Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

Verifiability is not a suicide pact.

The phrase "Verifiability is not a suicide pact" is used in the paragraph or two above. I have heard the expression "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" as a reason for discarding the Constitution when vital interests are, or are thought to be, in jeopardy, but I don't understand what it means, or what it could mean, in the context of Relaiable Sources. Is it, perhaps, just a flourish? ( Martin | talk • contribs 07:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC))

I'm pretty sure I'm not the first to use the phrase. But it simply means that while all included content must be verifiable, not all verifiable content must be included. I refer to as a suicide pact the opinion that once a fact has been verified, we are somehow obligated to include it, with no way out. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is right, and the general guidelines have for long been that while passing WP:V is a necessity for inclusion of content, other policies also need to be considered. E.g. although the statement that the earth is round may be verifiable, it may have no place in an article on musical notation, despite verifiability. History2007 (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Is lifenews.com considered a reliable source?

Today I reverted (twice) an addition to the PepsiCo article which made statements backed up by text at lifenews.com. Could I please get some input here as to what others feel about that site as a source? Thanks in advance. GFHandel ♬  09:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:RSN is the the place to ask that question. At first glance it is not an RS website, but please ask on RSN. History2007 (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. GFHandel ♬  09:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Identifiable author, is this an requirement for reliable sources?

In a discussion about an closed (non-public-editable) wiki page from an university website, an interpretation of the policy was made that authorship is an required part of any reliable source. I myself do not share that interpretation, but do notice that the policy is not crystal clear on this. Is there an explicit requirement for identifiable author? Belorn (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In general, anonymous sources are not reliable. However, for many institutional publications (including websites) that do not list authors, it is often implied that it the publication is authored by the institution itself. For example, on a university website, staff directories are reliable sources for the positions that staff hold; a government agency publication that describes certain regulations would be a reliable source for those regulations. Similarly, some magazines do not list authors for their editorial pages, The Economist magazine is famous for not giving bylines on any of their articles. These are all still reliable sources. As always, common sense should be the rule. For specific judgements about particular documents or articles, please ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. LK (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be nice if the article was a bit more clear on this. Going by what I read by other articles like WP:EL, I got the feeling that editorial control was the primary importance and not identifiable authors. If this article had a sentence or two about anonymous sources, it could help future readers. Belorn (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The short answer is NO (See the FAC. at the top of this page) the longer answer is it depends on the source and what it is used for but that's true of all sources. Many museums, for example, although they can provide reliable info don't have bylines. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's the next-to-last item in the /FAQ. There is no such requirement. "Source" means three things on the English Wikipedia, and only one of the three has to be considered reliable. If (for example) the publisher is reliable, then it simply doesn't matter who the author is. The only time you really need to know about the author is when you're trying to justify expert status under WP:SPS (websites, letters to the editor, that kind of thing). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Do I feel stupid. Yes, its in the FAQ. I guess I should read the FAQ in guidelines and policies together with the article when in doubt about something. Thanks. Belorn (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

FAQ isn't policy or guideline, however yes, there are some situations where an author may not be needed but I don't belive it is considered RS but primary in nature. Also a "Closed Wiki" does not allow anyone to make suggestions by filling out a form and submitting. The main problem here is that website is very unclear as to what it is at all. It is not a directory (yes, I have used them before to reference an author's status) it is not a part of a clear departmental release. AP puts out a story. It has no author, is it RS? Yes and no. It cannot be varified so it isn't RS to reference a fact but might be a good primary source for notes OR an addition to a previous story being updated. A book is published that contains personal information about a living person. It is "anonymously written". That cannot be used as RS. A University Website publishes an article making claims about a historical event or artifact. It has no authorship but is uploaded from the University department staff to the department's page and gives a decent amount of references itself. It is varifiable. Can it be used as RS...yes, in that case you could.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• If the Associated Press, or your local newspaper, or any well-regarded news organization, puts out a story without a byline, it can be WP:Verified and it is useful for assertions of fact.

• It doesn't pass criteria for RS without all three being met.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Nonsense. We accept unsigned newspaper articles every hour of the day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• None of our content WP:Policies require an author's name. They all say that source has three meanings, and the author is only one of them.

• No, what it says is "What counts as a reliable source - The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability." There few policies and guidelines on Wikipedia that are "Required". However to ignore such must be as an improvement to the article or encyclopedia, not just to use a random web page just because it appears on a University website.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• A closed wiki mean that random people off the internet can't make changes themselves. It does not mean that ranom users aren't permitted to send e-mail or otherwise suggest changes to the authorized users. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• While this is true, even a closed wiki will generally reference the information. The fact is, Knowledge Base is a question/answer service designed for students and staff but available worldwide. It is a part of the UITS Support Center. This is obviously presented on a reputable site, but is simply not RS but primary in nature. It could be used along with a reliable secondary source.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• In my experience, closed wikis almost never provide citations to their sources. Furthermore—read the /FAQ and study the policies—there is not one word in any sourcing policy or guideline that suggests you can exclude a source because the source does not provide you with a list of the sources its authors drew from. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

At the top of WP:IRS it says: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." So, knowing the identity of the author is not necessary if the process itself is known to be reliable. E.g. an article from the Encyclopedia Britannica is reliable, even if the author is not identified. LK (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Uhm...an encyclopedia is not a reliable secondary source...it is a tertiary source. They "may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion."--Amadscientist (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I also don't see that quote at the top anywhere, (correction-it isn't at the top, but at the bottum of "Defining Sources and follows this: "Any of the three can affect reliability.") but I do see this at the top of the overview: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves"--Amadscientist (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, we are looking at the tree and not the forest. The fact is that an author is not always used on a source. This is true. Does that mean the source is not reliable? No, but at the same time it weakens that source and that is absolute. This page clearly makes the disctinction that all three criteria effect the reliablity of the source as well as a fourth criteria of context. Can I use a non authored AP story which is a Press release correcting a previous story? Yes. I wouldn't use it on its own to make an extraordinary claim of the original article as it is actually verifying the unreliablity of the source (as reliable as we may think AP is, they make mistakes as all media sources do). I would use it in conjunction with the original story. So even though AP is one of the strongest and most well known publications of this type with fact checking and editorial oversite...using an unauthored press correction stating another story was wrong....is actually demonstrating their own draw backs. But a press release is coming from the editorial staff and could be used as PS for the claim: "The Associated Press made a mistake they had to correct" even though it is the primary source and isn't actualy making the claim we can make use it as the claim is not extraordinary and therefore does not require extraordinary sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that for most media sources, identified authorship adds to reliability. But you shouldn't you only think about news articles. There are many institutionally produced documents that are routinely not author identified. Company annual reports, government data (e.g. from the the Federal Reserve or the Bureau of Labor Statistics, regulations from government regulatory agencies, government research department reports (e.g. Congressional Budget Office reports), etc. Whether an author is expected, and whether lacking authorship means the source is suspect – it really depends on the situation. BTW, respected encyclopaedias are reliable sources, just because a source is tertiary doesn't mean it's not reliable. (I'ld take Britannica over a newspaper any day). LK (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

A tree...not a forest. LOL! (Sorry, couldn't resist). I have been on the go'round with the Congressional Budget Office reports and other US documents such a Congressional voting records. They are, again, a primary source. They have a limited amount of use. Please understand, that a reliable source in the context of a claim is either strongly demonstrated by the criteria or it is weakened. An encyclopedia being tertiary does effect it's reliability. It has limited use. I like them, I use Britannica a lot. But we do require secondary sources on Wikipedia for claims. By the way...that is what prompeted this discussion. An article that had been sourced with nearly all primary sources and that just wasn't strong enough.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Using "an unauthored press correction was wrong"?! All press corrections are 'unauthored'!" You might find a signed editorial (opinion piece) discussing it, but the actual corrections page never gets a byline. Have a look: Here's The New York Times corrections for today. No authors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, you have your opinion about what proper practice is, but it's pretty clear that consensus, practice in Wikipedia, and the policy as written is different from your understanding. Policy as written is that a source is reliable if it is the result of a reliable process. Authorship may contribute to the understanding of the process as reliable, but it is not required. I hope you don't impose your view of what policy should be, but rather apply policy as it is. LK (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

No, but. Works may achieve reliability through a publication process or editorial control (broadly: the publisher) even if the work lacks authorial identification. Many works that are corporately authored (ie: Australian Tax Office corporately authors documents) are commonly misunderstood by encyclopaedia editors as anonymously authored—corporately authored works, of course, have a clearly identifiable corporate author. Some corporate works are unreliable due to their publication process, others may even get an expert exemption where a corporate author demonstrates EXPERTISE in a particular area (the Workers Solidarity Movement (Ireland) is pretty good on a few areas of minor left wing politics)—this wouldn't change their general reliability or unreliability prior to investigating against a specific claim in a specific article. Even anonymous works can be reliable—if the anonymous work meets other criteria, usually a publisher's processes. I'd accept an anonymous research text published by OUP and favourably reviewed as reliable within its area of disciplinary expertise. But most anonymous works have not been through appropriate publication processes to support their reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

all these wiki guidelines/rules pages need to be merged

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source etc.

there's ridiculous overlap and redundancy and it's very very hard to find anything -- there should just be one clean guide and there isnt -- all these pages are extremely wordy and excessive, being a bottleneck to anything good Waveclaira (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Major alterations to Wikipedia content guidelines require community wide consensus. Please make this as a proposal here or at the proper Village pump proposal page. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how long the resulting page would be? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

minor reorg so far

i was sick of the difficulty of the page so

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIdentifying_reliable_sources&diff=514603782&oldid=513531597

Waveclaira (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 06:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 

Being sick of something only illustrates your intent to do as you please without consensus. Please stop, make a proposal with an RFC, or using the Village pump. As a new editor you should not be making these types of edits in this manner for that reason.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

you're just changing minor edits. the above is the incomplete version since you came and cause problems. the most recent version is very minor and you're STILL being a hindrance. i wish someone could take you away since you arent helping with anything

Waveclaira (talk)

You made a bold edit (a bunch actually) they were reverted. The talk page is not an announcement page. It is where you discuss changes. You are not discussing these changes and must do so to gain consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

if nobody has a problem, you cant come in because you have nothing better to do and cause problems. you arent helping. and you changed the few minor edited version when you shouldnt have. people like you are the kind of people that are a cancer to making any progress.

