Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 66
 | 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 60 | ← | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | → | Archive 70 |
Strengthening reliable sources rules.
| "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources page." Use WP:VPI to discuss new ideas, or WP:VPR for proposals, or WP:VPP for changes to existing policies and guidelines. Johnuniq (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I believe there should be much tougher criteria as to regards reliable sources such as taking an Ofcom style approach or even more robust. I believe bias gets in the way of factual reporting and that historical offline documents written close to the event taking place should carry a bigger weight along with journals and academic papers. Information behind pay-walls should also be allowed as many quality, prestigious journals are kept behind them. The level of quality , nonpartisan reporting should be to the standard of the Financial Tines, the BBC and Reuters. And that an exception will have to be made for significantly biased papers and media organisations in that multiple papers and news corps will have to be taking intio consideration for an article, looking for a correlation to what happened between a view by a CNN article and a Fox News article for instance. It must be the case that lots of different views are taken into account to get a better picture of what happened. Autobiographies should be allowed to capture the historic figures own thoughts and opinions as well as using biographies to get what other people thought about them. TheeFactChecker (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC) I believe that RS rules should be derived from RS. We Wikipedians decided to construct Wikipedia based on RS. What is RS should be defined by RS, not by us. Cinadon36 15:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC) That is very circular reasoning. "A source that has been deemed reliable by Wikipedia should be used as a reliable source for determining what a reliable source is," is basically what you are saying. TheeFactChecker (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Well something has to change, because a lot of the Wikipedia RS are not reliable. Books written by doctors, and renounced historians are much more reliable as historians look at all the available evidence of the time, not just a one-sided and leftist like CNN or one sided and rightist like Fox News. Historians piece together excerperts from various papers with different worldviews. Often the truth is found by revising and comparing multiple sources from different perspectives. This way Wikipedia will always be below par than the likes of Encyclopedia Britannica which is written / revised by numerous experts in various fields. Another think to point out is that the majority of academics have a liberal, leftist bias, and that needs to be taken into consideration, regardless of the RS. TheeFactChecker (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
My job here is to improve Wikipedia. It cannot be improved unless the fundamental principles are changed. The reason for me arguing for historical documents written closer to the time is many modern historians rewrite history in a way that is acceptable to modern cultural norms. For example, details of a historical figure's sexuality are analysed with not much of a shred of evidence to go by. But you are wrong in saying Britannica is so much worse, because there is a much stronger effort on factual accuracy and eliminating biases than is found on Wikipedia. TheeFactChecker (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC) You also misread my point. "Taken into consideration" is different to "disregarded." TheeFactChecker (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Everything you suggest is already in wikipedia:
-- Mvbaron (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
(3) lots of different views taken into account doesn't happen in reality on Wikipedia as there aren't enough RS from a range of different worldviews. My argument was to have a different tier of RS which are not reliable on their own but could be reliable in conjunction with other sources. CNN would not qualify as a higher reliable source as it is partisan, evident most notably in one of its most recent articles "Nothing is more frightening than an angry white man." TheeFactChecker (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
WP is a tertiary sourse by definition, this means we should use, as much as possible, secondary sources. Digging to someone's personal writings to vonclude about his ideas, renders many dangers. As a reader, I want to know what experts say on each issue, not the perception of random wikipedians. Cinadon36 13:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Aquillion That is not at all my view. I do not consider any social media site to be a RS, but my point was that CNN is partisan, and therefore can't be a higher RS because bias does get in the way of factual reporting. My examples of RS were the BBC, Reuters and the Financial Times and examples of non reliable sources were Fox News and CNN. My point on that primary sources should be used to get a person's own viewpoint stands as no one knows one view better than themselves. There is no doubt that both Fox News and CNN are partisan news networks and both only show one side of the story. CNN being pro-Democrat and Fox News being pro Republican. TheeFactChecker (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
You also have to prove your point that there are lots of Worldviews represented in Wikipedia's reliable news sources. Name some conservative. Name Some liberal. Name some centrist. Name some far right. Name some far left. TheeFactChecker (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
That was not what I intended. I was just wanting some clarity on baseless assumptions. TheeFactChecker (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC) XOR'easter Nor was my attempt to "lower any standards". In fact the restrictions would be tighter. 1. disallowing partisan sources as a higher reliable source 2. Having an ofcom type regulation standard. 3. Quoting what people actually said instead of saying what other people said they said. TheeFactChecker (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC) 
This whole section should be hatted. The discussion is about Wikipedia's actual sourcing rules, and that's WP:RSN material - not a discussion of the content of WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
Did I saw a web blog should be a RS, no. Did I advocate for an echo chamber; no. You couldn't have misrepresented what I said more of what I said and then rudely close the discussion down. TheeFactChecker (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
SourceDef does not provide a definition of a source, or a definition of a Reliable Source. The implication of the lack of a definition are the various edit wars that pop up all over WP talk pages. We could do a little search and find RS that define what RS is. Like this one [4].
Also, the wording of the "definition" is awkward. The word source does not have 3 different meanings. It has 3 characteristics, that affect its reliability. The meaning of the word is the same. When we say that a word has X meanings, it means that these X meanings are unrelated with each other.
I think there is much room for improvement in this section. But discussion is needed. Cinadon36 06:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- That's maybe not quite true. The point of that section (which I agree is poorly communicated) is to alert its readers that when someone says "that's a bad source", they might mean "that's an author whose writing shouldn't be used for this subject", "that's a document/document type that shouldn't be used", and/or "that's a publisher that shouldn't be used". As in:
- That's a bad source – don't cite anything by Noel Nutcase.
- That's a bad source – you need a secondary source, not the primary source; or, that particular article was withdrawn/corrected/roundly criticized.
- That's a bad source – nothing published by Frankie's Fictional News is reliable.
- SOURCEDEF doesn't provide a definition, but it does 'translate' the three ways that editors use the word. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply @WhatamIdoing: I still believe that a definition of a source is needed, since we name that section as "definition". If we do not include a definition, we might change the name of the section.
