circular sourcing when defending the status quo?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

(By the way, while there have been a few such RMs, the one that jumps to mind is at Talk:Emperor Jimmu, where the majority of piecemeal mentions of the figure's name are in books written by people outside the field, and who therefore likely copied their spelling from either Wikipedia or the other source available for free online about the topic -- a 130-year-old public domain translation of the Kojiki. Such books are obviously of minimal value in defending the Wikipedia status quo. My recent comment on WT:MOS-JA cites another almost uncontrovertible example of an essay someone no doubt considers a reliable source on economics, written by someone who obviously consulted Wikipedia while writing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC) )

Slide shows as sources

Dear editors: I came across [1]] which is being used as a reference in a newly created article Boundary (company). "Network World" sounds like a magazine or news website name, but the content is a slide show. Is a slide show considered to be an article, and if so, is Network World a reliable publication? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it myself. I'm very leery of using programs as refs for various reasons and I'm pretty sure that's not even allowed, because of proprietary-format and searchability issues for a start. However, a slideshow is more just a slightly different way of presenting pages. It'd maybe be different if the user didn't control it, but she does, with a -> same as a regular paginated article. It requires javascript to be enabled, but that's common enough not to be a deal-killer.

As to Network World, dunno, but they look to be a real (online) publication with a real professional staff and so forth. Whether they just parrot press releases or whatever I don't know but I don't see any indication of that right off. They are part of International Data Group which is large entity, which is not the same as being reliable or even truthful, but on the other hand just making stuff up or at any rate not caring of their stuff is true or not would probably not be a good long term business strategy for International Data Group, so they probably have some reliability, or at least would aspire to that. Herostratus (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Correction to 'List of the oldest schools in Sri Lanka'.

Hartley College, Point-Pedro, Sri Lanka. Rev. Thomas Hall Squance got a plot of land near the beach at Point-Pedro from a person named Nagappar for a land named ‘Thenny’. The Mission built a Health Bungalow and School Room in 1815 (according to Rev. Peter Percival ) or 1817 ( as written in the Methodist Mission records). This later evolved into ‘Mission School’, ‘Girls Bilingual School’ – 1823,was destroyed by a fire. Rev Peter Percival in 1838 purchased an adjoining land with Pounds four-hundred obtained on a personal loan, and put up buildings in 1838. He named one section of the buildings as ‘Point-Pedro Wesleyan Mission Central School’. This was renamed Hartley College by it’s Principal Mr. C.P.Thamotheram in 1943. This was in gratitude to Rev. Marshal Hartley, Foreign Secretary of the Methodist Mission in England. The latter visited the school in 1917 and laid the foundation stone for the science lab. Source ‘Tales of an enchanted boyhood’ by Dr.Philip G Veerasingam –ISBN 978-955-1723-29-3 Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

http://imagessrilanka.blogspot.com/2012/04/mghs-and-hartley-point-pedro-sri-lanka.html Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

The Girls Bilingual School continues as the Methodist Girls High School to the present day.

Submitted by Dr.Philip G Veerasingam - email <philipv203@gmail.com> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.163.120 (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica

After recently being rapped over the knuckles for using Britannica as a source, I thought I'd read this article to see what I had done wrong. I found this:

Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, introductory textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources are helpful for overviews or summaries, and in evaluating due weight, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion

I am just as confused as before.

What are "summaries" and "overviews" in WP. Are there summary/overview articles where I could use EB, or are there parts of an article (eg. the lead) where I could use EB?
How could EB be used to "evaluate due weight"? I can't see anything obvious in the due weight article.
How can I tell that EB is being used for "detailed discussion"?

It seems to me that articles in EB, given the way that articles there are produced, are easily the equivalent of academic articles, or books. Myrvin (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I have read Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica, but this doesn't seem to help. However, if EB isn't to be used, how come there's a WP project on how to use it? Myrvin (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"Overview" means that a different encyclopedia entry might give you, as an editor, a good mental picture of how other people have summarized the topic. They are useful for editors to read while editing, to get a sense of the topic, even if we don't cite them for detailed material. They can help editors decide if certain information is worth investigating in less tertiary sources.

The "evaluate due weight" means that if we find that some piece of information is covered in a tertiary encyclopedia entry, it's probably likely that secondary sources have noted the information as well. Presence in a tertiary source is a helpful indication that it's probably also been noted by secondary sources and is probably worth including in our article, (but it's not a replacement for actually finding some of those secondary sources). __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The WikiProject is part of Wikipedia's absorption of some public-domain tertiary sources wholesale. This type of use is usually clearly marked within articles where we're basically reproducing a whole article not wriiten by Wikipedia editors. It's not a model for building new articles, written by editors, out of disparate sources. It's not a model we can use for any of the tertiary sources that are currently under copyright, either.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You may have encountered one of our many made-up rules. Rumors like this get started and passed around for years. We don't actually ban the use of EB (or any other source, for that matter; see the /FAQ at the top of the page). In fact, if your information actually comes from EB, then you are required to state that fact, per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. EB is cited in more than 10,000 articles.

However, the person who complained is correct that a tertiary source is not an ideal source for most purposes, and it is especially inappropriate for detailed, complex, or contentious matter. Whether a source is "reliable" depends on the statement that you're making. If it's uncontentious, almost sky-is-blue material, then an encyclopedia is an okay source. You don't need a gold-plated academic journal article to say that Abraham Lincoln was a US president (unless your main goal is to look like Wikipedia Iz Serious Academic Bidness, which is not a view I subscribe to). If you are supporting complicated material, though, like exactly what happens to protons inside a nuclear reactor, then you should look for a more appropriate (e.g., more technical) source.

By the way, in case it comes up, by supplying EB as a citation, you have met your WP:BURDEN. There is no requirement that you fulfill requests for "better" sources (no matter how "better" is defined). If the other editor wants a better source, it's his job to find it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello WhatamIdoing, nice to see you again. Perhaps this particular made up rule comes, in part, from this RS guideline. I came to this article because I was looking for reasons why, or why not, EB could be cited, and I know that I should only cite reliable sources. However, it looks to me as if the words I quoted above are not to do with sources to be cited, but sources for research - which is what I think ELAQUEATE is saying. It can easily be read to say that tertiary sources should never be cited, because in WP articles we are always putting in "detailed discussion" and never summaries or overviews. As you know, I'm having problems with GA reviews. Does your advice go for GAs too? Myrvin (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it can be read that "WP articles we are always putting in "detailed discussion" and never summaries or overviews" because WP is a tertiary source - and so a general purpose of WP is summary and overview. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC) As for GA, well the strength and draw back of that system is that you are submitting it to the reviewer for them to declare it "good". It is inevitable that some demand they make may seem (and even be) whimsical or capricious. So, only you, as submitter, can decide if it is worth it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. I was trying to think from where these whimsies might come. I have given up completely on GANs for that very reason. A nominator can spend hours and hours doing requested changes, only to find that the article is not good enough, because - inter alia - the article cites Britannica. Myrvin (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the only solace maybe - take the 100,000 foot view - generally, an anon on the internet making some evaluation of another anon's work - it is what it is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that some of these "whimsies" do have a reasonable origin. Our years-long telephone game often causes us to lose nuance.