Waveclaira (talk)

Please review Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Be bold. You made an edit and it was reverted. Now please collaborate and gain consensus for your major alterations.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

and i changed it back, so why am i not seeing any collaborating from you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waveclaira (talk • contribs) 06:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

if you have a specific problem with the incomplete version above, you should write it out, but you dont -- you're just here to complain about teh very very minor version edit. you cant do that.

Waveclaira (talk)

nobody can even make minor edits because of people like you. the current one is an extremely minor version as if it hasnt been edited, and yet you STILL changed it

Waveclaira (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 06:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 

You have made major alerations claiming them to be minor. Changing a period or comma is minor, not altering the text in this manor. Please explain your reasoning.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Amadscientist. While this last batch of edits might be considered a minor edit on a normal article, this is a Wikipedia policy article, and given how editors can be prone to wikilawyering, changing the letter of the law, even if it does not change the spirit, can be dangerous. I'd discuss all desired changes to a policy page before enacting them. Jonathanfu (talk) 06:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

fine, just cast your vote on the voting section, and we'll see

Waveclaira (talk)

Consensus is not a vote. It is what every editor can live with. You chose a particularly late time to begin major alterations on content guides and don't even understand them to begin with. This is not the article for a newbie to be altering in this manor. You were bold and then you were challenged. Please review policy and guidlines.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

and i cant live with your impediment of progress so it was challenged. we'll see what 3rd-party editors that have actually improved articles recently have to said in the voting section, or since you dont like voting -- the can you live with people who arent doing anything to progress a page, and changes even the slightest of minor edits?Bold text Waveclaira (talk)

Voting section: taking a 100-person vote for a reliable sample size

these are small changes, or are they massive ones? is the inherent idea of the page kept within the whole of the article? or are these so massive it's a completely different article? i am against people that are not doing anything to improve any pages, and yet change these extremely minor edits, impeding any form of progress, and driving away editors. completely against this.

the 100 person should be editors that have actually edited recently on pages in order to make progress.

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources&diff=514605949&oldid=514605757

Waveclaira (talk)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. We don't vote here.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Making changes to this page

At minimum you must begin a Wikipedia:Requests for comment, however with this type of page it is recommended that make a full proposal of your changes to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). We do not vote on Wikipedia, but perhaps you are asking for a consensus poll to determine such. However, local consensus cannot override the wider community. Please take the proper route.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

the wider community is only those that care. so since there arent any changes to the page in question, i'll just wait for any editors that have shown progress in articles to vote. if they care, they will vote. i am completely against impediments from people that have no made any serious progress on articles recently. i'll just check back in a week or so, i'm sure there'll be tons of votes from people that actually care about these problems. Waveclaira (talk)

note so i can remember this for next time -- this person was trying to stop people from voting or having an input. is that person serious?........ wow Waveclaira (talk)

You do not seem to be listening or attempting to work in good faith. Perhaps this is simply a matter of having a competence issue to work here. I think you should stop while you are ahead. Seriously. I am also a little suspicious about a possible agenda to disrupt.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Major changes to guidelines and policies should be done after a public discussion. You were bold, it was reverted, now either build a consensus for your changes or leave it alone. We don't need an edit war on a policy page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Changes to this page should be discussed carefully, one at a time. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

No requirement that every media source be third-party

There is no requirement that every source be a third-party. It follows that not every media source (audio, video, etc.) needs to be third-party. Therefore this reversion is incorrect and my correction should be restored. TParis's edit summary "Reverted to revision 513531597 by Yaara dildaara: Large undiscussed changes to core content policy" is erroneous and cannot be sustained by any reasonable reading of the guideline. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

A concrete example of why the wording preferred by TParis is unworkable may be found at Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series). That article features a screen shot from the series right at the top of the article. The screen shot was, almost certainly, created by someone hired by the management of the TV series. Therefore it was not created by a third party. Therefore it must be removed, if TParis is correct. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to disagree with your example. Images follow specific policy lines, and that image is very probably questionable; it is definitely not allowed if it was created by the studio or station and they have not released rights to it. Please do not confuse images with content. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the proposed edits in specific, I note that it is correct that primary, secondary and tertiary sources all have their place on Wikipedia, and the policy should not be worded to indicate that 3rd party sources (secondary and tertiary sources) are the only acceptable sources. However, third party sources are generally preferred, unless quoting or citing an organization policy, or simple verification of facts such as membership; and the policy should not be written to remove the preference for third party sources in most cases. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Primary, secondary and tertiary sources all have their place, depending on (a) what they are sourcing (b) how we say it. In general, I would suggest that obvious facts and attributable information are best verified with primary sources, and opinion, perceived truth (consensus) with secondary sources. What would be useful are general examples of when each type of source might be preferred. --Iantresman (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This is already done at WP:PSTS, although I am sure there is room for improvement there. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• I suspect TParis's revert was more in response to a long edit war where major changes were being made without consensus. Notice that he reverted to a really old version from a week ago, before the edit war happened. I'm guessing that your change just got caught in the crossfire. (I personally don't see a problem with it.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think a couple of you need to go read WP:Party and person. PSTS and "third-party" have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

The long-standing version of the page is wrong. Jc3s5h's change is correct and should be restored.

The purpose of this paragraph is to explain that video and audio recordings can be "published" (and accessible) for Wikipedia's purposes even though they don't involve dead trees. What do we need for this to work? A non-ephemeral method of accessing the video or audio. So a television broadcast doesn't work, because we can't use time travel techniques to discover whether the TV show actually said what some editor said it did. But a television broadcast that is archived (e.g., on a website) is just fine, because we can go watch the archived video if there are disputes about the TV show's content.

The old version of the page says, "If Jay Leno makes a video, and puts a copy on his own website, then that's not 'published'. But if Jay Leno makes a video, and Pope Benedict puts a copy on his own website ("archived by a reputable third party"), then that's 'published' and is just fine".

What we actually want is "if Jay Leno makes a video, and puts a copy on any website (or on DVDs at any library, or whatever) that we can credibly believe will store an accurate copy of the video ("reputable"), even if it's Leno's own website (not a "third party"), then that's 'published' and is fine for the purposes of this part of the guideline." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your first para: Yeah, I got confuddled there, sorry. Support your edits to PSTS, btw.

Regarding the rest: So far as I can see, there has been unanimous support here for Jc3s5h's edit; it seems to me that the suggestion that TParis merely reverted to a previously stable version due to recent edits without noticing this specific edit has merit, and unless TParis corrects that assumption, I believe that is probably what happened. I see no reason Jc3s5h should not reinstate his desired edit. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was reverting the other user. Didnt see this other edit.--v/r - TP 19:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I support this as well. I saw the change occur but was waiting for a discussion to throw in my two cents worth. It was a rather minor change that corrected guideline to be in line with media guidelines and I actually thought it a little odd that it was there to begin with.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI and forgive me if this is not directly related (although I believe it is) with respect to image use policy (media as in photos, diagrams, maps etc) some original research is allowed and Wikipedia editors can and have uploaded their own work and not that of a third party, or even referenced to a third party, although with inormation one does require a secondary reference of some kind to base the work on. A photo of a politician by a Wikimedia contributer is original research at some level without any third party involvement.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

While I understand that this is refering to audio and video content...this still seems a little off in my opinion as Wikipedia editors may also upload original video and it may be used on Wikipedia. Media content is just that and seems to skip over image use policy in this regard or we would have to delete a whole lot of images and video. An origial image does not have to be uploaded to Wikimedia but should. We can still upload images to Wikipedia if we do not have an account on commons or don't wish to have one (although I do). Should this page reflect that? I don't know, maybe.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

For more information see Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

So, I guess the best way to explain this is that this page refers to using a media file AS a source. Since the single use of "third" is removed only once and then is followed by further clarification, yet says the same thing...I don't see how the change is really different except, perhaps to reduce redundant wording. (OK, I see it now, the archiving need not be a third party, the producing does.) I wonder if this is could use some further clarification along the lnes of "Not to be confused with Wikipedia image use policy that allows user uploaded images and media files. " or something along those lines.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Additonal wording perhaps for clarification?

I wonder if this might be a little bit more clear:

The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. Not to be confused with image and media use on Wikipedia itself. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.

