→Question To Be Asked: not a good source on its own. |
|||
Line 486: | Line 486: | ||
I think ArbCom is going to ignore this issue. So I think it is best we file a RFC. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] <sup>[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]</sup> 23:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
I think ArbCom is going to ignore this issue. So I think it is best we file a RFC. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] <sup>[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]</sup> 23:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
||
::I'm constructing an ongoing list of articles on my talk page about articles that could be cited if Salon.com is deemed a stand-alone reliable source. Needless to say, liberals are going to a have field day. They can justify any liberal, opinionated bias they may have on Wikipedia because ''"Salon.com said so"'': [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SSS108#Current_Controversies List Of Reliable(?) Salon.com Articles] [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] <sup>[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]</sup> 03:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
::I'm constructing an ongoing list of articles on my talk page about articles that could be cited if Salon.com is deemed a stand-alone reliable source. Needless to say, liberals are going to a have field day. They can justify any liberal, opinionated bias they may have on Wikipedia because ''"Salon.com said so"'': [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SSS108#Current_Controversies List Of Reliable(?) Salon.com Articles] [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] <sup>[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]</sup> 03:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
||
==Not a great source on its own== |
|||
* Given the editors' identification of Salon as a "tabloid" and wikipedia policy on tabloids, Salon should be used with care and other sources would be preferred. |
|||
* Given the nature of the awards (see criticisms above) Salon appears to have had some credibility by one legitimate journalism awarding agency, but only with respect to on-line journalism. This suggests that when other sources are available they should be preferred. |
|||
* I note that when I have seen Salon used, it is used to insert a writer's opinion by proxy through a quote. Quoting editorials and opinions, even from more reliable sources should be discouraged. From a biased source, they should be especially limited. |
|||
However, Salon apparently strives for journalistic competence and should not be considered to be on the same level as a single editor "Blog". It might be considered on par with [[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/resources/about_WND.asp World Net Daily]]. In both cases a second source is a good idea and reliance on editorial types of articles expressing opinions should be discouraged. --[[User:Blue Tie|Blue Tie]] 13:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:33, 10 November 2006
This page is a central discussion forum for the question whether salon.com is a reliable source. It is clear that this may vary somewhat per subject.
User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Salon.com_as_a_Source
Claimed awards
from http://www.salon.com/press/awards/index.html retrieved 9 Novemeber 2006
2004 "Outstanding Digital Journalism Article" | GLAAD "Outstanding Journalist" (David Talbot) | Carr Van Anda Award
2003 "Top 100 Classics" (News & Entertainment categories) | PC Magazine "Feature Journalism -- Independent" | Online Journalism Awards
2002 "Best Print and Zine" | Webby Awards "Best 50 Web Sites" | Time Magazine "Best of the Web | Book Clubs" Forbes "Outstanding Digital Journalism Overall Coverage" | GLAAD
2001 "Best Online Magazine" | Yahoo Internet Life "Top 100 Websites" | PC Magazine "Outstanding Digital Journalism Article" | GLAAD "Best Independent Enterprise Journalism" | Online Journalism Awards
2000 "General Excellence" | Online Journalism Awards "Enterprise Journalism " | Online Journalism Awards "Best Technology Site" and "Best Parenting Site" | Forbes "Best of the Web -- Media, Politics" | Brill's Content "Best Online Magazine" | Boston Phoenix "Outstanding Digital Journalism Article" | GLAAD
1999 "David Talbot, 20 Stars of the New News" | Newsweek "Best Online Magazine" | Webby Awards "Top of the Net" | Yahoo Internet Life
1998 "Best Online Magazine" | Webby Awards "Best of Multimedia" | Entertainment Weekly "Top of the Net" | Yahoo Internet Life
1997 "Best Online Magazine" | Webby Awards "Cool Site of the Year" | U.S. News & World Report "Best of the Web" | Business Week "Best Website" | Entertainment Weekly "Best Online Magazine of the Year" | Advertising Age "Top of the Net" | Yahoo Internet Life
1996 "Web Site of the Year" | Time Magazine "Cool Web Designers of the Year" | Cool Site of the Day
