Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 60

No doubt asked a million times, but ...

... is there a list somewhere of sources that have had a consensus declaring them to be not reliable, i.e. that fail to be an RS, e.g. the latest being The Daily Mail? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: In the domain of video games, yes, at WP:VG/S#List (and I believe DrChrissy asked the same in the RFC, to whom I replied then). I don't think I've seen another similar list for any other domains, though I suppose the "most cited" lists that we have here and there are sort of de facto whitelists (rather than also being grey- or blacklists). --Izno (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

One may start compiling one, starting with Daily Mail and expanding by vetting one by one the items from Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Zimdars' fake news list (which looks like is about to be moved to Wikipedia:Zimdars' fake news list). Staszek Lem (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Rfc

As a heads-up, there is a discussion centering around whether or not attributed opinions need coverage by secondary sources in order to use said opinion in articles. This discussion would greatly benefit from input from editors that understand WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, as well as basic Wikipedia sourcing policies. Thanks. That man from Nantucket (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Whilst I can not contribute on that page, it is normally the case that opinions of people knowledgeable in a field are generally usable when attributed and cited as opinion. We do not, then, require that we find a secondary source which cites the primary source of the opinion as opinion in order to note the opinion. For example, Ernest Hemingway is generally notable as a primary source when mentioning his opinions about other authors. The concept for using secondary sources is specifically applicable to statements of fact, lest Wikipedia editors do "original research" into such facts. Collect (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources

Perhaps an expansion of the sections on primary and secondary sources would be good.

Why exactly are secondary sources prefered to primary sources, and why would primary sources be unreliable?

Benjamin (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources are very reliable for some things and unreliable for some other things (like biomedical things). Mostly we rely on secondary sources because that is where experts in a given field synthesize information and tell us what is "accepted knowledge", and where we learn what perspectives are fringe-y and which are mainstream. Super important for assigning WEIGHT to content.

Have you read the policies on this? See

• WP:VERIFY, in a section called "Original Research", says "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy."
• WP:PST in WP:OR. OR also says use them "only with care, because it is easy to misuse them"
• WP:NPOV says "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."
• For WP:Biomedical information the community considers primary sources to be rarely reliable, if ever. See WP:MEDREV.
• see also Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources
• I work mostly on content about health, and pulled this together, which you might find helpful: User:Jytdog#NPOV_part_1:_secondary_sources Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

To the OP. The answer to your question depends a little on the subject you are considering editing. I edit mainly in science subjects and I wrote this essay you might be interested in reading.[1]. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)