--Amadscientist (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

To be a little more clear on what I am saying, the guidelines here do not state that what constitutes an image that can be "referenced". For example this image [1] cannot be used as a reliable source for information on this structure. It can be used ON wikipedia as illustration of the subject (and is) but cannot be used to source anything. This similar image [2] can be used as a relaible source for information. The differences are that the first image is made by an amateur and given a free enough license for use on Commons. The second image cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia because a free image is available (although it might be possible to recieve OTRS permissions) but has been created by a credentialed expert in the field. So, this becomes important when describing in text what the image is without a secondary reliable sources being the basis. Now look at this image [3] it is based on a reliable secondary source and is made by a Wikipedian. It can have text referenced from it because it is based on the information from the secondary reliable source. Even in the image summary information must be sourced (and on the OWS article it is) so this becomes confusing to editors without some guideline being a bit more specific such as a section like this:

"Images/illustrations as a reliable source

Some images can be used as a reliable source if they have been created by known experts in their fields. Illustrations, diagrams, maps and other images being referenced for information must explicitly show or demonstrate the information without the need for intricate analysis or interpretations and must show the facts in an unambiguous manner. A pie chart that illustrates a percentage may be used to claim that percentage in text. A graph showing a specific rise or decline must specify this information in a plain and simple manner not open to multiple interpretations."

So this is just being tossed out there to see what others think.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Your proposed text would prohibit all self-published sources that don't happen to be in text. The line that says "media sources must be produced by a reliable third party" means "If the Jay Leno talks about himself in a video on his own website, you may not use it."

Are you familiar with WP:PERTINENCE? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am. But many editors are not. Could you elaborate on how you feel the above prose "would prohibit all self-published sources that don't happen to be in text"? I am not seeing that.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought that example would be clear, but I guess not.

• Jay Leno talks about himself on a video that he puts on his own website: This is a self-published, non-independent/non-third-party source.
• Your requirement: "media sources must be produced by a reliable third party" (This, BTW, is not at all "ike text", because ABOUTSELF and SPS contradict you).
• Is the hypothetical Leno video "produced by a reliable third party"? No, it's produced by Leno himself.
• Therefore, you have banned this kind of source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

search warrants

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, NOT a legal advice service
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The police came to my house on Sep 27 2012 Said they had a search warrant .no one at our residence is on probation or parole the officer's refused to show anyone in the home a search warrant nor explain what they were here for.They took my fiance to jail for receiving stolen property which its false accusation because they're talking about a GPS system his brother. Gave him 2 Identy theft. Charge for a paper that belongs to a friend of ours who's Willing to go to court and tell the judge and D.A the papers are hers.yet until this day Oct 11 we don't know exactly what the search warrant was for or if they even had one.my fiance still in jail with a bail of 145,000.if anyone can give me some advice or guidence on what to do and whre to go for help please. Feel free to answer my post. Thank you Desperately. In need of help M.L — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.7.163 (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Next time you assume the large media outlets are "reliable"...

Reliability isn't a given with a large media outlet. I've seen lots of times where Wikipedians slavishly add what a large media group says, regardless of tone, appropriateness, or logic. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgGSuvsp2fE

We need to be honest and use discretion and common sense before bowing to a big brand name source as if it is incontrovertible or even useful.

Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well... it depends on context. Material presented in news media outlets (whether TV, Radio or print) can be divided into three categories: News, Analysis, and Opinion. Each category can be reliable... but with limitations as to what it is reliable for. The clip you point us to is from an opinion program ... it is the visual equivalent of an OpEd column in a print newspaper. As such, it can be used as a reliable primary source for an attributed statement about the host's opinion, but not for a statement of unattributed fact. Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The YouTube link is not there to show something we should quote. It is there to show why 'big name media outlet' does not mean something is reliable. -- Avanu (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, I don't think any experienced editor would argue that an opinion piece from Fox news is a reliable source. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Well... I might. Again, we have to ask: "A reliable source for what?"... "what specific statement in Wikipedia are we trying to support with the opinion piece". Context is important. If a highly respected political columnist like Charles Krauthammer gives an opinion, we should not ignore it simply because he said it on Fox. And if we are going to discuss Krauthammer's opinion in an article, we need to cite where he stated that opinion. If he stated it on Fox news, then Fox news is a reliable source for what he said. Blueboar (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that goes without saying. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess you are simply not watching the video then. The video tells the story about why we need to question sources, even if they are big names in news. It seems as if you think the video is to be used a source itself. I was merely pointing to that video as a supporting statement for what I said originally. -- Avanu (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll say something else then that is equally true: No experienced editor would should ever think a source is automatically reliable because of who published it. It's stated right in the guideline anyway: "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis." Someguy1221 (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

George Katt reliable sources

www.georgekatt.com http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0441085/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkatt (talk • contribs) 18:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It's no use putting this here, try arguing your case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Katt.--ukexpat (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. This is the wrong forum. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

help!!!!

hi guys am a local volunteer for a local community radio station, im trying to add a bio and page to wikipedia. Seems stuck at conflict of interest as im writing about myself. Is there any help you could give me it would be gratefully appreciated.

17:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)17:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkinaw (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia advises that "You should not create or edit articles about yourself", see WP:COI --Iantresman (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You can always contribute to Wikipedia as a regular editor, and create your own custom user page. --Iantresman (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Academic textbook assessment as a reliable source

An editor wishes to use a textbook republished this year by academic publisher Springer, as a source. They've mentioned that the book is also cited in various peer-reviewed papers (including ones this year), and is cited by some academic text books. But if I think the source is actually unreliable, what reasoning could I provide that might outweigh all the published sources? Should I have to provide any published sources supporting my opinion. --Iantresman (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Start with explaining why you actually think it's unreliable, rather than finding some other reasoning. Other sources that contradict it or shed light on its level of acceptance would definitely help. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If there are no better-quality sources that disagree with it, then we don't have any reason to believe that the source is actually unreliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The book is clearly fringe. How could I show that? --Iantresman (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Raise on RSN. Say you think it may be fringe and why you think that, and see if other people agree. People might not agree with you but no-one will mind engaging in a civil discussion. Why would Springer publish a fringe book? Could this relate to disciplinary boundaries? Itsmejudith (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

When bringing a request like this it is helpful to name the particular article or source that is of concern. Perhaps this is the matter in question. But it cannot be, because in that instance Iantresman is trying to use a source that others are claiming is fringe. Conversely, in this thread Iantresman implies that someone else ("they've mentioned...") is trying to use a source that he thinks is fringe. Surely an editor that is fresh off a years-long topic ban would not immediately dive back into the area of the ban with an attempt to deceive others about his motivations, so I must be confused. Iantresman, could you point us to the discussion in question, in order to allay my confusion? Thanks. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, "fringe" isn't a synonym for "unreliable". The Time Cube website is pure nonsense, but still a reliable source for some statements. Almost any textbook is going to be reliable for at least limited statements (like "Fringe Freddy wrote in his textbook that..." or "According to proponents of This Nonsense..."). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing. I agree. Iantresman (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

@Short Brigade. I didn't mention a specific book or thread, because I wanted to try and learn some general principles, rather than need to ask about a specific book each time. The thread you mentioned is in indeed the one that inspired my general question (a hypothetical example), as I may be the one who considers a source to be fringe at some other time. It should not matter which side of the fence I present, and I would be very surprised if it did. My motivation remains the same. To find an impartial way to assess a source, without having to rely on the opinion of fallible editors (including myself). Iantresman (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith thanks for your input, I think that the Reliable sources/Noticeboard (WP:RSN) may be the way to go. Iantresman (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Iantresman is trying role reversal here for reasons unknown, he is the one who is trying to push a fringe source into Talk:Dusty_plasma#Reference_restoration. The source is one advocating plasma cosmology. I really don't understand his comments here, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The source does not advocate plasma cosmology because the source does not mention anything about cosmology. I'm sure that I mentioned that in the thread, and provided a page number for you to check (my item #5). Do you have either (a) another a page number I should be looking at, (b) verifiable sources that suggest otherwise, (c) sources that expresses any concerns regarding the book. If there are any comments of mine that I have not expressed clearly, I would be happy to try and explain them. --Iantresman (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith, academic publishers don't just publish books written by proponents of the mainstream position, they also at times publish fringe viewpoints (i.e viewpoints which few scientists except, but a small group do). You can find the odd book on cold fusion published by academic publishers, which was written by cold fusion proponents, for example. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure. They would usually come under the heading of "minority academic viewpoints". At least with an academic publisher there should be plenty of pointers as to where the book is coming from intellectually. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

More relevantly for our purposes, for every "cold fusion works!" source, there are plenty of "no, it doesn't!" sources out there. That eliminates the need for us to rely on promotional materials to determine reliability and due weight. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I have understood your points. I agree with your comment on cold fusion, but don't see how to apply it. My source is a textbook on plasma astrophysics republished by Springer, reviewed positively, and used positively in numerous citations. I am not aware of any current textbooks on cold fusion, but I assume that positive reviews of the book, and, the use of the book for citations, would suggest it was a reliable source, irrespective of the position taken in the book. If there were question concerning a book on a subject, we would expect to find at least some published criticism and concerns, and I am sure there are critical reviews of books on cold fusion (though I haven't looked). If we rightly don't use promotional material to assess a book, what do we use instead? All of us editors are fallible and can not be used as verifiable reliable sources. If there are reviews and citations out there, wouldn't they be useful indicators of whether a book meets WP:IRS? --Iantresman (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

We're not trying to assess "the source". We're trying to assess "the source's contents". So if you have a book on ____, and you want to know whether it's reliable for facts (and not just for the kind of trivial facts, like "On page 14 of this book, the author says that..."), then what you do is you look for other sources on the subject. You compare the (alleged) facts in this book against the (alleged) facts in other sources. If they all match, then you have determined that the material is verifiable, and you can quit worrying so much about whether this source is Truly Reliable.

If the (alleged) facts in the various sources don't match—if your book says that ____ is a foo, and all the other reasonable-looking sources say that ____ is definitely baz bat, then you have an excellent indication that your book is not reliable, or at the very least that it is a minority and possibly fringe position.