What do you all think about adding a bit in the guideline about "the kind of source to use for general research" vs "whether this particular source is reliable for that particular statement"? We focus mostly on the latter, which might make our occasional statement about the former be confusing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The rest of the section, and article, is about citations. So I think this should be too.Myrvin (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Instead of the words quoted above, how about:

Respected tertiary sources such as Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Judaica, and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, may be cited, as long as such citations are not in the majority in an article.

Myrvin (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that those exact words might result in needless complaints about stubs (which often have only a single source). But perhaps we could add something like it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see that, WhatamIdoing. I added the 'majority' thing to reinforce the guideline's statement about articles being "based mainly on reliable secondary sources". Since it already says that, I guess it doesn't need to be repeated. How about:

Respected tertiary sources, where articles are written by experts in the field and have editorial panels, such as Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Judaica, and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, may be cited.

Myrvin (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

How about just "Reputable tertiary sources, such as lower-level school textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited"? If you wanted to be more specific, you could add something like "especially for uncontroversial or general statements". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I've put in your first set of words. Myrvin (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I changed the wording a little, by removing "lower-level; I asked, "What is 'lower-level' in this case, and why are we singling that out?" Flyer22 (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, regarding this edit you made, I think that the reason the policies weren't linked for those parts is because the top of that section already points to the policy definitions. And if you notice, the policy definitions point to the Wikipedia articles for a better understanding. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

In general, overview sources are not optimum, because the content they contain isn't originally from them. The general idea so far as I can tell is that we try to use the sources which either first proposed or most notably advanced certain content, and, pretty much by definition, most encyclopedias don't meet those criteria. There will be exceptions. I remember one, short, encyclopedia article relating to the philosophy of religion which gave as references exactly two other sources, both of which were, you guessed it, articles in other encyclopedias on the same topic. In some cases, like that one, we would certainly want to use the cited sources as the required indicators of notability of the topic, if it were to have a stand alone article. And, yeah, in some cases, if the material in an encyclopedia is based on some obscure book in Urdu not available in the West, they can be the only sources we have readily available, as that theoretical Urdu source probably isn't available to us. But I think those tend to be the exceptions rather than the rule, and if we have secondary sources other than overviews available, they would be preferable, except perhaps in the rare cases when the encyclopedic content itself more or less qualifies as a secondary source. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for the lateness of my replies:

Flyer, I included the phrase "lower-level" because upper-level textbooks (approximately the level you might seen in graduate school, but it depends) are usually secondary sources, not tertiary. We don't want to have this guideline "define" all textbooks as being tertiary sources.
John Carter, the main point of this guideline is to tell people what the minimum standard is, not to help them find the best possible source. Overview sources are not optimal (for many statements), and they are not even reliable for some, but they are acceptable if the specific claim being made is suitable to being supported by an overview source. Whether the source that either first proposed or most notably advanced an idea is a good one depends on your subject. In some areas, especially hard sciences, the goal is often to provide the most recent high-quality source rather than the historically important one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You reverted; I don't mind since you've explained. Flyer22 (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

TV programs

There is a discussion on Talk:Lewis Carroll about the use of a BBC TV documentary as a reliable source. There is no mention of broadcast documentaries in this guideline, and I wondered if editors had views on the general use of such sources. I note that Wikipedia:Citing sources#Film, TV, or video recordings has a suggestion for citing them. Myrvin (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

An edit war about this is now underway.Myrvin (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

About reliability of www.austadiums.com

Hello, can anyone tell me whether this website [2] is reliable or not as per WP:RS? Itz arka (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

We need need to know more information to answer your question. Reliability depends on context. Which WP article are we talking about, and what specific statement in that article would it support? Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Blueboar, I need to know whether the attendance records listed in this website are true or not, whether this website is reliable or not on the context of attendance figures for all sports played in Australia. In fact, in all sport articles, they add the attendances of each and every match in the scoreboards here in Wikipedia, but recently some WP:Cricket users are randomly deleting the attendance figures from cricket articles. Some of them are saying that the attendance figures should be sourced. Now this website has all the attendance figures listed for cricket matches played in Australia (as well as for other sports played there too). So when I mentioned about this website, then some of them are asking whether this website is reliable or not. You can follow the long discussion (or consensus) here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#Attendances. That's why I want to know about the reliability of this website. Itz arka (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This discussion should probably be moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Sparkie82 (t•c) 22:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

National Archives

Where countries hold official materials and records of events, such as maps, military records, government papers, local authority records and the like. Are these classed as acceptable sources, or original research. For example the British National Archives, at Kew, permits free and unfettered access to any source of documents that are kept there. If it is acceptable then it should be stated in the main page. Equally so it should be stated if they are not permitted. At the present it appears that an author can access those records, interpret them as they see fit and publish a book, which is then considered as an acceptable published source. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The answer to your question really depends on the specific document, and exactly how you try to use it. For the most part (and there are exceptions), such records would be considered reliable... but they would also be considered primary sources. While we can cite them, the situations in which it is appropriate to cite them is limited... so they have to be used with great caution. The real issue isn't so much whether the documents are reliable or not... the real issue is whether you are using them to support original research or not. (See WP:PRIMARY for more on this). Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Help?

I wonder if someone who follows this page, and has the time and patience, might perhaps look at an issue raised in a DYK nomination that is under consideration? The conversation there is long. I apologize for my part in that.

In short, the part that an RS expert can help with, especially one who has given thought to this guideline's language with regard to the use of primary vs. secondary sources, is whether certain statements by certain secondary RS sources can be relied upon there. This is a bit more complicated than determining whether they are RSs -- it is more about whether what they stated can be viewed as RS-supported.

The discussion is here. As the DYK is caught in a bit of difference of opinion, any assistance will be much appreciated.

Many thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing question

When including info about an author’s published works in a Wikipedia article, is an officially published book a valid secondary source that can be used to document basic info about the work and its author? For example, here’s an on-line version of a book published by National Defense University. Would this be an appropriate source to document Wikipedia text that said: “In 1996, Alan Gropman wrote a book on World War II logistics” in an article about Mr Gropman? It seems like this should be good secondary sources since it is formally published by independent third-party publishers.--Orygun (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Orygun, usually these kinds of questions are best asked at WP:RSN, but the answer is easy: yes, you may use that type of a source, and also, you may use the source itself. The copyright page of a book is considered not merely "reliably", but also authoritative for information like the title, author, and date of publication. (The copyright page of the book can't tell you that said fact is WP:DUE; that's a consideration that independent sources are better at. Also, please not that WP:Secondary does not mean independent. Your source might be both secondary and independent, but it might also be primary and independent.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliability changes over time

I think perhaps we should add a statement about the reliablility of sources (creators and publishers) changing over time. Newer authors and companies can gain reliability with experience and established sources can lose reliability when there are changes in personnel or policy. And maybe a statement that reliability should be determined as of the date of publication (because the reliability of a specific work shouldn't change just because its creator or publisher changes over time). Since this concept applies generally, I think maybe it should be in the section "WP:RS#Definition of a source". Sparkie82 (t•c) 22:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Sparkie82 (t•c) 21:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I've just reverted this. It unfortunately would create the absurd situation of defining fraudulent and severely outdated scientific sources as being "reliable", because "as of the date of its publication" (which might a century ago!) everyone thought it was a great source.