- The three bullet points are not "meanings". In any case I think that the three bullet points causes more problems than it solves. From my experience, many users misunderstand the example by thinking that Noel Nutcase's writings at a borderline news media, might be an acceptable source because, if one of the three bullet points is good, the article/book is acceptable to use. We have to fix the section. Cinadon36 07:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Cinadon36, does this edit help you? Otherwise, I would support changing the section heading. I agree that the previous contents of that section did not include a definition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- Much better now! Thanks! Just a small detail, I think "sign" shouldnt be used as an example. Maybe "documentary" would be a better example. Signs most of the times are not good sources of info. But anyway, your edit is certainly an improvement! Cinadon36 06:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- Template:Cite sign has been used in hundreds of articles. I wanted to include something that was non-traditional, to emphasize the point that "a source" doesn't mean "a reliable source". A conversation with your next-door neighbor is "a source". It's just a source that you aren't allowed to use on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oh so that's what you meant by "sign". In my mind, I imagined using a speed limit sign as a source, which is why I removed it. While I wholeheartedly understand the intellectual appeal of including a non-traditional source, I think it would be detrimental to the readability and accessibility of the section to a newbie audience, and that we should probably stay at the prototypical level of the analysis. JBchrch talk 01:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: Interesting discussion at RSN about using album sleeves and liner notes as sources: Discogs -- material backed by photos (typically discographies, track listings, and some credits). JBchrch talk 19:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link to that discussion.
- Back to the examples here, I think we need an example of "a source" that is not obviously "a reliable source" (or perhaps one that is obviously not reliable), so that we can then build from the concept of "a source" to "the kind of source you can use in articles". Looking at the usual methods for proving something, these seem to have potential:
- Proof by eminent authority: 'I saw Karp in the elevator and he said it was probably NP-complete.'
- Proof by personal communication: 'Eight-dimensional colored cycle stripping is NP-complete [Karp, personal communication].
- Proof by reference to inaccessible literature: The author cites a simple corollary of a theorem to be found in a privately circulated memoir of the Slovenian Philological Society, 1883.
- Proof by forward reference: Reference is usually to a forthcoming paper of the author, which is often not as forthcoming as at first.
- That'd correspond approximately to "someone told me", "private e-mail message", and "unpublished documents". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: Interesting discussion at RSN about using album sleeves and liner notes as sources: Discogs -- material backed by photos (typically discographies, track listings, and some credits). JBchrch talk 19:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oh so that's what you meant by "sign". In my mind, I imagined using a speed limit sign as a source, which is why I removed it. While I wholeheartedly understand the intellectual appeal of including a non-traditional source, I think it would be detrimental to the readability and accessibility of the section to a newbie audience, and that we should probably stay at the prototypical level of the analysis. JBchrch talk 01:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- Template:Cite sign has been used in hundreds of articles. I wanted to include something that was non-traditional, to emphasize the point that "a source" doesn't mean "a reliable source". A conversation with your next-door neighbor is "a source". It's just a source that you aren't allowed to use on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- Much better now! Thanks! Just a small detail, I think "sign" shouldnt be used as an example. Maybe "documentary" would be a better example. Signs most of the times are not good sources of info. But anyway, your edit is certainly an improvement! Cinadon36 06:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Evaluating sources
Editors should reconsider how they evaluate sources. We know what RS say about the following points, and we have articles, based on RS, which debunk these lies.
Any source that repeatedly sows doubt about these facts:
- that Russia interfered in the election,
- that their goal was to put Trump in power, and
- that Trump and his campaign lied about and cooperated with that interference, or
or makes claims:
- that Trump won the 2020 election and
- that it was stolen from him by Biden,
- that climate change isn't serious,
- that vaccines are unsafe,
- that Trump is truthful in any sense,
is not a RS. Those sources are the ones that should be removed and deprecated. We all know which sources do that, and that those sources are often defended here at Wikipedia. The Washington Post and the New York Times are not such sources. -- Valjean (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- See the FAQ:
- Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?
- No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual.
- Sources containing those claims are obviously unreliable for those claims, but that doesn't mean that their sports page is equally unreliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- And the above is mostly in relation to US politics, but often research will demonstrate that those sources are not only unreliable for political information, often also about scientific facts and medical claims. When listed at WP:RSP, a summary of the RSN discussions will often attempt to specify where a particular source is more or less reliable in a specific area. —PaleoNeonate – 02:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree that there are sources that are unreliable (as "always unreliable"). For example, a blog by an unknow author is always unreliable. A magazine insisting that earth is flat is always unreliable. These kind of sites, even though they might also post real facts, they can not be trusted when speaking the "truth". Cinadon36 08:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- No, that's not true. A blog by an unknown author is always a reliable primary source for the existence of the blog, and what the blog said. A magazine insisting that the Earth is flat is a reliable primary source for the fact that the magazine exists and that the magazine published certain things. You could not use such a magazine for a statement that "The Earth is flat", but you can use it as a reliable source for the statement "Stupid Magazine published an article claiming that the Earth was flat". That's what RSCONTEXT means. You can't declare a source unreliable for anything and everything. You can only declare it unreliable with respect to specific statements (which, in that example, would be nearly all possible statements). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
The use of newsmedia sources in articles related to topics associated with social sciences and humanities