This takes us back to cold fusion: if you find a book that says cold fusion works, then you know that the book is unreliable. How do you know? Because all the other reasonable-looking sources on the subject, even if they never mention the pro-cold-fusion book you found, say that cold fusion doesn't work.

Or, more directly, if you find a book that says plasma cosmology is scientifically proven and accepted, then you know that you've got an unreliable source (for matters of fact) on your hands. How do you know? Because all the other reasonable-looking sources on the workings of the universe choose general relativity over plasma cosmology.

Is the book completely useless? Certainly not. Almost any source could be reliable for certain kinds of statements. A book that holds a minority or even fringe viewpoint would still be reliable for certain kinds of limited statements, many of them beginning with WP:INTEXT attribution like, "Proponents of this idea say that..." or "Alice Author wrote that..." So you could write (assuming the book says something like this), "Proponents of plasma cosmology say that the shape of the universe is determined by electromagnetics" (an unquestionably accurate statement of fact about their opinion/what they say), but not "the shape of the universe is determined by electromagnetics" (which would be a distinctly dubious statement of fact about the universe itself). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That seems to make sense. The book I use as a source has nothing to do with cosmology. I use it as a source on the "dynamics of dusty plasmas", a mainstream topic. The reviews of the book are positive, with no suggestion of anything contentious, with one of the reviews specifically mentioning the appendix on dusty plasmas that I refer to, as "useful". --Iantresman (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Verifiable Reliable Sources vs "Fringe" sources

I hope there is no objection to breaking out a new section, but it seems that there is a separate issue, that a "fringe" source devalues a verifiable reliable source. As Itsmejudith mentioned above, there are indeed "minority academic viewpoints" whereas "fringe" may be pejorative. WP:FRINGE is not very helpful, mixing together many ideas, and the section on "Identifying fringe theories" just describes various kinds of ideas, without explaining how to identify them. So:

1. How do we independently verify that a source is more "fringe" than just "minority"?
2. Does this have a bearing on being a verifiable reliable sources?
3. Or should we be deleting all citations that are described by anyone as "fringe"? --Iantresman (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This should be resolved case by case. IMO it is a continuum. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Itsmejudith. Practical definitions of what is fringe are sometimes clear, but often not. The concepts of mainstream and fringe are helpful ones if seen as points at the extreme ends of a continuum, but practical consensus finding can become awkward if we try to divide ALL sources up into to one of these two extremes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This is where consensus comes in. When is a source "fringe"?... when a consensus of editors familiar with the topic say it is fringe. Will there be disagreements? Definitely! But disagreements are resolved by calling in yet more editors who are familiar with the topic until a clear consensus can be determined. Blueboar (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kota Kalabahi Kab.Alor

I want to report a problem with an article

Anyone can edit almost any page on Wikipedia by simply following the "Edit" link at the top of that page. Be bold in improving articles. When adding new facts, please try to provide references so they may be verified. If you are affiliated with the article subject, please see the conflict of interest guide.

If you are unable to fix a problem yourself, or require more help, you can contact us for more advice. If it's an article about you or your organization, see Contact us - Subjects.

I want to create a new article

If you haven't created one before, you should read Wikipedia:Your first article to see if your article might be appropriate for Wikipedia. Then the Article wizard will walk you through the actual process of creating an article.

I have a factual question

e.g. "Which country has the world's largest fishing fleet?"

If searching Wikipedia has not answered your question, at the Reference Desk you can ask questions about any topic. Volunteers will attempt to answer, or point you towards the information you need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kota Kalabahi Kab.Alor (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Factual question may be asked at the reference desk. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Cracked.com

Before I edit, I want to clarify something: how is the content of Cracked.com "largely user-generated"? I suppose this could be true if you're counting forums, comments section, and caption/photoshop contests. But I don't think there are many people who would consider that sort of content reliable anywhere. It's true that I could write something for Cracked right now, submit it, and it could be published as an article, but I could say the same about a scholarly journal. There's editorial control exercised in both cases. And since many Cracked articles link to citations, it's not a very unreliable site to begin with (although personally I'd always prefer to cite their citations here rather than citing Cracked directly). Acknowledging that a humor site will rarely be the best example of a reliable sources, I'd like to remove mention of Cracked. Any objections? --BDD (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Who suggested that it was largely user-generated? But I agree with your assessment, that it's the comedic equivalent of a scholarly journal. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It's actually mentioned on this page WP:IRS. Here is the relevant quote Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), Cracked.com, CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users. My guess is that BDD wants to remove the reference to cracked dot.com from that section believing that the statement about cracked.com being largely user generated to be inaccurate. Since you mentioned that Cracked.com is the comedic equivalent of a scholarly journal does that mean that you support the removal from the section in question?--174.93.171.10 (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Under our current advice, "material...labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users" would still be fair game. Do we really want material not from the staff to be generally considered reliable? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be stuff normally excluded on news sites: comments and forums, but not the articles themselves. Should we add the NY Times website because some parts of that are user generated?

What people would be citing would be from the staff. If someone tries to cite the comments or other parts that are user-generated, it would be no different than someone trying to cite the comments on a news article. The only single difference here is that Cracked is a humor site. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there a real need to include cracked there? I would think it is disqualified from being a reliable source by the mere fact that its writers and editors are professional comedians. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It's rarely the best choice, but I think it would be a real mistake to effectively blacklist Cracked because it's a comedy site. Their delivery doesn't mean what they write about, say, human evolution is unreliable. --BDD (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I would classify the entire thing is simply unnecessary to cite. They don't generate their own information, just write about what was reported elsewhere. But their authors are not experts in the fields they write about, so that something was reported on by Cracked is not an indication of significance. I like the articles, but if there is something there worth reproducing on Wikipedia we should be citing Cracked's own sources, where they are reliable. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, since there was some confusion, yes, the IP summed it up well. I guess I'm just not sure how we're defining Cracked staff. Is it the regulars with their own columns, presumably the ones who get salaries? How about recurring contributors like Jacopo della Quercia? That's more my concern. I don't want to draw a bright line that only allows the salaried columnists. Some of the recurring contributors get hired anyway, like Christina H. I'll go ahead and remove the mention on this page. --BDD (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Since they are sometimes an indication of notability (if nothing else), that seems reasonable. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

We would have to be cracked ourselves

Even at best Cracked.com is going to rise no higher than a popularized treatment intended primarily to entertain, but what could possibly possess anyone to want to enhance our reputation by using a humor website as the source for anything? I don't care how good their research is (and as someone else said earlier, if they are citing material, we could raid their citations for serious sourcing): using them directly invites ridicule. There can be no information on earth that we need so badly as to rely on them to supply it to us. Mangoe (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree. My point was not that Cracked is a reliable source which we should cite, just that it wasn't a good example of a "website whose content is largely user-generated." I removed mention of Cracked from this page, but I'm not at all suggesting adding it to any sort of whitelist or otherwise giving it blanket approval as a source. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Self-published but yet peer reviewed sources

Regarding the section of Self-published sources, I think we need a consensus regarding self-published but yet peer reviewed sources. I've created an example of such a source at Wikiversity:Average weight of a conventional teaspoon made of metal, as entered at Teaspoon#cite_ref-1. I think that self-published but yet peer reviewed sources can be acceptable if the peer review is verifiable, supports the claim that is entered in Wikipedia, and the peer reviewing entity is trustworthy in the subject at hand. In this example, the verifiability was achieved by putting the work through the Wikiversity:Peer review verification process, and high school science teachers were assumed to be trustworthy in the peer review of cutlery studies. Additional ideas are welcome, such as any specific credentials of the author of the work (such as academic degrees and/or previous experience across Wikimedia projects) or credentials of the peer reviewing entity. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No... Wikiversity's "peer review" is made by "trusted Wikimedia community volunteers"... who exactly are these "trusted volunteers"?... trusted by whom?... we can not rely on a self-appointed panel of "peers". Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

In the process of Wikiversity:Peer review verification, the Wikimedia community volunteers do not perform the peer review itself, but rather the verification of it (so that people can't falsely claim to have a work peer reviewed by, for example, a professor). Members of the Volunteer Response Team are chosen at meta:OTRS/volunteering, so I'd say it's a relatively trustworthy position. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

In the end, the source needs to be strong enough to support the weight of the claim. It's (barely) possible that this particular source, although something we normally avoid, would be okay for a suitably limited statement. But I don't think that Wikiversity's "peer review" is at all comparable to the normal peer review process, and it would still need to be treated like a self-published source (e.g., writing "According to one class project, the average weight of metal teaspoons is..."). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

And, of course, that raises DUE WEIGHT issues... does mentioning the conclusions of the class project give it UNDUE WEIGHT? Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

How could undue weight arise in this case, with no apparent counterview? Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice on presenting the results. Also, I do believe this system can be strengthened to be able to support heavier claims. For example, we can decide that inclusion in Wikipedia based on Wikiversity:Peer review verification minimally requires that the author has a verified academic degree that implies knowledge in the subject at hand, and has a reputable history of editing in Wikimedia projects (and possibly also a particular permission to suggest the addition of such sources), and that the peer reviewing entity must include at least one person with a doctorate degree. I think it's worth trying out, and we can always add additional requirements if it would seem necessary. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