The actual rule is pretty much the opposite: No matter what people thought of a source on the day of its publication, all that matters is whether the source seems reliable today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Source is a vague term becuase it refers to any of: the publisher, the creator, or the published work itself. What needs to be stated in the guideline is: just because the reliability of a publisher or creator has changed since a particular work was published does not necessarily change the reliability of the work when it was published. For example, if an otherwise reliable journalist decides at some point in her career to move from doing hard news to doing more biased reporting at an entertainment-oriented publisher, it does not mean that her previous work becomes unreliable. Or if a publisher decides to tighten up standards at some point, it does not make previously published works more reliable. The purpose of the proposed change to the guideline is to avoid a situation where the reliability of published works necessarily change as a consequence of later actions by its creator or publisher. How can that be stated in the guideline? Sparkie82 (t•c) 15:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It can't be stated in the guideline, because sometimes the reliability of published works does change as a consequence of later actions by its creator (especially) and publisher (less often). The "later action" of confessing to fraud in your peer-reviewed scientific articles – even if you claim that the fraud didn't affect the source in question – really does change people's willingness to accept any of your sources.

(If you're dealing with a dispute related to this, then I'd recommend taking it to WP:RSN and encouraging people to WP:Use common sense.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Vicious Candy

Is Vicious Candy considered a reliable source? Since the full birthdate and birthplace of Ashley Hinshaw appears in no journalistic cite but only on IMDb, which this appears to copy, I'm not sure and would like other editors' opinions: http://www.viciouscandy.com/happy-birthday-ashley-hinshaw/ --Tenebrae (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You should ask that question at WP:RSN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Will do!--Tenebrae (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing question: Commercial sales sites

WP:ELNO prohibits External links to web pages that are primarily commercial sales sites. For example, we can't cite a book and link to the Amazon.com page where you can buy that book. However, there's no word about that in regards to inline citations. So if we cite, and drive traffic to, commercial web pages selling the book, song, etc. in question, is that really allowed in footnoting, though disallowed in ELs? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Technically, when we link to newspapers, magazines, and other resources of that nature, we are also driving sales of those publications. However, for all practical purposes, there's a "necessary evil" component at play that as to provide verification, we have to link to something that will gain commercial benefit from our link. So it is the nature of the use of a link. Linking to Amazon as an EL directly would be a problem, but linking to Amazon to provide a release date or similar piece of data as an inline reference is not one. Its the context that is more important. --MASEM (t) 20:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to try to answer. I think we're talking about two different things, though, to an extent. I wasn't referring to links to newspapers or magazines that have passive advertising. I'm talking about links to e-commerce pages, those specifically designed to let you order something. For example, to verify that Game of Thrones figures are sold by Dark Horse, I'm not sure about linking to here, or to verify that episodes of Angry Beavers run 24 minutes each that we would link here, as some have suggested.

From what I can see, nothing at WP:IRS mentions context or using our individual judgment about e-commerce pages, and theoretically we could link to an Amazon e-commerce page to cite TV-show running times for every show it sells, since runtimes without commercials are otherwise hard to find. Yet virtually everything disallowed in WP:ELNO is disallowed in WP:IRS, and I have to wonder whether this was intended or not. It seems strange to me that e-commerce links would be disallowed in External links yet allowed as inline citations. What are editors' thoughts about linking to e-commerce pages? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

If it seems strange to you, then you have not read the footnotes that I littered liberally all over the EL guideline, which explicitly say that those rules don't apply to inline citations.

If Amazon's e-commerce pages are what you actually used to find the information, then WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. We don't care if a source is trying to sell something. We care whether it (credibly) verifies the information in question. Also, just as a point of reference, Wikipedia tried referral links to places like Amazon some years back, and it made very little money. So the odds are that the e-commerce links won't actually sell anything extra as a result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

What we are really talking about here are "courtesy links". If you don't like courtesy links to an e-commerce site like amazon, the solution is to find another copy (either on-line, or in "dead tree", hard copy form) and replace the citation. Remember that we are always allowed to replace a citation that verifies information with a better one that also verifies the information. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. That's all I wanted to know — though I have to say I found WhatamIdoing's tone unnecessarily sharp, especially given the very polite tone of my posts, and secondly, Wikipedia:We don't care what happens to your website is only an opinion essay and means nothing. Regardless, I thank all three editors for taking the time and making the effort to answer my question. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for seeming sharp. I have spent years pasting "This guideline does not apply to citations to reliable sources" all over that guideline, and I am a little frustrated to discover that, despite seven footnotes and three separate paragraphs on the subject (including the last paragraph of the lead), people still don't cannot find this information. If you have suggestions on how to make that clearer, then please WP:Be bold. At this stage, I'll accept anything short of blinking text.

Also, you should read WP:PGE. Essays do not necessarily represent "opinions and mean nothing". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite alright; given this background, I can understand your frustration. ("Blinking text" ... LOL!) Maybe I can give it the ol' college try myself. If my efforts don't work, I'm sure they'll be deservedly reverted.

It's funny: WP:PGE is itself an essay! And then there's WP:NOTPOLICY and WP:EANP. It all curls back into itself on the way down the rabbit hole! : ) --Tenebrae (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

OK ... I've added two phrases at Wikipedia:External links that I hope will help. I know for myself, I use word searches a lot when confronted with a long, involved page of Wiki policy / guideline. Hopefully, some of the wording (like "e-commerce") will help make this point more searchable. Fingers crossed! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps it will work, or perhaps someone else will figure out how to improve upon it.

BTW, I'm here strictly as a volunteer. If the Legal team thought I was writing content policies as part of my job, they'd break out in a bad rash, and HR would probably have some stern words with me about what they're willing to pay for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. Anyone reading this, please note: Any characterization in edit summaries about this thread is purely my interpretation and not a reflection of anyone else's views. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No News Sources are verifiable

News sources are by any account subjective observations of things. Official statements are official statements. Official reports are official reports. They can always be traced back to their source. I am splitting this part of my inquiry from the one above because it differs, even though it was recently a part of it.

It is my opinion that since there have been so many scandals in the media in the last decade that we should not use News Sources at all. If a current event can not be described without them then the event should not be described. If we absolute have to use them then a lack of consensus or at least the lack of a majority vote should trump reliability and a report should not be inlcuded if it is seen as controversial or if logical or rational arguments can be raised against it which in turn leads to a vote that shows that there is no clear majority in support of including the article. Would anyone be in favour of this as a way to resolving disputes such as the one above? 78.68.210.173 (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