Assessment of Claimed Awards
1996 Awards are not for Journalism, but for website design.
1997 Awards: 4 are obviously related to website design or popularity not Journalism. Webby award, though seemingly related to Journalism is really a web design award per webbyawards.com's stated purpose. The "Advertising Age" "Best Online Magazine of the Year" award is unclear -- A google search shows that only Salon has won this award, and it is not clear how Advertising Age is a good source of journalistic judgment
1998 Awards: Web Design awards. Not Journalism
1999 Awards: 2 Web Design Awards. One Award mentioned is not an award. It is an article in Newsweek and it is not about Salon but rather, it is about Salon's founder and it is related to his status as a mover and shaker.
2000 Awards: First year with Journalism Awards: Online Journalism Awards (2) are sponsored by a school of journalism. Forbes Awards are legitimate awards, but they are not for journalism. "Best of the Web" by Brill's Content and "Outstanding Digital Journalism Article" by GLAAD may not be actually related to journalistic quality since both of those "award givers" have axes to grind. Brill, however, specifically was designed to review journalism and the media. "Best Online Magazine" by the Boston Phoenix does not appear to be a real award. Only Salon is mentioned on Google when this is brought up.
2001 Awards: One legitimate Journalism Award (Online Journalism Award). GLAAD is an advocacy (ax to grind) group. Other awards are website design/popularity.
2002 Awards: No actual Journalism Awards. GLAAD is an advocacy (ax to grind) group. Other awards are website design/popularity awards, not journalism content awards.
2003 Awards: One Journalism award. The other is not an award but rather a listing in a magazine, nor is it specifically about journalism.
2004 Award. GLAAD is an advocacy (ax to grind) group. Not a clean journalism award.
In short, over these 8 years there were three years with legitimate journalism awards. These are all from one source: Online Journalism Awards. No other Journalism awards are found. This suggests that Salon is, sometimes, one of the best on-line journalism sources according to one awarding group, but it does not suggest that Salon is one of the best journalism sources when all types of media are considered by all awarding bodies. --Blue Tie 13:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Staff list
(retrieved 9 Novemeber 2006) Complete Staff List Departments: Editorial Premium Community Design Technology Business Development Syndication Sales PR Finance / Administration Chief Executive Officer Elizabeth Hambrecht bhambrechtATsalon.com SVP/Publisher Chris Neimeth chris@salon.com Editor in Chief Joan Walsh jwalsh@salon.com Chief Financial Officer Conrad Lowry clowry@salon.com Vice President, Operations Max Garrone max@salon.com Vice President, Technology Michael Mathog mmathog@salon.com Vice President, New Projects Scott Rosenberg scottr@salon.com Washington Bureau Chief Walter Shapiro wshapiro@salon.com New York Editorial Director Kerry Lauerman klauerman@salon.com
Editorial Managing Editor Jeanne Carstensen jeanne@salon.com Associate Managing Editor Ruth Henrich ruth@salon.com Writer at Large Gary Kamiya kamiya@salon.com
Arts & Entertainment Deputy Editor Amy Reiter areiter@salon.com Associate Editor (Audiofile and the Fix) Scott Lamb slamb@salon.com Senior Writer Stephanie Zacharek szacharek@salon.com Senior Writer Andrew O'Hehir aoh@salon.com Television Critic Heather Havrilesky hh@salon.com