There appear to be conflict of interest issues, if the pedia, is using the special "peer reviewed" publications of its own volunteers. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed I was both an author of the study and a member of the Volunteer Response Team in this case, and therefore I let the peer review verification be handled in a queue that I don't currently have access to (info-sv), and I think equivalent measures should be taken in similar situations in the future. One measure to further amend this issue is to form a peer review verification team that works on an open forum rather than in OTRS. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No. It does not appear that the COI is resolvable. The Pedia is a tertiary source that to the fullest extent possible should be entirely independent of its cited primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. User generated/reviewed studies or articles do not fit the bill. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Surely some COI persist, but according to WP:SELFCITE in WP:COI, self-citing is permitted if the source material is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive, and I think those issues are manageable. In this case, Wikiversity becomes a primary, secondary or tertiary source, and I don't find that very different from, for example, using Scholarpedia as a source (where the degree of transparency of the peer review process is considerably lower). Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The difference is apparent. Wikimedia publishes (and Wikimedia volunteers edit) the Pedia, and Wikimedia publishes (and Wikimedia volunteers edit and review) the self-publication proposed. However, Wikimedia and its volunteers do not publish, edit, or review the other source mentioned. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it should be forbidden for Wikimedia volunteers to publish, edit, or review the other source mentioned, and in fact I think it's very common for people who edit Wikimedia projects to also edit other wikis, so I still don't think it's that different. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we won't come to agreement on this, but note that no one is forbidding anyone frtom doing anything off wiki. Just that what they do on wikimedia projects, because there is not "arms length" distance, means that the COI is not remediable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)

I guess that I may agree on that former statement, and I think indeed that COI is a considerable problem that persists even after a peer review and its verification, deserving due attention, but at this stage I believe we can handle it on a case-by-case basis rather than with a complete ban. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It's an open wiki with no reputation for fact checking, so it's unreliable for the purposes here on wiki. This "peer review" [4] was carried out by two teachers at the same school. Who selects the peer reviewers? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Page protection is possible if the openness seems to be a major problem, and the peer review ensures fact checking. The peer reviewing entity is generally chosen by the author of the study, just as when publishing in scientific journals, since the author chooses which scientific journal to publish in, and thereby the people who will perform a peer review the work. Therefore, it is not an issue specific for this kind of procedure but to almost any published study. Also, if the situation of having the people coming from the same place seems to be a major issue, then it might be an idea to expand the minimal criteria with having an external examiner in the peer review entity. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Entering Information On Ones Own True Life History.

I have been trying to correct untrue information about myself. Twice, the correct information has been updated and entered by myself without embellishments and contains NO libelous material. Who , besides me is better to do this since I have lived it and they have NOT. Please advise. Thank you , Tim GormanTimtone (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The main guidelines for a case like this are located at:

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source, where you are the subject of the article in this case.
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself

A suggestion would be to describe and motivate the changes you want to make on the article's talk page. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

peter staples

Troggs they split because Pete wrote the songs Reg he registered them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.168.230 (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I doubt this belongs here. Mikael Häggström (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources for Names in BLP (essay for discussion)

I am putting together an essay at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Reliable Sources for Names in BLP, comments welcome. LittleBen (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS and Portal:Current Events

Today (11 Dec. 2012), there are (or have been) 3 items at Portal:Current Events that simply do not belong there. The item about banning helium balloons is overwrought, and based on a single as-yet-ungiven lecture by a university professor. The item about Swedish teachers preventing their kids from dressing up as gingerbread men appears completely fabricated, and the item about the banning classic literature in favor of teaching insulation techniques at schools in the US is sourced from a WP:RS which was snookered by a satirical article elsewhere.

I can't help but notice that all of these items are sourced from either The Daily Mail or The Daily Telegraph. Additionally, I can't help but note that both of these sources are considered borderline tabloids by many. Finally, I can't help but think that perhaps these sources should simply be blacklisted somehow, at least for the non-op ed content.

Today was a banner day for these sources getting news wrong but this occurs frequently with these sources on the Current Events page, where editorializing (and sometimes outright false!) headlines get re-printed and disseminated courtesy Wikipedia. Is there a blacklist process for WP:RS? BR, 130.188.8.27 (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with your assessments of these particular items. The other thing I noticed is how very British the content was. Do British newspapers know a lot about Christmas celebrations in Scandinavia? About the American school curriculum. Not by this showing! Consider the Mail as tabloid and rarely suitable sourcing for news, the Telegraph as generally reliable but watch out for lightweight non-stories like this one. Meanwhile, in Syria... Itsmejudith (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Vacat bit.ly/VEBrmf

Talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vacat (talk • contribs) 04:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Personal E-mails as sources

I'm running into a dilemma on an edit and I need guidance. There's an update I'm working on and the data is a little nebulous; sort of a "everyone knows it but no one can confirm it" situation. So I e-mail one of the people involved, and they give me confirmation that the data is in fact true.

However, I'm getting alot of people saying "You could be lying about the e-mail". Okay, I'm reluctant to share personal messages but I paste the text into the talk page. Now people are saying "You could have made that text up". So here I have an e-mail from the person who the edit is actually about, confirming the edit as true, yet I have no certifiable way of proving it. What's the best way to translate this into a Wiki-quality source? Does WP:AGF come into play here? Thanks! --SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I must stress that I'm not trying to accuse SuperAnth of lying: I simply know that posting the text of an email does not pass WP:V. Should a random reader come across the information, they have no way of verifying that this information is true. – Richard BB 13:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't required for a random reader to be able to verify the information. For example, you could use online sources hidden behind paywalls, some rare 19th-century book with no digital copy available, etc. However, I've never heard of e-mails being considered a reliable source. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No, we never use personal emails as reliable sources. We also don't use copies of driver's licences, birth certificates, etc. as I've had to tell people in my role as an OTRS volunteer. We only use material that is reliably published. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that is fairly conclusive. SuperAnth, I'm sorry that you weren't able to find what you were looking for - perhaps Valve might have published this information elsewhere? Perhaps if there's a "making of" for Portal 2, or a concept art book? – Richard BB 13:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The logic is sound so I have no complaint, but if I were to invite Miss. Dubuk to confirm the info here on Wikipedia, would I be accused of WP:Sock_puppetry?--SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

There have been instances of celebrities or other famous people editing Wikipedia (for example, Richard Dawkins has his own account). However, I'm not sure what the rules are on a person confirming something like this are on Wikipedia. I know they are discouraged from making the edits themselves, as it constitutes a conflict of interest. I doubt you'd be accused of sock puppetry if Miss Dubak confirmed the account was hers by email -- but, as I said, I'm still unsure on what the rules are for using that as a reliable source. – Richard BB 14:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I doubt you would be accused of sock puppetry... however, her comment would not make much difference as far as WP:RS goes. Again, the information needs to come from a published source. Unless she can point us to a published source, her comments would be considered Original Research (which while allowed on an article talk page, is not allowed in an article). Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we're good. I have confirmation from the admins that a post to her blog would count as published work. I'll ask her to do that and we should be all set.

--SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal communications are not reliable sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

even if its converted to a public blog posting, it is only suitable for a limited type of content per WP:SPS - non-controversial, content about the poster that is not unduely self serving. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal emails, assuming they have been published and authenticated/verified by reliable (3rd) party, may be used as primary sources with all the restriction that apply to them (it roughly the same as published snail mail of some person). If that assumption however is not true or rather uncertain, they cannot be used.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC) 70.39.185.35 (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Normally reliable sources are not reliable shortly after a major event

For example, many mainstream media outlets initially reported "Ryan Lanza" as the shooter in Connecticut, but later changed it to "Adam Lanza". We shouldn't consider any media source reliable until many hours after the event has happened. Sancho 20:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

These sorts of problems could be solved easily. Editors just have to realize that Wikipedia is not a news source! I think it's obviously unencyclopedic to try to capture news in real time, as opposed to writing articles a few days after the fact when everything settles down. I think ITN should be deleted and Portal:Current Events should have stricter requirements for this same reason.130.188.8.27 (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's do that then. How do we implement this? Sancho 17:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, after thinking about it, that doesn't seem easy at all, and the deletion of ITN and changes to Current Events are separate issues. Perhaps if the community changes its consensus about reliable sources, it could *result* in changes to ITN and Current Events, but I don't think that starting there is an easy way to solve this. Sancho 18:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"Reliable" and "always accurate" are not the same thing. A source can be, and in the instance you cited, actually was, both reliable and wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I know that reliable and "always accurate" are not the same thing. I disagree that mainstream news sources are reliable in the few hours after a major event. Sancho 21:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And what do you think would be better during those few hours? Do you have an alternative to propose? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There may be no reliable source during those few hours. Given that, I propose we just don't writing anything for those few hours. Sancho 06:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. There should be no alternative. Wikipedia is not a news source. If news is so unclear that basic facts (like, for example, the name of a killer) cannot be determined, then there is nothing of encyclopedic value to the subject, and thus it should not have a Wikipedia article. If current events should have their own Wikipedia pages (they shouldn't, but this is where we are) then they should be created long enough after the event that everything within the article has corroborating and independent sourcing. This is impossible for breaking news. With this in mind, I suggest the we get rid of ITN from the main page and make it part of a more-strictly moderated Portal:Current Events. That's my suggesting. I think that it's much better than the hit-and-miss track record of news here. 130.188.8.27 (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the best way to judge consensus about the reliability of news sources in the hours after a major event? I guess since nobody has spoken up until now, the consensus appears to be that they are considered reliable, but maybe it's just because the question hasn't been asked. Sancho 18:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The complaint question comes up every time there is a major news event. The result is always the same: it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, and by the time an AFD would close (after a week), then reliable sources (that aren't just "breaking news") already exist.

Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of editors. It is not actually possible to prevent them from creating an article six or twelve or twenty-four hours sooner than you believe they should. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking to prevent editors from creating articles six/twelve/24 hours sooner than I believe they should. I can't think of a time threshold before which an article shouldn't be written. I'm asking if there's consensus to not regard news as a reliable source in the few hours after a major event like this. Sancho 05:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It amounts to the same thing: no reliable sources "in the few hours after a major event" means no article "in the few hours after a major event". WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The general details are as reliable they would be under normal circumstances: a shooting/airplane crash/explosion happened, it happened in a particular location at an approximate time. It's the fine details that aren't reliable: death counts, detailed timeline of events, suspect names, etc. However, I think you're saying that if a policy (my proposed change, in this case) would restrict a particular behaviour (creation of articles too soon, in this case) that tends to happen anyway, then we shouldn't have that policy? Couldn't that argument be made against every policy or guideline in existence? Policies are in place to restrict/promote certain types of content or behaviour. So, yes, a change in guideline will have an effect on what types of content will be encouraged/discouraged, but I think that's okay. To be clear, about my particular proposal, I don't think it discourages creation of an article about the event. Sancho 19:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

My concern isn't that people will create articles based on poor sourcing of breaking news (which I know will happen anyway), but that Wikipedia itself disseminates the bad articles through ITN on the frontpage and Portal:Current Events. Even though I regularly !vote on ITN items, even I can say that the criteria for posting is only tenuously followed. Wikipedia is not a news source and while I think it's great that articles about current events get created (and edited, and eventually refined into something encyclopedic), having ITN on the frontpage only encourages fast (read: poor) article creation. This question complaint doesn't even touch on the acrimonious and political concensus-finding that occurs at ITN/C, or that the nominations for the new Recent Deaths ticker don't appear to follow any guidelines, or that Protal:Current Events is just a regurgitated RSS feed of a few editors. The "news" portions of Wikipedia operate completely contrary to the stated aims of Wikipedia, result in the spreading of bad or unsourced information, and I believe poison the editorial discourse. Delete ITN and find some way to reign in P:CE. That gets rid of the incentive to rush news articles and gives bad sourcing time to shake out before it ends up on a Wiki page. 130.188.8.27 (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with this. Probably most news stories start accurately enough and stay that way, but there are a lot of situations where there aren't any reliable sources. And I disagree utterly with the sentiment that source don't have to be accurate to be reliable: "reliable" means, in the end, "can be relied upon to give good information." In this sort of situation, mostly the media cannot be so relied upon, at least not to produce information of the magisterial quality that an encyclopedia is supposed to provide. We waste a lot of time with necessary edit-warring (because we have to fight over the conflicting reports) when what readers should be doing is reading the actual news sources, not us. When things settle down and the sources start to express a consensus about events, that's when we can take over. Mangoe (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I really want to keep this discussion about the determination of reliability rather than ITN and the Current Events portal, since this is the reliable sources talk page. From what you wrote, though, I understand that you are not concerned that unreliable sources are being used. Is that correct? If so, that gives evidence that status quo has consensus. Sancho 19:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

News articles are "reliable" for facts because their fact-checking process means that news articles usually give accurate information, not because they always give accurate information. Even where breaking news is concerned, only a small proportion of facts are wrong. We can and do rely on these sources, and doing so produces very few, and very temporary, problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You're pre-supposing consensus for the status quo. I'm asking us to re-evaluate whether error rate of news articles in the hours after a major event makes them unreliable for certain facts during that period. It seems to me that the news organizations' reputation for fact checking in the hours after an unexpected and catastrophic event is not as sturdy as their reputation for fact checking in general. We can and do rely on these sources, but should we? That's the question I'm asking. We certainly shouldn't require "always correct". But their accuracy is definitely reduced for some period of time following a major event that involves deaths, and perhaps it's reduced enough to not consider them reliable. This has been reported on by On the Media, the CBC, and Talk of the Nation. The guideline already says: "The reliability of a source depends on context." If consensus is that news organizations' reliability is diminished in the time after an unexpected and catastrophic event, we could add to WP:NEWSORG the following: "Numbers of deaths, names of suspects, and detailed descriptions of circumstances are [often/sometimes] reported in error by normally reliable news organizations in the period of time after an unexpected and catastrophic event. Avoid relying on even normally reliable news organizations for support of statements about this type of information before it has been presented by a public official". Sancho 19:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Changing venue: I wanted more input, since it's basically just a couple of us here. I started a discussion at WP:VPP. I tried to summarize WhatamIdoing's points against my proposal, but sorry if I've misinterpreted and feel free to correct me. Sancho 00:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

IMDB "written by" credits absolutely are a reliable source...they come directly from the Writer's Guild of America

...and edits to them will not be accepted.

I know IMDB has been discussed ad nauseum - and has been deemed to not be reliable. However, when it comes to writing credits at least, it ABSOLUTELY should be considered a reliable source - and this is not a grey issue. In fact, there is almost a no more reliable source than IMDB when it comes to writing credits.

Consider this: IMDB is an official partner with the Writer's Guild of America, a body that has the SOLE authority governing writing credits for signatory production companies - even superseding those production companies' authority. For example, if Disney makes a movie and pays for it...they still don't get to decide writing credits. The WGA has final authority in determining writing credits for its signatory companies. and, most importantly for the purposes of reliability, IMDB gets their writing credits directly from the WGA.

From the IMDB website: "IMDb Data Partner: The Writers Guild of America -- The Writers Guild of America (WGA) has a well-defined process for determining credits on projects produced under its jurisdiction. These productions are generally USA-controlled live-action film and TV projects, produced either by studios or major independent producers. In 1999, the WGA began furnishing credits directly to IMDb....The IMDb will not accept uncredited writers for titles with WGA-determined credits." http://www.imdb.com/partners/wga

What this means is, if the WGA doesn't agree a writer should be credited...then IMDB will not let that writer be credited. In other words, writing credits on IMDB are NOT subject to the whims of the masses...or even the internal editors. They come straight from the WGA. Furthermore, this is corroborated by the WGA on their website:

"The Credits Department determines the writing credits for theatrical and television projects produced under the Guild’s jurisdiction. Production companies are required to submit a Notice of Tentative Writing Credits to the Guild and the participating writers at the end of principal photography in order for the Guild to oversee the writing credits...In 2003 the Credit Department added Baseline/Filmtracker and TVTracker to the other major Internet databases (IMDb, IMDbpro and Upcomingmovies.com) with which the Guild provides WGA credits in order to improve the presentation and accuracy of writing credits." http://www.wga.org/uploadedFiles/who_we_are/annual_reports/credits04.pdf

In other words, the WGA is the sole arbiter of writing credits for signatory production companies (which is basically all of Hollywood)...and the WGA provides credits directly to IMDB. Try changing a writing credit on IMDB, see what happens. Nothing. How do we change wikipedia's policy on this? Swiftcasting (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we need to? Aren't the writers normally credited in the film itself, which is an acceptable primary source for such information? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Whatamidoing. Do we need to? Apparently -- since I created a page and some fairly prolific editor has told me IMDB isn't a reliable source for writing credits. I also cited the tv show itself to support my position (as you have suggested), and he told me those weren't acceptable since they didn't state EXACTLY what I had written. Specifically, I had written about a TV show's most prolific writer that has, to date, been credited on-screen on more episodes than any other individual writer - and I cited the actual shows themselves. But I was told because that exact phrase "more episodes than any other individual writer" didn't appear in the screen credits, I couldn't say that - which is nuts to me because the data is there...all you have to do is be able to add to count :) Maybe you can help me out? I'm new at this... http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Steven_D._Binder

Also, IMDB would still be a good source for people to be able to use (for writing credits at least) because it's a 1-stop shop for a writer's filmography. Otherwise, you'd have to cite possibly dozens of movies.

Actually, the other editor is right. Even if it's a matter of just being able to count, when no source thinks a fact like that important enough to mention, then it's not WP:DUE for inclusion here, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The other editor thought it worthy of mentioning...he just didn't think it was substantiated. In any case, that doesn't change the fact that IMDB should be a considered a credible source for writing credits, does it?... :) Swiftcasting (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed it should be a credible source. The argument is that IMBD is a fan based site, but no one seems to bring up that all content is reviewed by a staff, before being approved. FOX 52 (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Question about sources cited in another article

Is there a guideline somewhere about referencing facts that are summarised from a linked article? Eg, if the Anytown article had "Anytown is the home of Any University, notable for its bright green door" - if the bright green door is properly referenced at the Any University article, does it also need to be referenced in the Anytown article? Khendon (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Facts must be supported by reliable sources in each article, because Wikipedia articles are subject to frequent revision. By the time the reader gets to reading about the green door, the Any University article might not mention the door. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! Khendon (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Technically, the material only needs to be cited (anywhere in the entire encyclopedia) if it's one of the four WP:MINREF types of material. In practice, being cited in a related article makes it somewhat less WP:LIKELY that the material will ever be challenged in the article you're working on. So ideally you would copy over the citation, but it's probably not actually required for non-controversial information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Are online sources from 'reliable' websites OK when nearly all the references are from these websites and no reference books with page numbers etc cited?

I am in a friendly discussion with another editor about the appropriatness of online websites versus reliable printed material. He has used the Archimedes topic as an example. It seems that all (or nearly all) the references are to online websites which the editor claims to be better as they can be readily verified, unlike published books. He is now questioning a reference to a book on another topic because he cannot verify it online? This to me seems a reversal of Wiki's approach to reliable sources? Terry Macro (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Being the editor in question I am not aware of the reference in question.Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia treats online and offline sources the same. What matters is the work, the author, and the publisher, not the medium. Please read the /FAQ. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Reddit AMA's

Would Reddit AMA (Ask Me Anything) threads be considered reliable?