IP, I readily concede that I cannot even prove that New York Times is more reliable than New York Post especially since you can counter any evidence of the form, "X says so" with, "...and what makes X reliable?" etc. However this noticeboard is not the right venue for such epistemological questions. You may be interested in reading/participating in the related discussion at the wikipedia refernce desk instead. Abecedare (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned, this is a bit split from the above one. Your answer would better fit the post above. And even then, not quite. We need to be able to establish some standards on what is reliable and what is not. Independent Media Watchdogs in the US have more or less been able to prove that Fox News tends to be less reliable than other newsoutlets or at least that the audience of Fox News tends to be less informed than the audience of any other major newsoutlet. But even this doesn't quite answer the question. Still we'd better continue this above. This post concerns the reliability of news overall. Or more precisely the impossiblity to verify a subjective reporting of anything as it completely lacks academic standards. This becomes very evident when looking at how easy it is to stage entire documentaries. Not too long ago a Norwegian journalist faked an entire mini-documentary about the sniping of children in Syria by filming it in Malta. As there is no peer-review things may be reliable but they are not verifiable and as such everything (that is cited from a newspaper) should be open to inquiry. (http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-30057401). I'd like to add that ovviously news are reliable if used as a POV disseminator. So using news sources for witness reports is fine. But not as fact (in my opinion).78.68.210.173 (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No sources at all are perfectly reliable I guess. Why just pick on the media? Even peer review is a very imperfect system. So maybe Wikipedia can never work? On the other hand, maybe some of us are satisfied with making an ever improving encyclopedia, rather than a perfect one. The way we get around this problem is to give ourselves a more artificial aim: we at least try to make all information verifiable according to sources that have a reputation in the outside world for being accurate with respect to what we are sourcing them for. This is how our core content policies fit together.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly... there is no such thing as a 100% reliable source (any source can contain errors or omissions), nor is there such a thing as a 100% unreliable source (at a minimum, every source is reliable for a statement quoting that source). Reliability always depends on context. Thankfully, our standards don't require perfection. When it comes to media sources, first we ask: "does this media source usually report stuff like this with accuracy?" (if so, we can deem it generally reliable); but then we also have to ask "did the media source get this specific fact right?" If not, then we can deem the source unreliable for that specific fact. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Nothing is perfectly reliable, but we still need to use sources. Even "Official sources"-- they are typically Primary sources, and like all primary source need interpretation, and we therefore do not rely on them alone for controversial matters. "State media" sources are as much subject to bias as any other media, and they too are of varying reliability. That a government says something does not necessarily make it true, as is obvious from the contradictory statements of such media about any controversial issue. The distinction between the reliability of various sources i na specific case is made by the editorial judgment of editors at the article talk page and here. Editing WP is not a mechanical process. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, bias is a given in state media sources, but they are the most (if not only) reliable sources for the statements of the positions adopted by officials of the respective governments. To the extent that the opinions of officials of such governments are relevant, the state media sources should be considered reliable.--Ubikwit 連絡見学/迷惑 17:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of internet-published sources & "reputation"

Hi, I was wondering what the policy is regarding the use of internet publications that do not have a print version. I notice that "journals", "magazines" and "mainstream newspapers" are considered to be acceptable sources, but there are plenty of publications these days that do not have print versions (e.g. Huffington Post).

I see a hint in the statement that "questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts". However, a poor reputation among whom? What happens if there are divergent views on the overall reliability of a particular source (either in different ideological circles or in different geographical areas)? Does public perception have any role in all this? For example, if an opinion poll shows that a particular source is not trusted by the public on a particular topic, can that be reason enough to not use it? What if the public in one country trusts that source, while those in other countries do not? Esn (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

for very general questions like this, it is a good idea to search Talk archives both at the guideline level (here) and at the policy level (VERIFY) where you originally posted this. There was just a discussion about some of this over at the VERIFY talk page, here, and there are others, both here and there. if you have a question about a specific source and content you want to support with it, WP:RSN is a better place. Studying how different uses of different sources are handled at RSN is also instructive. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not have a question about any specific source; I am trying to find out what the rules and principles are, which should apply to all sources equally. Anyway, I would appreciate a short description of what you perceive the answers are, in addition to the links. Esn (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Esn, the medium of publication (print vs web vs radio vs tv) does not effect the assessment of reliability by itself. What matters is tha "reputation for fact-checking" (which is not synonymous with public opinion though). Historically, 'reputable' publications have published on paper but as some of them shift/emerge online, we follow. I am not addressing the "reputation amongst whom" part of your question since that that does not submit itself to a pithy answer, beyond the (circular sounding) "amongst acknowledged experts in the field". Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no single test, but one can look at such things as whether traditional print and broadcast media pick up on their stories, whether they are members of press associations, a stated policy for fact-checking, whether errors are corrected, whether academic books will use them as sources for factual descriptions of events and what books about the media say about them. If one cannot find that then even if they are reliable, it is questionable whether they should be used as sources, since we should always use the best sources available. Incidentally, some traditional media have gone internet only. TFD (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Western VS Eastern news-sources

(Reposting my enquiry here as I was told, will include the discussion as far as it came)

I'm trying to see how this works. In some articles people say that state media isn't reliable. This mainly goes for state media in countries with low press freedom, almost always in the East. PressTV, Chinese newsagencies and for example Russia Today. Now I would like to ask you if you can actually substantiate this. Has it been shown by any independent review that PressTV or RussiaToday is exceedingly incorrect in its reporting compared to other news agencies.

Also in the wake of the many admissions, especially in european and US press about the involvement of intelligence assets in major newsoutlets such as BBC and Der Spiegel, should their reliability for that decrease? Does the generally false or at least regurgative reporting concerning the reasons for war in Iraq defile the reputation of almost all major newsorganisations in the west or not?

I am trying to see if we can establish a common standard for these things or not. Basically this is an open discussion with a few specific questions. What spurred my interest is an article in which basically every Eastern (excluding of course Ukranian ones) newsource is disregarded in this article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Ilovaisk since the start of the article. People simply claim "it's not reliable" and others are force to accept it at face value. It even includes the main news agency Ria Novosti (now reformed). This is even when Western sources contradict each other. But this should discuss the wider issue, including China, Iran and other perceied oriental sources that often stand in opposition to occidental ones in key issues.78.68.210.173 (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no requirement that you accept claims of "it's not reliable" at face value. You can contest these claims on the article talk page, and you are free to use dispute resolution as well. Remember that the burden is on the editor who wishes to use a source to demonstrate its reliability. This is done most effectively by citing specific portions of this guideline and explaining how they apply on a content-by-content and source-by-source basis. Each source is assessed for reliability independently; the fact that one source is more or less reliable generally doesn't affect the reliability of other sources. On many subjects there are no reliable sources, so our article ends up not addressing them. This may happen frequently in countries without established press freedoms or credentials, especially in the fog of war. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is more complicated than that. The burden is on the editor who wants to add material to the article. That editor's burden is satisfied when he provides a source that seems reliable to him (in good faith, to the best of his abilities, etc.). If other editors disagree, then it's the other editors' burden to explain why they believe that source doesn't seem reliable to them. And from there, the burden is on everyone to attempt to reach a consensus (e.g., through dispute resolution procedures). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on authorship

There is a question on whether a reference is or is not reliable. The URL for the source is http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/living-sacrifice-to-release-ghost-thief-in-november/

One editor believes it is a reliable source because the site, blabbermouth.net, is considered reliable and they do not accept anonymous submissions.
Another editor believes it is not a reliable source because the article does not list its author.

Is it a reliable source for discussion related to the content of the album and genre? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You should take this question to WP:RSN.
The second editor will want to read the /FAQ, especially the penultimate question, "Are reliable sources required to name the author?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

New guidance essay

I've written an essay at Wikipedia:Applying Reliability Guidelines that could be a useful adjunct to this page. I'd like to add it to the list of related essays. Please give feedback here or on the essay talk page. Rhoark (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"Author is an established expert [...] published by reliable third-party publications"

As Arnoutf and I have noted as part of another discussion, the phrase

Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.

is overly broad and non-specific, and can be interpreted as saying that once a person has had their work published through peer review, any subsequent opinion of theirs is an RS, no matter where or how published. We need to make it clear that peer review is the big differentiator to how material can be cited, i.e. the difference between "water is blue^[1]" and "Smith claimed in a 2015 blog post that water is blue^[2]"

I therefore believe something like the following amendment needs to be made:

Self-published material by authors who are established experts in a relevant field may sometimes be cited in the style, "Smith claimed in [blog post/on Twitter/in a Guardian op-ed] in November 2024 that penguins would colonise the Arctic by 2050".