We currently employ a particularly egregious double standard in the treatment of topics between the domain of hard sciences and the domain of social sciences and humanities. This double standard is the handling of newsmedia sources as reliable sources. We expect that an article about a physics phenomenon, or even one about a notable pseudoscientific proposal that we would not use journalistic sources to identify notability or to build out the overall structure of the article. In particular, policies such as WP:MEDRS are particularly good and largely exclude journalistic sources. If only the same discernment was applied to issues related to topics within the domain of sociology, political science and contemporary history. Now I understand why this is often the case. Many current events of interest to readers would fall within these domains if we were to handle them with appropriate academic rigor. However the process of publication of such rigorous work is deeply time consuming. For example, one of the principal works of political economy to respond to the failed European revolutions of 1968, Anti-Oedipus wasn't released until 1972 and wasn't available in translation in English until 1977 - waiting a full decade for academics to get around to saying something about significant world events in a way that could be accessed by readers is frustrating. I have harped on WP:RECENTISM quite a lot but I often feel like I'm just shouting into a void and the suggestion that we should be waiting to address these sorts of topics even if newsmedia is right there seems not to hold sway effectively universally. But of course the use of newsmedia as a reliable source presents another set of challenges such as the issue of reliability and bias. It's not necessarily creating a neutral encyclopedia to claim BBC is a reliable source but China Daily is not - when both are state-controlled media. Or for that matter to declare Washington Post reliable - when it's controlled by a company that wields the sort of power one would expect of a state. This should not be treated as a defense of China Daily of course. It's obviously a non-neutral source whose fact checking is largely filtered through a powerful system of ideology. Just like the BBC. Frankly we need far stricter guidelines on reliable sources. Recently another user complained to me that, for what I'm proposing to work, we'd need to wait for musicologists to say something about Taylor Swift before we could have an entry on her latest CD. But, honestly, I'd gladly trade hot Taylor Swift news for articles on politics that weren't just built around whichever news narratives editors shouted about loudest and canvassed hardest. Frankly it's not to Wikipedia's credit that social sciences and humanities are treated with such disrespect that we say that it's fine for journalists to drive the narrative on these topics but not on medicine, chemistry or physics. It's time it stopped. Simonm223 (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- The problem with sourcing for social sciences is that almost no sources are good. This is also one of the reasons that MEDRS doesn't want primary studies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
@Simonm223:, I was having likewise thoughts myself today. We are all well aware of the hierarchy of knowledge in medicine. But I am not aware whether a likewise scheme exists for other field of science and humanities. That is the real obstacle, that holds us back from implementing higher standards in such fields. But I feel we need higher standards to keep out the junk produced by various unreliable sites. Now as for BBC and other news sites, we should evaluate them based on RS, rather trying to examine who owns what. But I believe we should resist from using media coming from illiberal authoritarian states that score low on freedom of press. See my suggestion here Cinadon36 20:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- And again I'm not suggesting that we should open the door to the China Daily. However I'd push back against ideas like freedom of the press being valid in the liberal authoritarian states like Canada, the UK or the USA. Frankly ownership circumscribes freedom regardless of the owner. This is true whether it's an outlet operated by a political party, a state-owned company (like the CBC) or a privately owned enterprise. The journalistic profession simply does not possess the standards of quality of the academy nor the checks and balances of peer review. Simonm223 (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- I didnt say you are opening the door to China Daily. The phrase "liberal authoritarian states" is rather awkward and the example provided doesnt help me to understand. In any case, I thought WP accepted having "mainstream bias". I read it somewhere, dont know where... Cinadon36 20:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. Some people believe this is a very inconvenient part of reality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- The policy to which Cinadon36 refers to is WP:NPOV, which states, among other things, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." which is to say that Wikipedia articles reflect predominant scholarship in correct proportion. I'm not sure how Cinadon defines "mainstream", but if they intend to mean "what the preponderance of reliable sources states", then yes, Wikipedia favors what the preponderance of reliable sources states. --Jayron32 17:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. Some people believe this is a very inconvenient part of reality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish: The replication crisis is not a justification to throw open the door to trash published every day by the 24 hour news cycle. Simonm223 (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- I didnt say you are opening the door to China Daily. The phrase "liberal authoritarian states" is rather awkward and the example provided doesnt help me to understand. In any case, I thought WP accepted having "mainstream bias". I read it somewhere, dont know where... Cinadon36 20:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- I typed a very lengthy response, but then I realized that there was one problem: could you define more precisely what you mean by "social sciences and humanities"? Which articles would be covered by this proposal? Allow me to give you a bunch of articles, and maybe you could tell me if they would be subject to this proposal or not: July 2009 Ürümqi riots, Éric Zemmour, The French Suicide, Gamestop short squeeze, Great Replacement. JBchrch talk 20:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- Frankly all of these subjects should be approached with greater academic rigor and less reliance on news sources. I understand that, for an example you doubled-in on Zemmour is a hot subject right now. But Wikipedia is not a news agency - it is an encyclopedia - and we can all hope that Zemmour is sufficiently a flash in the pan of French politics to fall beneath the wheels of the WP:10YT. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Cinadon36: My point in referring to liberal authoritarian states is to gently remind people that liberalism is not equivalent to liberation. Canada and the UK are both quite as authoritarian as China in a lot of ways and the United States literally employs a slave economy. There is an ethnocentric sense of superiority in the construction of the "illiberal authoritarian state" as some sort of dualistic opposite to the "liberal democracy" that is often central to Wikipedia's systemic biases. Of course I'm being a big ol' commie here by drawing attention to the inherent authoritarianism of the state form. However that doesn't mean I'm not right. ;) Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Simonm223 for your answer. So here are three rebuttals to your proposal. First: There is pretty much no MEDRS-like material in social science and in humanities. I'm not aware that it's a thing in the humanities to write neutral publications that assess and summarize the PRIMARY literature related to a very specialized and niche sub-topic (perhaps it is in some fields I'm not familiar with?). At best, there are some purported textbooks that synthesize an arbitrary set of materials related to a very broad field of research. Even then, these textbooks often include a significant amount of POV and PRIMARY research (ever tried to find good books on postmodernism?). So with that in mind, Second: Accordingly, news sources are sometimes the only good sources on important issues. I didn't choose Zemmour randomly: I've been working on the dude for some time, and one of the main problems we face is the sheer difficulty of finding good secondary sources about his views and positions. If we decide to nuke news media and only rely on scholarly sources, we would be left with pretty much nothing. All we could say would be "Eric Zemmour is a conservative journalist at Le Figaro". This would ignore his most recent works and the responses to it, as well as his current political position well into the far-right. This would fail the reader and would fail society at large. And Eric Zemmour is not a very important figure: imagine the consequences of this policy for articles on Donald Trump. Which leads me to Third: I have engraved this on my user page: The truth is paywalled but the lies are free. Wikipedia is perhaps the only project that actively fights that, by aggregating and distilling the information published by high-quality reliable sources and making it freely accessible and reusable. This is a critical mission that, in my view, trumps any argument based on RECENTISM or WP:NOTNEWS. JBchrch talk 17:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Frankly all of these subjects should be approached with greater academic rigor and less reliance on news sources. I understand that, for an example you doubled-in on Zemmour is a hot subject right now. But Wikipedia is not a news agency - it is an encyclopedia - and we can all hope that Zemmour is sufficiently a flash in the pan of French politics to fall beneath the wheels of the WP:10YT. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- This is a tough one. I'm very sympathetic to Simonm223's concerns. Often editors rely on rather weak sources that inject a lot of their own values/opinions into articles and then report them as fact. BTW, this isn't just a "low quality source" issue. Politifact is supposed to be a good source yet I can point to several recent examples of arguing to a conclusion (how true or false they feel things should be) rather than arguing from the facts they present/not doing a good job gathering the facts. Another concern I would have is when an expert says something in a university press book (which in terms of peer review is not the same as something published in a journal). A second expert publishes an opinion that says something in the book is wrong. We often decide the OpEd isn't due because it's just an OpEd or the source in which it was published isn't in our top bucket of RSs (note, the top bucket should be top due to their factual reporting, not because NYT or WashPo OpEd articles are inherently better than sources that are more opinion/commentary based). A typical justification for not including such counter points is, "if it was a DUE counter point it would be published in a peer reviewed source". That isn't true. As a personal example, I peer reviewed and ultimately suggested rejection of a paper based on my own independent review of the author's analysis. I wouldn't bother to publish my own peer reviewed paper to say what was wrong with the first one. I only have so much time/effort to publish and that time was better spent on my own research rather than trying to publish a paper to say someone else was wrong. That doesn't mean the author in question was correct. If someone who is qualified to say there is something wrong here, ie someone who is qualified to be a peer reviewer but perhaps didn't review that specific work, says there is a problem we should be open to inclusion even if we don't think the publishing source is as "academic". I think this is especially true in areas like political science where the claims and proofs are often nebulous. I guess my view is we should spend less time deciding something is/isn't due based on the source and more time asking if the source author is making a valid argument. Note, this isn't saying ignore the source publication, rather look at the quality of the specific article making the claims and how well they are being made. Springee (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm having a hard time picturing the nature of the problem with no concrete examples. I'm sure sources are being misused (it happens a lot, Wikipedia being a big place), but if the OP can provide the example of this problem which led to the dicussion, perhaps we can fix it right here. --Jayron32 17:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- So here's the thing - my concern is with a systemic problem - as such this is a pervasive issue across Wikipedia especially around current events. For a concrete example of this problem I'd suggest reviewing Antifa (United States) - an article about a phenomenon for which scholarly work exists but in which journalistic sources are in preponderance. I elided specifics in this discussion initially because the problem is pervasive and systemic and I don't think that fixing any one article is going to fix the overall reliability problem. With respect to JBchrch I'm a bit more suspicious of those paywalled truths. Now I would note that taking a crack at improving Postmodernism is very close to the top of my personal to-do list on Wikipedia as that article is a mess. But as you might imagine this is in part because I've read rather deeply into many of these theorists such as Foucault, Lyotard and Deleuze and have been influenced by them. As such I can't help but apply something of a Foucauldian lens to a critique of media that pushes against the idea of the fourth estate as a bastion of truth and instead observes it as a system of power relations. Journalism is an apparatus; now, of course, so is academia. But I do feel that academic publishing has better controls on disinformation than the media. This is why I brought up WP:MEDRS as a standard to aspire to. Now I agree that this standard wouldn't map perfectly onto social sciences, let alone humanities. However I'd push back against the idea that primary academic sources are anything other than superior to media sources for this topic. What I'm ultimately aiming toward would be a policy like WP:MEDRS for the handling of social sciences and humanities subjects but built around the structures of review and verification that exist within those disciplines. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that we probably need to, over time, start replacing journalism sources with more scholarly sources. However, news is the first rough draft of history, and insofar as events are occurring which have been reported on by reliable journalism outlets, it seems reasonable to use those reliable outlets for very recent events. As more and more scholarly sources become available, we should be leaning on them more and more. The issue is not that journalism should never be used, but we should look to replace them with better sources that represent better scholarship. For some of the most recent events, those more historical sources may not exist. Since you brought up the Antifa article, you should probably be prepared to explain which statements in the article are contradicted by more reliable sources, if there are any. --Jayron32 18:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- See this is why nothing ever gets done on Wikipedia. I raise a systemic issue. Instead of addressing that systemic issue examples are demanded. I present an example. Specifics within that example are required. This is losing sight of the forest for the trees. The bias in the Antifa article (which is, tbh garbage due to false balance nonsense coming out of the US propaganda apparatus basically from stem to stern) isn't the actual problem but an example of said problem's manifestation. If I thought this issue could be fixed with edits to a few articles I'd not be here to raise the systemic problem. Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- Then provide some of the examples. You say you've raised a systemic issue, but the issue is that others are, to quote Jayron32, "having a hard time picturing the nature of the problem." You're not getting anything done about what you see as a systemic problem because you're not convincing people there is a systemic problem. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- *I think Simonm223 misunderstood me. When I said "I agree that we probably need to, over time, start replacing journalism sources with more scholarly sources" what I meant by that was actually "I agree that we probably need to, over time, start replacing journalism sources with more scholarly sources" I hope that clarifies things. --Jayron32 18:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- See this is why nothing ever gets done on Wikipedia. I raise a systemic issue. Instead of addressing that systemic issue examples are demanded. I present an example. Specifics within that example are required. This is losing sight of the forest for the trees. The bias in the Antifa article (which is, tbh garbage due to false balance nonsense coming out of the US propaganda apparatus basically from stem to stern) isn't the actual problem but an example of said problem's manifestation. If I thought this issue could be fixed with edits to a few articles I'd not be here to raise the systemic problem. Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- Then I guess our disagreement is probably an offshoot of a deeper (or more superficial?) disagreement about the value and quality of journalism. I am a fanboy of high-quality news sources for sure, can't deny. An interesting anecdote, though: in finance, which is one of my fields of interest, a large part of the academic research is either published by governmental agencies or by people who dream to be appointed to prestigious government positions (or have been in the past). In that case, maybe the Foucaldian argument is actually more relevant to scholarly sources than to news sources? See for instance this, as well as this, which I will integrate to this in the near future. JBchrch talk 03:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- I think that most editors in this discussion agree with Simonm223 to this extent: As a matter of both written policy and actual practice, and for subjects that are commonly studied by scholars, good scholarly sources should generally be preferred to good news/media sources.