For those that don't know what these are, "famous" users can ask the Reddit admins to schedule an AMA. This requires the admins to have a validation of the account actually belonging to said person(s) to avoid impersonations. This involves behind-the-scenes communication between the person and the admins, but the process has been running long enough that it is very unlikely that if the admins verify the account as being that famous person, that it really is an imposter. At the AMA itself, uses post questions they want to ask, other users will up/downvote the questions they want to see asked, but the person doing the AMA is free to select what questions they will answer.

Now, in some cases, the AMA will be significant - President Obama did one while campaigning, or PSY the rapper did one - and reported in other, clearly more reliable sources (This suggests that the AMA process itself is considered reliable by other sources). But obviously not all AMAs are going to get reported like this, and often there are other famous people that are providing useful background/development information that could be used in an encyclopedic manner that other sources don't give. Thus the question is, can these AMA's be used as reliable sources, as long as we have Reddit's affirmation that the user is confirmed to be who they say they are? --MASEM (t) 15:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but under the policy about primary sources: WP:PRIMARY. Sancho 01:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Whether they're primary sources depends on the answer. "Dear Professor, please tell me what everyday life was like for Roman slaves" is not going to produce a primary source. "Dear Film Star, please tell me what your dream role is" will. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Good clarification. Sancho 19:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

When a reliable source refers to Wikipedia

Colin Groves & Peter Grubb. Ungulate Taxonomy (2011, The Johns Hopkins University Press). This is a source that we would unanimously consider the highest quality of reliable source. Experts in the field, university press, scientific credentials unassailed.

• Page 91: "Dama mesopotamica (Brooke, 1875) Mesopotamian fallow-deer On this species, see the Wikipedia article (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Persian_fallow_deer)."

Oh my. --Taivo (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Definition of "Questionable Sources"

Section 3.1 begins by saying "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." Perhaps this isn't the best wording. Reputation pertains to public perception; it may or may not be in accord with objective facts. For instance, somebody might have a reputation of being an upstanding citizen, but really be a serial killer. What I propose is that we replace "reputation" with the more objective word "record". One can demonstrate a sources record of checking facts by citing instances where the source was called out for "getting its facts wrong." Other people's input is, of course, welcome. --Piast93 23:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Such a change will be a tool for zealots to exclude any information they don't like from articles; they will demand an editor produce a "record" of the reliability of whatever source is being cited for the distasteful information. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that it would have any positive effect in practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In response to Jc3s5h's first point, some people will attempt to game the system regardless of what are policies happen to be. To say that it "will be a tool for zealots to exclude any information they don't like from articles" is a truism. If somebody did so, they'd be violating one of our other policies. Therefore, I don't believe that the proper question is whether or not my proposed change will be used as a pretext for POV pushing. As for your second point, the impetuous to show unreliability would be on those making the accusation, and not on the person who used the . If they merely asserted that a source was unreliable, their claim would be baseless. As for WhatamIdoing 's comment, can you please elaborate so that I can respond to your concerns? --Piast93 19:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the typical editor does not distinguish between a source's reputation for fact-checking and its record for fact-checking, so the change is normally meaningless. In the rare instance that it is not meaningless, I believe it will produce wikilawyering along the lines of "We can't use (anything on Fox News, anything from The New York Times, anything from Israeli newspapers, anything from Arab papers, etc.) because they once made the following demonstrable errors in completely unrelated sources and thus have a 'bad record for fact-checking', even though their overall reputation is as good as anyone else's."

I'd be happy to know more about the disputes that you believe this change will give you an advantage in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The guideline is lacking in metrics. At the RS noticeboard they typically apply the missing metrics. As with many things, if we could put what's working into words we;d have a good plan. I think that is basically as follows:

The strength of a sourcing (instance of sourcing) is measured by a combination of:

• Current wp:RS criteria
• Expertise with respect to topic of what cited it
• Objectivity with respect to the the topic of what cited it.

Controversial claims require stronger sourcing, and vice versa. North8000 (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Blogs vs. News sources

There is little distinction between a blog and a news organization in terms of reliability inherently, only by reliability-by-reputation, since there is more work that goes into making an organization -- but an organization can still be unreliable, and a blog can still be credible. FiveThirtyEight, for example, is a blog, but it's more reliable than many newspapers. Discriminating against self-published material like this seems pointless. You're assuming that there is some magic that happens in the process of publication, but there isn't. An editor looks over your writing, who may or may not know more than you do about what it is you're writing about, and that's it. This isn't, really, neutrality; it's favoring a certain model of publication over another. AlmaIV (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The primary distinction is one of editorial oversight and fact checking. News sources have a reputation for such, Self-published blogs do not. That said, we actually don't have a blanket ban on using blogs... because there are different kinds of "Blogs".

1. Some "Blogs" are not actually self-published. They are published by a corporation. They have an editorial board and a system of fact checking. These are legitimate journalism websites that happen to use a blog format... they are actually no different than a dead-tree newspaper or a TV network. These are reliable in the exact same way that newspaper or TV reporting is reliable (ie we generally trust them for facts, but recognize that a specific report may contain errors and thus be unreliable for a specific statement). Note also that we distinguish between news reporting and opinion pieces in these blogs... (just as we distinguish between news and opinion in other news outlets). Opinion pieces are limited in how and when they can be used. When we do use them, we phrase what we take from them as being the author's opinion (with attribution)... we also assess them according to WP:DUE WEIGHT.
2. The next level of "Blog" are those that are self-published, but published by a respected expert. There are limitations as to how we use these (as set out at WP:SELFPUB)... and generally, we do not use these for unattributed facts (we attribute to make it clear to the reader that the information is opinion, but the opinion of an expert).
3. Finally there are self-published blogs by non-experts. These are not reliable at all and should not be used.

Now, there may be disagreements over which class a specific blog should be placed in... These disputes are settled through discussion and consensus on the article talk page, or by consensus at noticeboards like WP:RSN. Blueboar (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Reputation is not necessarily reality. Even if there is an editor, you have no idea how much oversight that editor is actually doing, or how much knowledge of facts that editor has. Not all news organizations publish their "system of fact checking" either, whatever that is. I am also curious as to what you think defines "opinion", since any declarative sentence in the English language using "is" will be a claim to factuality, and the only difference between opinion/fact here is the perception of how the "is" statement is being made.

In any case, that doesn't really answer my question. What distinction to you think there is between a blog that reports on an incident, and an eyewitness testimony? In the eyewitness testimony, someone witnesses something and essentially recalls from memory, then a reporter writes about it and it's published. You would count that as a legitimate source, yes? So what about a blog that reports on eyewitness testimony? You wouldn't include that, I take it, because it isn't subject to editor review. The editor doesn't have some magical oversight to sort out facts from non-facts. This distinction is unnecessary, because it's up to reputation, which is perception, which is subjective. AlmaIV (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

We would normally avoid both of those, because eyewitness news reports are primary sources, and we strongly prefer secondary sources.

We do, however, expect the editor to add some value. The primary value is simply in having another human read over the proposed news article and think about how probable it is that the article is accurate. It's not about magic; it's just an extension of the sensible rule that a fresh set of eyes will do a better job proofreading something than the person who wrote it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Transcript of a lecture hosted on a student organization's page

• Note: Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Just a quick query about this article

I just had a quick query to the article information under the sub-heading "Questionable sources" - the article says that included in this category are "websites" but can't at least some websites be reliable sources? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - I think that I took that the wrong way - I think I should have read that as "websites and publication that are extremist" - so I can see now how the article was not referring to websites in general, just those promoting extremist views. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Question on using a blogspot.com page for reference

I know that most blogs can't be used. But I've come across a blog site that documents something specific.

In this example, it's the Indonesian Army having acquired a 4x4 through license-made vehicles. There are not much details available on the net/books yet.

Ominae (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the blogger an "expert" as defined under WP:SPS? If not, then you can't use it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Should or must?

Sorry if this has been brought up before---As articles that are not based on a reliable sources (based in terms of establishing notability) are normally deleted, should this guideline not better start with Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable, published sources, instead of the much weaker should? --Pgallert (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Long story short, IMHO no. Sounds nice but is problematic. North8000 (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"are to" is a better fit there, since here it is only an introductory to why Identifying RS matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability is about the topic, not about the current version of the article. So you don't delete articles that are based on lousy sources; you delete articles that can't be based on good sources.

So imagine that we didn't have an article at Cancer, and so I wrote one, but it was based on lousy sources (or didn't name any sources at all). We wouldn't delete Cancer, because that's a notable subject, no matter what a mess I made of it. Instead, we would re-write the article to use (and cite) good sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the feedback. --Pgallert (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Biased or opinionated sources

We've talked about the need for this for a couple of years, so I've boldly added the following to kickstart the conversation again:

Biased or opinionated sources

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.

Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "According to the opinion columnist Maureen Dowd..." or "According to the opera critic Judith Martin..."

Please suggest improvements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A good essay on this. Bus stop (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that one before. Do you think it would be useful to link it (in the guideline and/or the /FAQ)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a very good essay. It is brief and it addresses exactly the question of how to present multiple points of view to achieve a neutral point of view. It also is a solution to a lot of disputes. Editors sometimes fail to understand that two sides in a dispute can both be "right", if both of their points of view receive appropriate representation in an article. Linking to it seems like a good idea to me. Bus stop (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If they are expressing their own opinion, they are not a source, they would be an object of coverage by a source (or a primary source on what the writer's opinion is). If they are covering something else, then the higher degree of bias, the lower quality of the source, and the higher degree of objectivity, the higher the quality of the source. North8000 (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand this. If the President of the United States expresses his opinion that a given piece of legislation would be beneficial, is the President not a reliable source, despite that being an opinion? If a theater critic expresses his opinion that a given film would be more enjoyable if it were shorter and more rapid, are the critic's writings not a reliable source about the length and pace of the film? If the Catholic Church expresses its opinion about a point of theology, is that not a reliable source about their opinions on the theological question?