Samsara 14:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

That may be the right way to cite in some cases, but is too rigid to incorporate into the guidelines IMO. Also note that the use of the word "claim" as in the proposed example is deprecated. Abecedare (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Inclined to agree with Abecedare. I think the broad guideline we have at the moment is about right. I don't think we need to be overly specific beyond that, and I'd prefer to leave the details - including judging the exceptional or unexceptional nature of the cited statement etc. - up to the editors to discuss on the relevant article page. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

As I previously said, the current definition is way too broad to be remotely useful. The clause whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications includes millions of people who are not notable but have published in peer-reviewed journals. It includes, for instance, lab technicians in instances where they are listed as co-authors. If consensus is that editors should discuss on relevant article talk pages, then that passage should be deleted as it is completely useless in its current form. Samsara 18:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The phrase in the guidance at the moment doesn't say that someone is an established expert by virtue of their work being published in a third-party publication, nor have I seen it interpeted that way in article discussions; most lab technicians, however good at their jobs, and even if mentioned in a paper, aren't going to be an established expert in a scientific field. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually it does. But....lets not get too carried away here. An expert is not an academic and this particular line is not attempting to do anything but state that "expert", self published content may be used to source information on that subject as long as the expert has been published in multiple reliable sources. This is not about peer review but the lesser known fields that do not have or require such academic experts who have been peer reviewed. This isn't broken so there really is nothing to fix here in my opinion.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Is the phrase, whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications needed? Samsara 19:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

In my reading, "whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications" is not the definition of, or a sufficient condition for, being "an established expert". More of a necessary condition. So a stray publication (or even a Nobel prize) does not necessarily mean that ones random writings can be quoted just about anywhere in the broad-field. As usual, editorial judgment and assessment of sources is required, and cannot be algorithmized.

@Samsara: are you reading, or seeing the phrase being interpreted, differently? Abecedare (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that your concern is fully addressed by saying "expert in the relevant field". I don't see what "published by reliable third-party pubs" adds, other than confusion - which means it should be scrapped. Samsara 19:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think I see your point. If I understand correctly, you are suggesting substituting:

author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications

with the more concise

author is an established expert in the relevant field

The benefit of the first version is that it gives an idea of what "an established expert" means. The con is that it be read to imply that (one or a few) publications in the relevant field make one "an established expert". At the moment I am neutral about this change, with my main concern being unforeseen consequences/interpretations. Will read what others have to say. Abecedare (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

That would be a first step. I still think "may sometimes be acceptable" has the same problem, that it permits almost any interpretation, but I suppose we could deliberate over that on a separate occasion. Samsara 22:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review applies to scholarly journals, which usually only publish information of interest to experts in a field, or at least of interest to a well-educated readership. More elementary information that is important for an encyclopedia just isn't of interest in scholarly journals, so a requirement that only information from peer-reviewed sources would destroy Wikipedia. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you clarify what that was in response to? If it was a response to the thread started by me, I'm not sure how it relates to the change I've proposed. Samsara 22:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The post that began this thread states in part "We need to make it clear that peer review is the big differentiator to how material can be cited...." I don't agree with that statement, because peer-reviewed articles are not available for claims that are not of interest to academic journals, and there is a great deal of information that belongs in encyclopedias but is not of interest to academic journals. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, for starters, peer review is not restricted to academic journals. It applies to many books as well, sometimes in weakened form. However, the section quoted and proposed to be amended is concerned with self-published literature, which is, on average, the least reliable kind of literature. The original version proposes to consider material more highly if any of the author's other work has "been published by reliable third-party publications", whereas the new proposed version does not include that phrase. So I'm not sure that the revision undermines your stance on the overall issue of RS in any way. Samsara 01:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"can be interpreted as saying that once a person has had their work published through peer review, any subsequent opinion of theirs is an RS, no matter where or how published" This is exactly how it should be interpreted, and is not a failing of the system. Don't forget "Verifiability, not truth". The resolution to any problems that arise is WP:ONUS. Rhoark (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rhoark: asserts above "It should also be noted that self-published experts must always be attributed opinion." If by "attributed" Rhoark means information from a self-published expert should always be in the style "Smith claims that..." then, no, there is no such requirement, nor should there be (but, of course, there should be a citation to the source). Also, there is no requirement that self-published experts can only supply opinions; they can also supply factual information. A reasonable example would be an author who's book is published, and who later provides errata on her personal web site. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought I remembered a clause to that effect, but I can't find it now. Nonetheless, it would be sensible to provide in-text attribution of most self-published claims. Rhoark (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Should articles that hold to a stricter-than-normal criteria for sources be required to notify editors of this condition for editing?

Should articles that hold to a stricter-than-normal criteria for sources be required to notify editors of this condition for editing?

When editorials from very reputable newspapers are fine in some articles but called "poor sources" in others it strikes me that we need some clarification on the WP:RS policy. How is an editor to know that such sources are acceptable for some articles but are not acceptable for others? WP may be a volunteer project but even volunteers deserve to know when they might be wasting their time using the wrong sources.

I started a discussion at WP:VPP#How to inform editors of a variance in WP:RS standards? and would like to get WP editors who are fluent with sourcing issues to comment on this topic. The WP:RS policy page talks about sources in context and also fact-vs-opinion sources. I am sure this discussion touches on those concepts and I am not opposed to such variances in requirements but I think there are some logistical questions that need to be answered for the benefit of both editors and the encyclopedia as a whole. Please join the discussion at the VPP link above if you have anything that would help on this topic. Thank you. 104.32.193.6 (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Short answer, this is already covered in WP:CONTEXTMATTERS on this page. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so that is the general context - it is not news. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The Diplomat magazine

I would like to ask whether The Diplomat magazine (http://thediplomat.com/) is considered a reliable source or not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I underline that the magazine has a wikipedia page: The Diplomat. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Having a Wikipedia page has nothing to do with reliability. As for the magazine, you need to tell us what specific text it is being cited for, as it says at the top of this page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump http://thediplomat.com/2014/12/the-strange-tale-of-yeonmi-park/ -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, you need to tell us what specific text the magazine is being cite for: what is the proposed wording in our article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump This is the edit in question. Especially, the first part that contains the The Diplomat magazine link. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the Diplomat doesn't state that "Park's testimony was questioned by many media" - and accordingly it cannot be cited for that. The passage also seems to be asserting as fact that Jolley's analysis is correct - a questionable thing to do, based on a single source - and fails to include Park's response to Jolley.