- We could probably state that preference more clearly in policy. (The relevant policy would be NPOV, not WP:V or RS.)
- If you want examples of this problem, the main articles about the living former US presidents tend have 400–500 refs (Trump's is an outlier with a whopping 849), and far too many of them are non-scholarly and primary sources. We don't expect anyone to argue that this is a highly desirable situation, but it might also be difficult for editors to find any explicit encouragement to fix this in written policy or guideline pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Introducing in the mix Levivich's User:Levivich/Tiers of reliability, which has some interesting talk page discussions as well. JBchrch talk 05:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
@Simonm223: I wont call you commie, I will never pass a judgement on you, but your argumentations leans towards anarchism, not communism. In any case, calling Canada a "liberal authoritarian state" seems like a red flag that we are going of mainstream opinions. Liberalism accepts state authority, but also accepts moral autonomy, the right to have different opinions, plurality. The level of freedom experienced by citizens is pretty high if we compare it with other civilizations or political systems that exist or existed. Maybe we are getting out of the purpose of a Wikipedia Talk Page, have a look here, you might find this useful: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. Cinadon36 07:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Deprecated sources section of WP:RS
On 13 January 2020 Guy|JzG made this edit which created the Deprecated sources section. I've failed to find prior notice or discussion although WP:TALKFIRST seems to require that for "major" changes, and it came a month after a Village pump proposal petered out with no formal close (though a majority supported some actions). The parts that I see as no good are:
- (1)
That means they should not be used, unless there is a specific consensus to do so.
If that's saying consensus is needed in advance, it's against WP:BOLD. If it's not, it's meaningless since all edits require consensus. - (2)
It is reserved for sources that have a substantial history of fabrication ...
No, almost anything can go up for deprecation, this is just propaganda to suggest that people who vote for deprecation are right. - (3)
While there are exceptions for discussion of the source's own view on something, these are rarely appropriate outside articles on the source itself. In general articles, commentary on a deprecated source's opinion should be drawn from independent secondary sources. Including a claim or statement by a deprecated source that is not covered by reliable sources risks giving undue weight to a fringe view."
No, this is a violation of WP:RS/QUOTE (refer to the original source of what you're quoting), and a violation of WP:CENSORED (it's not up to WP:RSN people to decide what opinions are disallowed). Also, although Daily Mail is not deprecated due to RfC, it's relevant because a template sometimes has the misleading phrase "deprecated in the same way as the Daily Mail", which is the same as "therefore opinions are allowed" because the Daily Mail closers said Daily Mail opinions are allowed. Sometimes closers have acknowledged that, for example in the Breitbart closing (although Breitbart was blacklisted despite the close).
So, unless there was a consensus that I missed, anyone has a right to revert JzG's edit. However, since it's controversial, let's see whether someone wants to discuss first. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Problems 1 and 2 are easily addressed - I just did so in an edit rewording the two sentences to remove some of the inaccuracies. Not sure about 3, I don’t quite get the complaint, maybe a more concise explanation helps here (I don’t get what CENSORED has to do with the problem here or the Daily Mail RFC…) There certainly seems to be no indication that the whole section needs to go… Mvbaron (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Mvbaron, in my opinion your edit makes it worse and duplicates the problem I illustrated: than an editor can "boldly" change the guideline to suit a preferred opinion without talking first and seeking consensus. But I'll wait to dispose of it for the same reason that I gave for Guy's edit. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you think that my edit makes the section worse, when I merely made the (very small and uncontroversial) corrections you suggested. The section now (more) accurately reflects WP:DEPREC, there's nothing special really (DEPREC already existed when Guy made his edit). I can see the point of your complaint
than an editor can "boldly" change the guideline to suit a preferred opinion
, but this seems like bad faith to me: I'm not pushing any personal opinion and I wouldn't assume Guy does either... WP:PGBOLD says:you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made
So what's the point of your complaint here? Mvbaron (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)- It isn't true that your edit is uncontroversial (we're having a controversy about it right now) and it isn't true that I suggested it (I want the addition to be reverted). What happens to WP:DEPREC (a section of an essay-class page) doesn't affect what's in a guideline. Guy's and your bold changes are not illegal, I am merely pointing out that they never had consensus, and I explained that there are problems so it isn't true that that I'm advocating removal solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you think that my edit makes the section worse, when I merely made the (very small and uncontroversial) corrections you suggested. The section now (more) accurately reflects WP:DEPREC, there's nothing special really (DEPREC already existed when Guy made his edit). I can see the point of your complaint
- Mvbaron, in my opinion your edit makes it worse and duplicates the problem I illustrated: than an editor can "boldly" change the guideline to suit a preferred opinion without talking first and seeking consensus. But I'll wait to dispose of it for the same reason that I gave for Guy's edit. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Given the discussion related to the close of the Daily Wire at AN (see WP:AN#Challenge of RSN closure of RFC on Daily Wire) there is a likely need to have a larger discussion to decide via consensus to decide what deprecated should mean ("banned" or the computer science version "no longer support, should be replaced"), when it should be used, and incorporating that into both RS and into WP:DEPS so that there is a consensus-based agreement between all these pages. --Masem (t) 19:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Masem, sure, but meantime: do you approve|disapprove of leaving Guy's edit in? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- I forget which inline tag there is but I would leave the text it but with the "under discussion" inline tag next to it, just so editors understand this is not yet "baked" policy statement though likely not far from where consensus might be. --Masem (t) 01:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, I added that template pointing to this talk page thread. I might not have emphasized enough: it's about reverting what Guy added, it is not a call for proposals of alternate wording. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- I forget which inline tag there is but I would leave the text it but with the "under discussion" inline tag next to it, just so editors understand this is not yet "baked" policy statement though likely not far from where consensus might be. --Masem (t) 01:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Masem, sure, but meantime: do you approve|disapprove of leaving Guy's edit in? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- You are the only person I've seen claim that "deprecation" on Wikipedia was ever intended to be used the way it's used in software engineering. The purpose of WP:DAILYMAIL was to declare the DM an unsuitable source that should in almost all cases not be added to Wikipedia, and existing usages removed. You have spent a few years now perpetuating a view of deprecation seemingly based on not understanding that English words can have different shades of meaning, and that this usage does not have your desired shade of meaning - David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Given the lede sentence of WP:DEPRECATED "Deprecated sources are highly questionable sources that editors are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances.", that falls far more in line with the computer science definition, rather than the "banned" stance. This is also consistent with how deprecated is used in other PAG that are not related to sources (eg {{Deprecated template}}. It is important to recognize the distinction in how removing deprecated sources should be handled. If deprecated was intended to mean "banned", then we'd engage with bot-assisted tools to wipe them out without care for what mess they left behind, while if they are to be treated as discouraged sources, they should be removed in time but with careful human review to either replace with CN tags or replacement sources, or in some cases outright removal of the unsupported information if contentious. That is the problem is that "deprecated" was used to describe the DAILYMAIL close post-close, but the DAILYMAIL position urges a stance as strong as "banned" or "blacklisted", not the general meaning of "deprecated", and now trying to equate the stance that DAILYMAIL takes to equate to what "deprecated" should mean, in conflict with how "deprecated" had otherwise been used, is a problem. I'm all for finding the right term to describe DAILYMAIL's close that demands removal on sight, but it shouldn't be "deprecated" due to the less agressive implications of that term as has been used on WP. --Masem (t) 01:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
In this edit I reverted Mvbaron's change that was discussed earlier in this thread. Saying that deprecating means generally unreliable confuses because recently editors have clearly distinguished generally unreliable from deprecated (e.g. in the Daily Wire discussion. Saying the source should not be used is explaining nothing, any source should or should not be used depending on many factors. Saying "this usually happens" is an attempt to write a history without backup. NB: this edit is just a first step, the intent is to remove the bulk of the edit that caused this section, as I describe earlier in this thread. I'm starting by removing what I believe made it worse. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- So that means you changed your mind about point (1) because you just reverted to the old version which you called
no good
? Mvbaron (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)- NB: this edit is just a first step, the intent is to remove the bulk of the edit that caused this section, as I describe earlier in this thread. I'm starting by removing what I believe made it worse. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- This is purely disruptive by now. You started by indentifying problems with a paragraph here, then I adressed one of those problems with my edit (which just copied text from WP:DEPREC). Now you revert my attempt at fixing the problem you yourself stated by reverting to the version you called problematic in the first place. This is not collaborative editing and is disruptive. Rather than reinstating a version you identified as problematic you should discuss or improve my edit instead of threatening to delete content without discussing it. Please self revert and discuss instead of edit warring. Mvbaron (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Conduct accusations don't belong here. Comments re content would belong, if anyone else is watching then now would be a good time to make some. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- This is purely disruptive by now. You started by indentifying problems with a paragraph here, then I adressed one of those problems with my edit (which just copied text from WP:DEPREC). Now you revert my attempt at fixing the problem you yourself stated by reverting to the version you called problematic in the first place. This is not collaborative editing and is disruptive. Rather than reinstating a version you identified as problematic you should discuss or improve my edit instead of threatening to delete content without discussing it. Please self revert and discuss instead of edit warring. Mvbaron (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- NB: this edit is just a first step, the intent is to remove the bulk of the edit that caused this section, as I describe earlier in this thread. I'm starting by removing what I believe made it worse. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- (1)
That means they should not be used, unless there is a specific consensus to do so.
If that's saying consensus is needed in advance, it's against WP:BOLD. If it's not, it's meaningless since all edits require consensus. - (2)
It is reserved for sources that have a substantial history of fabrication ...
No, almost anything can go up for deprecation, this is just propaganda to suggest that people who vote for deprecation are right. - (3)
While there are exceptions for discussion of the source's own view on something, these are rarely appropriate outside articles on the source itself. In general articles, commentary on a deprecated source's opinion should be drawn from independent secondary sources. Including a claim or statement by a deprecated source that is not covered by reliable sources risks giving undue weight to a fringe view."
No, this is a violation of WP:RS/QUOTE (refer to the original source of what you're quoting), and a violation of WP:CENSORED
This is all nonsense.
- WP:BOLD says,
it is important that you take care of the common good and not edit disruptively or recklessly.
Using a deprecated source is an instance of editing disruptively or recklessly, so, there is no conflict between the guidelines. - This is backwards. The guideline says a source can only by deprecated if it has a history of fabrication, so that is what should happen. If a source is deprecated that does not have such a history, then people are applying the guideline wrong.
- WP:CENSORED talks about content that "some readers consider objectionable or offensive". Lies, for example by climate change deniers, are indeed considered by "some readers" "objectionable or offensive", but that is not the reason Wikipedia pages should avoid them, so CENSORED does not apply. The real reason we do not want lies in our encyclopedia is left as an exercise to the reader. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- The problem is on the definition (outside of WP) of the word "deprecated". While it can mean to disapprove of its use, in comp sci (which I suspect a good portion of our editors are coming from), it means "this will be removed from usage at some point in the future and should be replaced, but can continue to be used otherwise." Given that we have not had a consensus discussion of what deprecation should actually mean on WP, then when discussion throws around the word, its common to see two schools of thought at play. The Daily Wire discussion linked already is a good example of the cross-purposes of the word. It should also be pointed out we have yet another level to block sources, being the blacklist which is normally used for spam but would make a lot more sense for sources we absolutely do not want people using unless it is about the work itself, eg Daily Mail, RT, etc. So taking deprecation to be the same as blacklisting seems excessive. We clearly do want a level at RS/P of sources that is stronger than "generally unreliable" but not as strict as "can never be used", which I'm sure the intent of calling them "deprecated" is meant for, but the double meaning of the word is causing problems. --Masem (t) 18:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly. There are two ways forward: (1) an RFC on what "deprecated" means vs "generally unreliable" vs "blacklisted" and/or (2) a productive discussion here on how to improve the Deprecated sources section and how to align it with WP:DEPREC.