Books Editor Hillary Frey hfrey@salon.com Senior Writer Laura Miller lauram@salon.com
Life Send submissions to life@salon.com
Editor Lauren Sandler lsandler@salon.com Associate Editor Sarah Karnasiewicz skarnasiewicz@salon.com Staff Writer Rebecca Traister rtraister@salon.com Staff Writer Cary Tennis tennis@salon.com
News / Politics Send submissions to newsteam@salon.com
News Editor Mark Schone mschone@salon.com Features Editor Kevin Berger kberger@salon.com Deputy News Editor Michal Keeley mkeeley@salon.com Senior Writer Tim Grieve tgrieve@salon.com Senior Writer King Kaufman kaufman@salon.com Washington Correspondent Michael Scherer mscherer@salon.com National Correspondent Mark Benjamin mbenjamin@salon.com Associate Editor Mark Follman mfollman@salon.com Assistant Editor Page Rockwell prockwell@salon.com
Opinion Send submissions to opinion@salon.com
Technology & Business Send submissions to 22nd@salon.com
Senior Writer Andrew Leonard aleonard@salon.com Senior Writer Katharine Mieszkowski km@salon.com Staff Writer Farhad Manjoo farhad@salon.com
Copy Desk Send corrections to copyedit@salon.com
Contributing Writers David Amsden Thomas Bartlett Aluf Benn Sidney Blumenthal Eric Boehlert Juan Cole Joe Conason Tom Engelhardt Suzy Hansen Lynn Harris Arianna Huffington Garrison Keillor Lori Leibovich Susan McCarthy Camille Paglia Mitchell Prothero Phillip Robertson Larry Smith Patrick Smith Cintra Wilson Douglas Wolk
Please send support requests to premiumhelp@salon.com
Join Salon Premium Premium Support
Community Director of Communities Gail Ann Williams gwilliams@salon.com Table Talk Host Mary Elizabeth Williams marybeth@well.com The Well Systems Programmer Pete Hanson wolfy@salon.com Conference Host Manager Cynthia Dyer-Bennet cdb@salon.com Well Helpdesk Representative Katherine Branstetter kathyb@salon.com Billing/Helpdesk Rep. Tristan Tom ttom@salon.com
Design Contact design@salon.com
Art Director Bob Watts bob@salon.com Illustrator Mignon Khargie mignon@salon.com Contributing Illustrator Zach Trenholm zach@zachtrenholm.com
Technology General inquiries: it_staff@salon.com
Vice President, Technology Michael Mathog mmathog@salon.com Software Engineer Dominic Dela Cruz dominic@salon.com Programmer Jerry Palmisano jpalmisano@salon.com Web Engineer Louis Bennett lbennett@salon.com Jr. Engineer Nico Raffo nraffo@salon.com Unix Systems Administrator Doug Herr dherr@salon.com IT Manager Jim Gordon jgordon@salon.com
Business Development General inquiries: bizdev@salon.com
Syndication Send all reprint inquiries to: syndication@salon.com
Sales General inqiries: salesteam@salon.com
Vice President, Sales Harvey Gamm harvey@salon.com Sales Manager Tom Fuhrman tomf@salon.com Advertising Traffic Manager Dragana Kalezic dragana@salon.com Account Manager, Eastern Region Robin Lisle rlisle@salon.com Account Manager, Western Region Wendy Aten waten@salon.com Ad Traffic Coordinator Sergeja Plahhutta splahhutta@salon.com
Public Relations Inquiries: pr@salon.com
Finance / Administration Chief Financial Officer Conrad Lowry conrad@salon.com Accounting Manager Alan Choi achoi@salon.com Accounts Payable Coordinator Paul Lesniak plesniak@salon.com Staff Accountant Sze-wing Lam slam@salon.com Receptionist San Francisco Amelia Nash anash@salon.com
Salon.com - A tabloid?