Incidentally, the remainder of the section is very dubiously sourced - the 'Korean Friendship Association Ireland' is clearly a DPRK mouthpiece, and accordingly its opinions regarding defectors are of little merit, and the YouTube 'documentary' is of precisely zero credibility until it can be determined who the author is (it looks like more DPRK work). If Park has indeed been "questioned by many media", I suggest that better sourcing be found. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump we could change this to "some media" or omit the first sentence completely. I am trying to find a way to present the other side's opinion and I do not speak Chinese nor Korean to fin more sources. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

'Other side'? Are you suggesting that the 'Diplomat' and the DPRK share a common perspective on Park? That seems an odd assertion to make. Furthermore any opinions need to be attributed, not merely referred to vaguely as 'a documentary'. If there is to be a section on the questions raised about Park's version of events, it will, per WP:BLP policy (which as an admin I'd hope you were familiar with) need strong sourcing, based on clearly-identified reliable sources. We don't 'balance' articles by fishing around for questionable sources when better ones can't be found - and if the 'Diplomat' piece is actually the only one from a non-DPRK source questioning Park's version of events, one has to question whether the section is merited at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump I am not suggesting anything. I noticed the POV tag in the page. I went to help. I found some references presenting a different view of the story. I tried to plug them in a previosuly deleted "Controversy" section. Some editors told me I am not doing it right. I ask for help to do it right. End of story. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Note that this is *NOT* the place to discuss this, WP:RSN would be. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed - I'd not noticed that the question was misplaced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken and AndyTheGrump: thanks both. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Know something

I want to know why all of my edits have to have sources, why does everyone else's edits get to be published without sources, I want to know a reason why all of my edits have to have sources. 216.145.89.11 (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

First, to know why edits need to be supported by sources, see our WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research policies. Second, everyone else's edits do need sources. No edit is exempt. (That said, there are situations where the source does not need to be cited. For example, there are so many sources that can be used to verify the statement "Paris is the Capital of France" that it would be silly for us to require a citation to any of them.) Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that yours need sources because they appear to be wrong. For example, you wrote that IE11 might be for Windows 7; however, Windows 7 originally shipped with IE9, and although it's possible to install IE11 on Windows 7 now, IE11 was developed primarily for Windows 8. Sometimes "you need sources" is a way of saying "I think you want to look that up before claiming that it's true". Also, please read the first paragraph of that article; the information that you want to add is more accurately presented there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I know what's going on, Anon216. A source must exist for every statement made but not all statements need you to say what the source is in a reference tag: "attributable, if not actually attributed." It only looks like other people's edits don't have sources. If someone says something that you think is wrong or controversial, you are allowed to ask the editor to provide a source, to tag it as "citation required," or even to delete the statement until it is provided (use caution with that last one because it can be overkill). Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

What I meant was that Internet Explorer 11 might be the LAST Microsoft web browser for Windows 7. 216.145.89.11 (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the missing word is confusing. You might be right, but it's what we call "crystal ball" information. Speculation isn't encyclopedic, and so it isn't included. Now, if you had a source for it, you could probably write something like "John Journalist says that IE11 might be the last web browser that Microsoft ever produces for Windows 7", but that would definitely require an WP:inline citation (because John Journalist is a living person) was well as WP:INTEXT attribution (because it's his opinion, rather than a generally held fact). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Database request

Do we have a database where we can easily put in a given web site or a given author and find out whether or not consensus has been achieved on whether or not to consider it a reliable source?

I think we need an easy tool for this purpose, like if there is a list of discussions and if we could alphabetize them or organize them in some way.

Not that it has to be static or anything, a once-reliable could be altered to unreliable in future or vice versa. But just so we have a record of who was considered reliable when, how that opinion was achieved, and by whom, that'd all be really cool.

Like for example: I came across an article by Milo Yiannopoulos on the Breitbart News Network and I don't know whether to use it as a reference to improve a page or not because I don't know how to tell if others will agree with it or not.

We need more than just a vague guideline on how to identify reliability, because people interpret these guidelines differently, we need an easy way to access an official 'status' of reliability for previously-considered works. Ranze (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of particular sources is done at WP:RSN.You can use the search engine there. Not all discussions end in agreement, though. Zero^talk 15:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Some WikiProjects keep a list of previously identified reliable sources, such as at WP:VG/RS. --Izno (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a great place to start, thank you Izno. Zero I am just wondering, rather than relying on a search engine, if we could just get an alphabetized list of web sites for easy 'find' function when checking multiple sources. Ranze (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not really possible. There is no official 'status' of reliability for any source. You might read the /FAQ on 'Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?' WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2015

This edit request to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

123.138.245.162 (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 07:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Not a new idea

This isn't a new idea, but I'm not sure who originally floated it, so I'm going to start over. There are basically three ways to use a guideline on reliability:

I want to find sources to learn about a subject, so that I can start writing about it.
I have a source, and I want to learn whether it's useable.
Someone else used a source, and I want to learn whether I should revert it.

Our advice for these different purposes is and should be different:

If you're starting with empty hands and deliberately seeking out sources (especially for a major research project), then you should deliberately seek out several of the best possible sources that you can obtain and understand, ideally from a variety of perspectives/academic fields/POVs.
If you've already got a source that contains some interesting material,^[1] and you want to know whether you can cite it in support of said interesting material, then you should evaluate your source fairly, but conservatively. If you're not sure whether it's reliable for the statement you want to make, then leave it out.^[2]
If you're looking at someone else's work, you should evaluate the source fairly, but generously, with an eye towards collegiality and collaboration (and maybe even enough humility to remember that it's possible that the other person actually knows the subject better than you). If you're not sure that it's reliable (and BLP doesn't mandate conservatism), then accept it.^[2]

^ User:MastCell stuck around in the early days because people kept telling him that he was adding interesting details from sources he was reading for work. That's the sort of situation I'm thinking of with this item.
^ ^a ^b Of course, if you're sure that it's reliable, then keep it; if you're sure that it's not reliable, then dump it. Those are the easy ones.

So what I'm thinking is: Let's add a short section on the subject of how to use this guideline to further the goals of the project. I'm not sure exactly what the content is, but if you think it would be interesting or helpful, then perhaps you would also have some ideas about other points that could be made in it. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Specific proposal

Since nobody responded to the general idea, here's a specific proposal:

Sometimes, editors will add properly published sources that verify the material but are not ideal to support appropriate, encyclopedic information. For example, they may add primary sources or newspaper articles when it would be better to source a scholarly publication. In those instances, do not revert or blank the source. Instead, add a better source yourself, or tag it with {{better source}}, {{primary-inline}}, or {{medrs}}.

It only addresses part of the question, but what do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE already addresses this issue more broadly. And I prefer its language of "consider" to "do not", since circumstances (quality of source, claim, article etc) vary and being overly-prescriptive can lead to unintentional consequences. Abecedare (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Abecedare, I understand what you say about PRESERVE, but that policy does not seem to be specific enough to stop blanking.

Can you think of any circumstance in which having an unsourced statement is actually preferable to a having statement that is followed by an inline citation to a reliable source? I can think of situations in which it doesn't matter whether a reliable source is present, but I can't think of any in which zero source is preferable to a reliable (if not stellar) source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with your proposal if you wrote it up as an essay in order to advice editors on good editing practices. However as a part of wikipedia P& G it is insufficiently motivated, partly redundant, and far too rigid to take into account the varied situations that arise when dealing with millions of edits made every week. It also shifts the burden for finding an appropriate source to the party objecting to the current source ("You don't like the primary medical source I added?! Go find a better one yourself. This stays in till you do that").

Or more concretely, how would you deal with this, this and this edits, which added a borderline reliable, but sexist, source to the lede sentence of three BLPS? Would your answer be different if the source had been a lad magazine instead and the language even more overtly sexual? I am fine if your response to these edits is different than what I actually did, but I would certainly object if my response suddenly was "against wikipedia guidelines" as a result of your proposal. And that's just one example from recent memory.