- So instead of POINTily reverting my attempts of improving exactly this, I would like to ask Peter Gulutzan to actually engage in a discussion here and argue why my edit which adressed points (1) and(2) above by means of using text from WP:DEPREC needed to be reverted and (ii) to put forward some real suggestions on how to improve this guideline. Mvbaron (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Masem, both meanings that you describe are consistent with Merriam-Webster + Oxford, but either way a deprecated source is allowed if we decide to use English for the English Wikipedia. WP:ENGLISHPLEASE applies for talk pages and noticeboards including WP:RSN but, since the edit was apparently done without going to a talk page or noticeboard first, the section is not based on it. As you suggested, there's a notice on the section for others to opine, but I don't want to dignify Mvbaron's conduct accusations by responding to them, and I don't think you're specifically opining about reversion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Dignifying or not please engage in a discussion about these points:
I would like to ask Peter Gulutzan to actually (i) engage in a discussion here and argue why my edit which addressed points (1) and(2) above by means of using text from WP:DEPREC needed to be reverted and (ii) to put forward some real suggestions on how to improve this guideline
. And the fact that an edit to a guideline was done without prior discussion is not a reason to remove the content it added, see WP:PGBOLD. So the section in question should not be removed simply becausethe edit was apparently done without going to a talk page or noticeboard first
. Mvbaron (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Dignifying or not please engage in a discussion about these points:
- The problem is on the definition (outside of WP) of the word "deprecated". While it can mean to disapprove of its use, in comp sci (which I suspect a good portion of our editors are coming from), it means "this will be removed from usage at some point in the future and should be replaced, but can continue to be used otherwise." Given that we have not had a consensus discussion of what deprecation should actually mean on WP, then when discussion throws around the word, its common to see two schools of thought at play. The Daily Wire discussion linked already is a good example of the cross-purposes of the word. It should also be pointed out we have yet another level to block sources, being the blacklist which is normally used for spam but would make a lot more sense for sources we absolutely do not want people using unless it is about the work itself, eg Daily Mail, RT, etc. So taking deprecation to be the same as blacklisting seems excessive. We clearly do want a level at RS/P of sources that is stronger than "generally unreliable" but not as strict as "can never be used", which I'm sure the intent of calling them "deprecated" is meant for, but the double meaning of the word is causing problems. --Masem (t) 18:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- It is nonsensical to expect discussion prior to citing a deprecated source… since the editor citing it might well be unaware that it has been deprecated. What we CAN say is: should a deprecated source be cited, and subsequently removed, discussion is needed to RETURN it. Blueboar (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Blueboar:, I feel your suggestions lets the fellow Wikipedian to use the deprecated source. IMO, there should be a strong tone against using these sources in the first place. Cinadon36 07:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think you are missing my point... if an editor is unaware that a source has beed deprecated, how would that editor know that they must open a discussion and get consensus before using it? The peoblem isn't "letting" editors use deprecated sources... the problem is informing editors that they have used one. Once they are informed, we can hold them to a "discuss first" standard, but we have to inform them first. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Blueboar, I believe in many cases editors will become aware since they will see Edit Filter 869 although I don't think sources are added to the filter automatically. It didn't trip me up when recently I mentioned a source on a talk page, but the history has an irritating tag "Tag: use of deprecated (unreliable) source" (example on this talk page). and I suppose it ended up in the log too. Anyway I regard filter 869 as a separate problem. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- And in other cases they won't. Or they'll see it but not understand it. Or – maybe – they will see it, understand it, and know that the source actually is reliable for the specific statement it's being cited for, which is how reliability is supposed to be determined in the first place. See the FAQ at the top of this page, and look for the question about whether there are sources that are always reliable or always unreliable.
- I wonder whether any major discussion about the subject of deprecated sources will solve this problem simply by removing any consideration of how the editor wants to use the source. Everything in the major US and UK daily newspapers will be deemed Always Reliable Sources, even if the news story is about a dumpster fire and the sentence you're citing it for is about a football game. Everything in "deprecated" sources will be declared Always Unreliable Sources That Must Never Be Used Under Any Circumstances Whatsoever And Probably Ought To Be Automatically Blacklisted, even if the deprecated source is being cited as the authoritative proof that The Daily Mail printed an apology for nonsense they'd published the week before.
- Or maybe editors would think things through, and discover that mindless removal of sources that are flagged by some mindless software is not exactly the same as thoughtfully improving an article. If we wanted mindless removal of all deprecated sources, we'd write a bot to remove them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing: So do you approve|disapprove of leaving Guy's edit in? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think that it might be useful to mention the concept of deprecation, but I don't think that the current version is good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing: So do you approve|disapprove of leaving Guy's edit in? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Blueboar, I believe in many cases editors will become aware since they will see Edit Filter 869 although I don't think sources are added to the filter automatically. It didn't trip me up when recently I mentioned a source on a talk page, but the history has an irritating tag "Tag: use of deprecated (unreliable) source" (example on this talk page). and I suppose it ended up in the log too. Anyway I regard filter 869 as a separate problem. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
What we CAN say is: should a deprecated source be cited, and subsequently removed, discussion is needed to RETURN it.