Objectivity is not the same as quality. Sources can be entirely objective and entirely wrong; similarly, a source can be entirely subjective and still reliable. Who better, after all, to answer a question of what experts believe about something than the experts who are publishing their beliefs about it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes for those two examples I agree with you, and that is essentially what I was saying. In both cases, they are a primary source on what their opinions are. North8000 (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Blueboar: What do you mean the preference depends on the topic, when would we not prefer scholarship, if its available? Never. Morever, the edit you reverted did not suggest that scholarship was always unbiased, in fact it says such is not required. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Say we are writing an article on Politics of Global Warming (ie an article describing on how debates over Global Warming impact Politics). This is an article focused on politics... Academic sources are not going to be the best sources for this ... political pundits and respected newspaper columnists would be much better sources. I am not saying we ignore academic sources, but we wouldn't give them preference over media sources. Blueboar (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

But we would, in fact, prefer articles and reviews from the Journal of Poiltical Science on the topic of the Politics of Global Warming, or high quality books on that topic, over some editors mash-ups of newsorg opinion columns. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Often, but not necessarily always. Wikipedia doesn't have a "scholarly point of view". If a non-scholarly POV is better supported by non-scholarly sources, then we would use non-scholarly sources. This is likely to be rare for climate change, but it's going to be fairly common for sports and pop culture, because scholars simply don't care about some aspects of these subjects. For example, if the question is "How much money did Pfizer make from Viagra last year?", I'd prefer the reports in the financial press over the reports in an academic journal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

No. We would in fact prefer a scholarly article from the Journal of Finance on Pfizer profits for the last five years over daily new reports, because they are subject to higher rigor. (If your point is we can't rely on sources that don't exsist, I already did say that.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

We would normally prefer a story about the profits from the Wall Street Journal, because:

• the academic paper is going to be out of date by the time it actually gets published,
• the academic paper is less likely to be focused on the specific question (part of "appropriate" is not merely mentioning something in passing), and
• the scholarly source is not more likely to be accurate (in fact, it may be significantly less accurate, because it may be "Pfizer's profits: A worked example to show off my new accounting method that nobody else accepts" rather than just "Pfizer's profits").

When citing the scholarly source does not improve the article, it only makes the citations sound more impressive. "Sounding impressive to people who don't know anything" is not one of our criteria for reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm? No on said it sounded impressive. What was said is we judge sources by their rigor, oversight, reflection and acceptance in the relevant area of knowledge. It's also interesting that your argument seems to be that the newsorg is a better source than the duly audited and filed annual report but you don't suggest a rationale for why that would be so. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal is "accept[ed] in the relevant area of knowledge". It easily meets all of the requirements for a reliable source, including fact-checking and editorial oversight.

The firm's own financial reports are self-published, non-independent, and not fact-checked. It might be "reliable" at a minimal level (but see accounting scandals), but it is not what the community prefers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The Journal of Finance has a better reputation in the area of knowledge, and an accepted peer review for the information, and a better expertise. Where do you think the newsorg gets its information from? Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

We routinely use the original works of fiction, rather than scholarly writings about the work, as the source for our plot summaries. There are times when the original, primary source is the most authoritative source available. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

We never use the primary source for an opinion about itself, because it does not give an opinion about itself, for that we rely on scholarship where available. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

We most certainly do WP:USEPRIMARY sources. We don't use primary sources for an interpretation or analysis of themselves, but we do use them for all sorts of things. A painting of a cow's skull on a red, white, and blue background, for example, is a perfectly good primary source for supporting a statement like "This painting shows a cow's skull on a red, white, and blue background." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I am glad we agree that we never use a primary source for an opinion about itself. Since this section is about non-neutral opinions, there is no point in discussing primary sources as sources for what the primary source is, as it is not being used as a source for a non-neutral opinion. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I follow your comment until the last line. I don't understand the last line. So let me give you an example: Watson and Crick wrote a famous paper about DNA. It won them a Nobel Prize. We can cite that primary source for information about DNA, e.g., that DNA, rather than protein, is what carries genetic information. We cannot cite that primary source for opinions about the primary source, e.g., that it was an enormously important paper or that the paper won them a Nobel Prize. "Enormously important" is an opinion about Watson and Crick's paper, and we cannot cite Watson and Crick's paper as proof that the paper is enormously important, because that opinion does not actually appear anywhere in Watson and Crick's paper. We can, however, cite any number of other sources, including both primary and secondary sources, if those sources make a claim that Watson and Crick's paper was "enormously important". We could cite a primary source that says this ("According to Alice Expert in her memoirs, Watson and Crick's paper was 'enormously important'") or we could cite a secondary source ("Watson and Crick's paper was enormously important"≤ref>Expert, Alice. A Scholarly History of Genetics≤/ref>). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Alice Expert's memoir is not a primary source for Wilson and Crick's paper, and while it maybe a primary source for Alice Expert's opinion, we still would not prefer it where better soucing is available. More importantly, we would actually prefer a source more appropriate for the material in question, which would be an academic overview of the intellectual history arising from the Wilson and Crick paper (either in book form or otherwise) because that is the claim we are making, and that is the summary of information we are providing - from the highest quality source available -- (such an overview would, almost as importantly, put Alice Expert's memoir in proper context and weight) Alternatively, we would prefer Alice Expert's academic article or book on the claim we are making, rather than her memoir, because that would better support our claim in more depth and rigor. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Alice Expert's memoir is not being used "for" Watson and Crick's paper; it is being used solely for her own assessment of the importance of that paper, which is a materially different subject. The most authoritative source in the world for this statement, which I remind you was "According to Alice Expert in her memoirs, Watson and Crick's paper was 'enormously important'", not simply "Watson and Crick's paper was enormously important", is Alice Expert making that statement herself in her memoirs. We do not actually prefer second-hand reports about what her memoir says.

Now for the second claim, the materially different "this is a simple, unattributed fact" claim, then certainly we would prefer a secondary source. Or two of them, even, to demonstrate that it's a widely held view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This is going backwards. We already agree (several posts up) that the best source for the opinion is the opinion itself (primary). However, whether or not it's a worthwhile opinion of merit on the subject matter we are discussing is a matter for high quality secondary sources to make that case, or barring their availability, we would prefer primary sources with better argument development and editorial oversight in the relevant field of knowledge (such as Alice Experts academic article). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This isn't going backwards. This is dealing with the fact that there is no universally perfect source. The ideal source depends on the material you need to support. If you need to support "Alice Expert expressed this opinion in her memoirs", then you should cite the memoirs. If you need to support "This is a proven scientific fact", then you should cite a top-quality, scientific secondary source. That's what that big section labeled "Context matters" in the lead is about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This keeps going backwards. No one said there is a universally perfect source. There are better sources and not better sources. The better sources are the ones prepared by experts in editorial environments that check facts and carefully vet and layout arguments. In matters of opinion they are sources that weigh and explicate the various opinions, with attention to the facts on which the opinions are based. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No. You've described sources that are better for some common purposes, not sources that are better for every single purpose. If you want to support a claim that Joe Film said ____ on his blog, you should cite Joe Film's self-published blog posting in which he actually said ____, not the sources "prepared by experts in editorial environments that check facts and carefully vet and layout arguments". This is the official guidance from the community, not merely my opinion. This guideline says, "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I've described sources that are best for common purposes. That was the point I was making. If there are matters upon which the primary source is to be quoted, one quotes the primary source, but if there are matters upon which the primary source is to be vetted, weighed, and judged, one relies on secondary sources that vet, weigh, and judge its import, but one doesn't rely on the primary source for that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned by one of the examples above. Opera critics are not "biased". They are meant to express their opinion. It is a professional opinion, not a personal one. And all professionals need to express judgements. There is often a subjective element but that does not mean that professional judgements are not worth knowing. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree, also there is no call to single out anyone by name. Which was also reverted by Blueboar. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think that Judith Martin is the preferable name to give there, because in her role as a professional theater and drama critic (opera happens to be her favorite form of theater; the Wikipedia article is incomplete), she famously panned the Star Wars movie in ways that have generated sustained assertions of bias well beyond giving "a professional opinion". But it would be desirable to introduce the word "subjective" into that sentence. My primary purpose with that example is to support using good reviews when writing about art. I've seen too many claims recently that "subjective" sources like art reviews are unreliable by definition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

What is StarWars? Is it some American thing? Itsmejudith (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

See Star Wars. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the main thing about using biased/opinionated sources is that they should only be reliable sources for documenting opinions and not used to try to be a source for facts or what is consensus opinion of others, etc. Now certainly opinion and bias is in a sliding scale in most every source, but groups that have clear agendas (either stated or as documented by other reliable sources) should not be used in a way to push that agenda onto the article. We need a lot more attribution in articles (x says this, versus y and z say this other thing) instead of people trying to pick and choose one source to speak for everyone. I see a lot of people here picking sources that agree with what they want to say and trying to use it as the only source on a topic. DreamGuy (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

So if Fox News says that President Obama held a press conference, then you don't think that it should be used? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say that Fox News is objective with respect to that particular statement. North8000 (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone sees it that way. That's why we've got this section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)