Again, I want to reiterate that I am not objecting to your editing philosophy, which I agree with as a general principle; just objecting to codifying it as a rule. Abecedare (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your reasoning. Here's what I'd like to know more about:

BURDEN explicitly says that if you provide a source, such as a peer-reviewed medical journal article, that you (not I) believe in good faith to be adequate, then you have fully met the burden. (Read the footnote in that policy statement.) "Go find a better one" is the policy. So why not say that, or at least tell editors what their realistic options are?
I'm not sure what "insufficiently motivated" means.

For your examples, I'd have removed them as unnecessary on the grounds of WP:LEADCITE, and also as being unreliable under the "an appropriate source for that content" criteria. A gossipy column about who is or isn't sexy is not a BLP-quality source about someone's tennis achievements. And if there were a consensus that citations were wanted in the lead, and also that a gossipy column about who is sexy was actually reliable for general information about a BLP (which I strongly doubt), then I'd have found a better source and swapped it in. (And also wonder if someone had gone round to all the regulars at RSN and dropped heavy objects on their heads, because it's not going to happen.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Amend rule for primary and secondary sources to cover conflicting information

The page for "reliable sources". says: "While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred". Suppose a secondary source (for instance a news story about a court case) is not in agreement with the (primary source) court records? Or for another example, suppose an article in a popular science magazine (a secondary source) does not report a scientific study (primary source) correctly? To give another example, suppose published documents from an estate (primary) exonerate a deceased person, while a biography (a secondary source) accuses them of some unethical mistake? I propose that this guideline needs clarification, as follows:

When a secondary source misrepresents a primary source used in it's references, editors should quote the primary source (or link to publicly available evidence in English where it can be seen, allowing other editors to examine it.) on the talk page and outline the difference between the erroneous secondary source and the primary source. Then, the error should be removed, replaced with the correct information, report, or material, and properly referenced. Editors should assume good faith on the part of the author of the secondary source, and assume the same for Wikipedia editors who originally referenced it. Once this has been done, the burden of proof should be on the editor who used the erroneous source.

As it stands now, any published article that's in error can supplant correct information from a primary source. This is especially important for biographies of living persons and controversial subjects. A single biased or unreliable secondary source can be used to manipulate wiki's contents, and violate NPOV while appearing to stay within the guidelines.

Will an editor or administrator who is experienced handling reliable source issues please add this to the guidelines? I look forward to reading any discussions that follow this request, which is a matter of editing guidelines, and not a specific case. I put this question on the [Reliable sources noticeboard] and I got a clear answer with respect to legal instances ("you go with what is in the primary source as being factual and give it priority"), but nothing about scientific or biographical information. I may have put it on the wrong page. To be clear: I am asking that the rule be amended, as above. Thank you.Manyinterests2525 (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

1) You need to demonstrate that the issue is an actual problem, not a mere hypothetical. No point in fixing something that isn't broken.

2) The phrasing of your suggested solution all but ignores WP:No original research. The suggestion would pretty much reduce all articles concerning religious texts into arguments between fundamentalist amateurs, with no scholarship whatsoever.

3) Because of WP:Due weight, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, a single source cannot be used to manipulate the site's contents. If only a single source exists, there probably won't be an article. If there is somehow a single source and the subject still qualifies for an article, then that single source is the truth as far as Wikipedia is concerned. If there are multiple sources, they are given proportionate weight. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point about religious texts, which is why I asked about mistakes in science reporting, where there is rarely only one source, and where the majority of secondary sources are based on primary sources. In principle, can the rule be amended to cover only science and law? You are right - extending it into scriptures would be absurd. As for WP:No original research, when there is confusion about the accuracy of secondary sources Manyinterests2525 (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that most of your concerns are addressed by WP:Secondary does not mean independent and WP:PRIMARYNEWS. The first two of your examples are independent primary sources, not secondary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Rule against citing other general-interest encyclopedias

Today I came across Buddhism, which cites Encyclopedia Brittanica to support the claim in the first sentence that Buddhism is non-theistic. I feel like there should be a general rule against citing other general-interest encyclopedias like Brittanica, Encarta, World Book, and Funk and Wagnalls. Wikipedia is aiming to be a tertiary source, not a quaternary one. I can understand citing topic-specific encyclopedias, like the Catholic Encyclopedia or Flowering Plant Families of the World (which is why we have {{cite encyclopedia}}). These might actually be secondary sources themselves, or they at least provide a higher level of detail than Wikipedia aims to, which makes them useful for readers seeking more information. They are also presumably written by subject-matter experts. I wouldn't expect encyclopedias which have the same audience and scope as Wikipedia to provide any additional information. It would be a bit weird to essentially repeat everything Brittanica says, and cite Brittanica as the source for half of it.. Being too close to primary sources can result in being unreliable due to lack of context, but I think being too far from them also increases the chances of inaccuracy because summaries of summaries of summaries are like playing a game of telephone. Wikipedia should be doing its fact checking against secondary and expert sources when possible; that's the only way it can be the most reliable general reference. -- Beland (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit late in the day to object to citing EB. Whole swathes of articles still get most or all their text from the out of copyright 1911 EB. I'd be happy to see the others never cited, on the whole. It's by no means always true that specialist encyclopedias "provide a higher level of detail than Wikipedia aims to". Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The EB (talking about recent editions here) will usually give one person's POV, and almost always better sources will be available. What really irks me is when I add a citation request to something copied from the 1911 version and am told it's already sourced. I guess I should then add a 'dubious' tag or some such, but I feel that in the case of an encyclopedia over a century old a cite tag should be a legitimate request for a better source. Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Certainly an out of date edition of any Encyclopedia (such as the 1911 EB or the old Catholic Encyclopedia) should be used with extreme caution ... and I think any information taken from one needs to be attributed (so the reader knows that what they are reading may be outdated). However, I can not go to the next step and support banning all use of tertiary sources such (general encyclopedias and the like)... especially modern editions. Sure, they may not be best source for a specific statement, but they are considered reliable. WP:BURDEN does not require a citation to the most reliable source possible... it simply requires citation to a reliable source. If the challenging editor wants an even more reliable source, the burden is on the challenger to go out and find one. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Most of the comments above, in different ways, are confusing concerning tertiary sources - or confusing concerning Wikipedia process (apart from the modern/superseded comments) -- tertiary sources of course are generally reliable sources and play an important role in NPOV and NOR analysis. It's Wikipedia editor's pov, which must be rejected, emphatically -- RS's pov (incl. tertiary sources) are not to be rejected in favor of Wikipedia editor's pov. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree ... but a 1911 source on Buddhism? There are surely many, newer, and better sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

True, but even so that would not lead to a rule against tertiary sources - it would seem rather un-self-aware should wikipedia ever say we cannot look to tertiary sources, because we want to be a tertiary source. What is going to tell wikipedeans what a tertiary source is and does and covers and presents is looking to tertiary sources. Moreover, if that is where a wikipedian got the information, they actually have multiple obligations to cite it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree: a century-old source is probably not great for anything except a pointer to the century-old source itself (e.g., in an article about a century-old book). But the BURDEN is to provide a source that you sincerely believe to be reliable, not to provide the source that other editors think is ideal. If you don't like having primary sources, tertiary sources, century-old sources, etc., in an article, then the burden is on you to substitute a better one.