And indeed, this is precisely what WP:BURDEN (which is policy) says - David Gerard (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The current wording of the section is fine and matches with both policy and practice. I have seen no reasonable objection to it that isn't based in a fundamental objection to the concept of deprecation - David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I think the first two, especially, are reasonable statements about the nature of deprecation as the DAILYMAIL RfC closing statements say. I do think we are long overdue for an actual guideline/section on deprecated sources, more in depth than the current. Everything in the current version of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Deprecated_sources (as I'm writing this) seems correct to me, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- I regret that for the moment there seems to be support for Guy|JzG's insertion so I back off from my stated intent to remove it. I do hope that removal will become possible when more people realize how bad it is, later. I will remove the under-discussion tag. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- Peter Gulutzan, why don't you want to work on improving the section in question? There's a lot of room between removing it altogether and leaving it as it is... If you think there are problems with the section, why don't you address them, discuss the responses and we can all improve this here policy. Mvbaron (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- Removing bad things from a guideline would improve Wikipedia. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- Peter Gulutzan, why don't you want to work on improving the section in question? There's a lot of room between removing it altogether and leaving it as it is... If you think there are problems with the section, why don't you address them, discuss the responses and we can all improve this here policy. Mvbaron (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- Like several people above, I also concur that Guy's addition substantial represents existing practice at Wikipedia, both before and since it was added. Like all good policy, it reflects what was an existing practice and clarifies it quite nicely. Like all policies, a few wording tweaks may be in order from time to time, but it substantially represents best practices, and I have no substantive problems with it. I find the arguments that it either violates WP:BOLD or that new users may be unaware of it unconvincing and are entirely unnecessary to good maintenance of the policy. Deprecation is not taken lightly, and not easy to accomplish. There are VERY few sources which have been deprecated, and none were done without years of discussion on the matter. Being bold is NOT a license to be reckless, and users who know that they are using a crap source are being disruptive. For users who are unaware that a source is deprecated, that's not a problem. WP:AGF, revert their use of the source, and inform them of the situation, just like we do with other people who run afoul of some arcane policy in good faith. The fact that someone may unknowingly violate a good policy is NOT a reason to not have the policy in the first place. --Jayron32 17:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Jayron32 here. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- It's not true that it's a policy it's a guideline. It's not true that it represented existing practice at Wikipedia, I gave examples of practice before. It's not true that deprecation takes years, e.g. ancient-origins.net was proposed for deprecation on September 16 and declared deprecated on September 18, then added to spam blacklist with the explanation that deprecation allows that, and anyway WP:IAR. As we speak there is a proposal at WP:RSN heading toward deprecation because 4 of 5 participants say yes, it's not finished yet but the ease with which it's proceeding is not unprecedented, it's just a current example. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- There are several problems with the original post: it indirectly suggests that the valid criticism of reliable sources (and the valid community concerns) about the quality of less reliable sources should only be considered as a non-actionable opinion and that using those sources to support Wikipedia material is not a problem. That avoiding them because they are unreliable amounts to censorship (but WP has no power to retract those sources or to prevent their publishers from hosting their articles and the WP:CENSORSHIP policy is mostly about offensive content in WP articles, with WP:NOT being clear about what WP should not be, including a free speech platform). Policies also already include WP:ABOUTSELF (this may be where "opinions are allowed. Sometimes closers have acknowledged that" was noticed), WP:CONSENSUS, etc. RSN can be consulted more than once about a source including in specific contexts. In relation to WP:RS/QUOTE, WP:DUE also matters where controversial material should be evaluated by reliable independent sources and presented with their analysis instead of including every opinion or citing quote collections resulting in WP:GEVAL... —PaleoNeonate – 01:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- It is false that "opinions are allowed" refers only to WP:ABOUTSELF when it comes to Daily Mail, the closers of the Daily Mail RfC specifically addressed that speculation and shot it down, read. I believe it is also false that "opinions are allowed" refers only to WP:ABOUTSELF when it comes to Breitbart, but let's ping the closer rather than make claims about unsaid meanings. Fish and karate: in the Breitbart closing you said "It can still be used as a source when attributing opinion/viewpoint/commentary." Did you mean Breitbart opinions are only allowed when WP:ABOUTSELF applies? (Guy|JzG blacklisted Breitbart anyway but this affects a more general point about what he added to WP:RSN.) Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- No, the intent (which I believe is clear) was that Breitbart opinions/commentary were allowable anywhere, where relevant and where clearly described as such, but it was not to be used as a reliable source for anything else. And that’s appreciating subsequently Breitbart was blacklisted, but the intent of the closing stands, it in no way was specific to WP:ABOUTSELF. Whether it ought to be specific to WP:ABOUTSELF is a different discussion, and one that may well need to be had at some point, but I’m not commenting on that, just the close of a discussion I carried out. Fish+Karate 07:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- It is false that "opinions are allowed" refers only to WP:ABOUTSELF when it comes to Daily Mail, the closers of the Daily Mail RfC specifically addressed that speculation and shot it down, read. I believe it is also false that "opinions are allowed" refers only to WP:ABOUTSELF when it comes to Breitbart, but let's ping the closer rather than make claims about unsaid meanings. Fish and karate: in the Breitbart closing you said "It can still be used as a source when attributing opinion/viewpoint/commentary." Did you mean Breitbart opinions are only allowed when WP:ABOUTSELF applies? (Guy|JzG blacklisted Breitbart anyway but this affects a more general point about what he added to WP:RSN.) Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Reliability and Credibility
| Massive forum shopping has now grown to FOUR different threads |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
What is the relation between reliability and credibility? Can the credibility of a source be debated in a RFC? The independent journalists are Self Published Sources and therefore they are unreliable sources by default, and therefore one can claim that it makes no sense to debate the reliability of an independent journalist and they can close such a RFC right from the start. It's a technicality that can be invoked to shut down an attempt to discuss an independent journalist. And then, is it possible to make a RfC about the credibility of an independent journalists? Or maybe it's possible to open a RfC about the reliability of an independent journalist without risking to be closed? To give a real life example: in this debate Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Glenn Greenwald the conclusion is that Glenn Greenwald has no credibility. Are the Wikipedia editors allowed to confirm or challenge that conclusion with a RfC? -- Barecode (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
|