We're having this conversation fairly often. I've a proposal above at #Specific proposal to actually write this down so that everyone can be on the same page. I don't like having unwritten rules. Please feel free to comment above, particularly about how we might phrase a "rule" that is useful and still appropriately flexible. Also: would "century-old sources" or "general-interest encyclopedias" be good examples of okay-but-not-ideal sources for that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Guidelines on journal impact factors

A discussion is ocurring on the Talk:Acupuncture page regarding the use of journal impact factors to identify the reliability of sources. I decided to research this. I have searched various WP pages (below) for statements regarding the impact factor of journals.

Policy articles

Wikipedia:Verifiability - No relevant statement

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - No relevant statement

Wikipedia:No original research - No relevant statement

Content Guideline

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - No relevant statement

Wikipedia:Offline sources - No relevant statement

Wikipedia:Fringe theories - No relevant statement

Wikipedia:Non-free content - No relevant statement

Notability Guideline

Wikipedia:Notability - No relevant statement

Essays

Wikipedia:Offline sources - No relevant statement

The only article I have found (possibly) mentioning impact factor is WP:MEDRS which states - To access the full text, the editor may need to visit a medical library or ask someone at the WikiProject Resource Exchange or WikiProject Medicine's talk page to either provide an electronic copy or read the source and summarize what it says; if neither is possible, the editor may need to settle for using a lower-impact source. Note this states "lower-impact source", not "lower-impact factor source".

I feel editors need guidance on this matter.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

A bit of context: one of the issues we face on alternative medicine articles is weighing the value and quality of contradictory sources: it's not at all unusual to find small journals (with correspondingly low impact factors) publishing results that are either contradicted by studies in more impactful journals or, more normally, never expanded upon. Some editors (myself included) look at the impact factors as an indicator of reliability: I'm generally not going to object to a new and exciting result published in a journal with an impact factor of 40 or 50, but if you take that same new and exciting result and publish it in a journal with an impact factor of 1.6, I'm going to counsel waiting until we see other journals publishing corroboration.—Kww(talk) 13:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I strongly recommend that anyone who is preparing to contribute to this discussion reads the Impact factor article. It is a brief, but informative article, giving a flavour for the potentially considerable dangers of using impact factors in assessing sources.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Impact factors are generally used in academia as a rule-of-thumb for getting a general sense of the quality of journals. There are limitations to the use of impact factors as a proxy for journal quality, and it should not be used as the sole determining factor of the reliability of a source. However, it is widely used in academic circles as a good proxy for journal quality, and while it is not perfect, it is probably the best we have to get a good, objective, general sense of the overall quality of a specific journal. Surprising or controversial conclusions coming from low impact journals should generally be viewed skeptically. Yobol (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

More recent sources indicate a widespread rejection of the use of impact factors to assess the quality of journals.

It is stated in a source updated in 2007 here[3] that "...they [impact factors] are not a direct measure of quality and must be used with considerable care."

In another source published in 2011 it is stated[4] "On the basis of the evidence presented here, I assert that the citation index and the impact factor are only weakly correlated, at best, with true quality,..."

In 2013, it was stated here[5] that "Increasingly, scholars and scientists are objecting to the use of impact factors to assess or judge quality of research and the quality of journals."

DrChrissy ^(talk)

Yes, I realize that there are both arguments for and against the use of impact factors. That being said, it is generally used as such amongst rank-and-file journal readers and writers, and is the reason why most journals have this factor somewhere on their webpage: the reader (often academics) find it important. It is one more piece of information on determining the quality of the source, amongst many. We should neither elevated it to as the only factor to use, nor should we say we cannot use it at all. Editorial decision making and establishing a consensus on the talk page or atWP:RSN can help when it is not clear how reliable a source is. Yobol (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Yobol What I am suggesting in this thread is that we discuss inclusion of a statement/section/paragraph in these guidelines about how impact factors should be used in the assessment of the reliability of sources. At the moment, WP says nothing about this. It seems to be a glaring omission, unless it was decided that impact factors were simply too unreliable to include.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure this particular guideline would be the best location to discuss this; a discussion of impact factors would necessarily get into some technical details that would be not be appropriate here (WP:MEDRS or WP:SCIRS would seem to be more appropriate locations for such content). Yobol (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

My own feeling is that this issue is certainly way, way beyond the rather focussed concerns of WP:Medrs and also much broader than WP:SCIRS. We can leave this to further discussion.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Calling DGG.

Some people might benefit an essay on this, but I'm afraid that the content isn't going to be useful for black-and-white thinkers. A "good" IF depends upon the field, the age of the publication, the breadth of the publication, language, the editorial policies, and several other factors (some game-able). Yobol is correct: it's widely used, but of limited value. It is, to adapt a familiar formulation, the worst objective way to measure a source's value except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. The best way to measure a source's value is by using your best judgment, not by looking up a number in a list. RSN can help you review sources.

Also, in the particular instance, it's important to remember that the goal is to fairly represent the views of all sources, including the views of sources that are biased in favor of Asian medicine. That means, for example, that we shouldn't be excluding sources based on the country of origin, based on whether skeptical editors decide that there is an editorial bias in favor of acupuncture, or any other POV-based test. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

There has been considerable discussion of this in the information science literature, mostly aimed at examining the correlation between this and other factors in journal importance. There's enough that a separate article would be possible.

In summary, as I understand it:

Numerical values by themselves are irrelevant. The relevant measurement is the comparative impact factors within a field. The factor was first conceived by Garfield with a primary eye on biomedicine, but even within this field there are wide variations between specific subfields. Fields and subfields vary by the density of publication, the relative tendency to publish many small parers, the publication lag, and many other factors.
There are also variations between types of journals: review journals are other things being equal, cited more than research journals.
The numbers are averages. Every journal, even the best, will sometimes publish papers that are totally or partially uncited. Many journals will once in a while publish a fairly widely cited paper.
The usual measurements show an extreme bias for the English language and the most developed countries. To some extent, this represents the actual influence of the scientific literature. The major challenge to this is the rise in both quantity and quality of Chinese, Japanese and Korean science, much of which is published in their own journals. At present, just as in the mid 20th century with Russian science, the best papers from these countries are published in the major English language journals. This means that for topics that are particular to an individual country , such as most of the applied sciences, there is for work relevant to a less developed country no journal in WoS or Scopus with a high impact factor, because almost all such work is published in their national journals, which are almost unknown elsewhere, even when available.
There is also a bias against fringe subjects. There are relatively few journals in the formal academic system interested in them, and the journals that do publish them are cited relatively little. This reflects the fact that few people write and publish in them. For many such topics, most of the people who are interested are outside the formal Western publication system. This is a reflection of the very nature of fringe. If this were not the case, they would not be fringe. In particular, almost all the interest in traditional Chinese medicine is published in Chinese language journals, and analogously for Auryvedic medicine. Though there's no language factor in homeopathy or parapsychology, there's the same publication limitation. This will obviously affect our coverage, but it is not only inevitable, but intrinsic. It's the proof that fringe is fringe. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:DGG Thank you for this detailed and insightful posting. Given the potential for mis/use of impact factors in editing, do you think there should be a statement about these in guidelines?DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

[1] User:MastCell stuck around in the early days because people kept telling him that he was adding interesting details from sources he was reading for work. That's the sort of situation I'm thinking of with this item.

[Standard-2] Of course, if you're sure that it's reliable, then keep it; if you're sure that it's not reliable, then dump it. Those are the easy ones.

[1]

[2]