According to Salon.com editor in chief David Talbot:
Is Salon more tabloid-like? Yeah, we've made no secret of that. I've said all along that our formula here is that we're a smart tabloid.[1]
Tabloids, should be used with caution, in particular in BLPs. If material published in a Salon.com is not available from any other source whatsoever, and that material is controversial, great caution should be excercised by editors. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Great, now I will work on that next. My next argument is that Trouw is not permissible because it is an exclusively one-sided attack on Sathya Sai Baba and it is from a tabloid to boot. SSS108 talk-email 15:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Please define "tabloid" in this context. Salon consistently hires exemplary writers and respected professional journalists. It consistently publishes accurate articles. It is far more credible and reliable than many of the left/right leaning opinion magazines that are cited all over Wikipedia -- national review, weekly standard, etc. I think it depends on the issue it is being cited on whether a Salon citation is useful, but it should not be removed just because it is from Salon. Also, we should be looking at the writer and not the magazine. If a credible journalist publishes an article there about something it should not matter that the editor has been quoted using the word tabloid. Notably, after the cited comment, he says this:
“ | If by tabloid what you mean is you're trying to reach a popular audience, trying to write topics that are viscerally important to a readership, whether it's the story about the mother in Houston who drowned her five children or the story on the missing intern in Washington, Chandra Levy. Slate, by the way, also had a story about Chandra Levy on its June 22 cover. Maybe Salon's tabloidism is starting to infect Slate as well, but they're not above or immune to writing about subjects that have a tabloid-like sensibility to them. While Salon has not yet broken any major stories on the shocking and scandalous practice of monkeyfishing in the Florida Keys, we have made other contributions in the field of investigative journalism of which we're proud. | ” |
I'd say this whole page is bogus; it sounds to me like someone is trying to exclude Salon based on its political leanings rather than its journalism.--csloat 07:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Context is needed to ask this question
This is not a black and white question. And the question should not be "Is Salon.com a reliable source?" The question needs to be made in the context of a specific content dispute:
- Is Salon.com the only source available for the disputed material?
- If the answer is yes, use with caution, or maybe do not use at all, in particular if the material is highly controversial;
- If the answer is no, use a more reliable source such as a mainstream newspaper, or better, a scholarly source, if availabe.
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- ad 3. I think salon.com is better than many mainstream newspapers. Andries 06:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- What is being asked is a simple question, if Salon.com is the only source for a highly controversial material, should editors excercise caution when using it, or not? in particular if the material is used in a BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- What does exercising caution mean in practice? Andries 17:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree with Jossi's suggestion that scholarly sources are generally better sources in this particular dispute, because generally religious scholars do not themselves try to investigate sexual abuse claims. This is done by investegative journalists. Andries 17:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sure. But an investigative journalism of a tabloid, needs to be taken cum grano salis. And if the allegations have any substance, these will eventualy picked up by scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Look at the awards given to salon.com listed hereabove. Clearly salon.com is generally quality journalism. I think that further discussion does not make any sense. Andries 18:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- What is being asked is a simple question, if Salon.com is the only source for a highly controversial material, should editors excercise caution when using it, or not? in particular if the material is used in a BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- ad 3. I think salon.com is better than many mainstream newspapers. Andries 06:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Once again, this is not about Salon.com as an entity. It is about one of their tabloid articles against Sathya Sai Baba that has never been referenced by other reliable or reputable media. Try to get that through your head. SSS108 talk-email 19:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- And one must also remember that at the time Goldberg's article was written, there were numerous stories that Salon.com was fading and would go offline [4]. Even at that time, Talbot frequently called Salon.com a "smart tabloid". SSS108 talk-email 19:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- The only source of the "tabloid" quote was taken totally out of context. I find this discussion disingenuous. The fact that Talbot used that phrase does not invalidate the journalism in the magazine. It appears like an attempt to get more readers. In fact, the very next sentences defend the investigative journalism of the magazine. To use that one word to substantiate the claim that Salon is on its face invalid as journalism is simply mendacious. I don't see a single mention on this page of a single fact that Salon.com got wrong anywhere. Since this discussion is being used to invalidate Salon's use on other pages, it is also wrong to state that it is "not about Salon.com as an entity."--csloat 08:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Question To Be Asked
Andries, you are confusing Salon.com with the Salon.com article by Goldberg. The question that should be asked is: Are ALL of Salon.com articles to be considered reliable despite the fact that they refer to themselves as an online tabloid? It is clear that when it comes to critical, negative and potentially libelous information, WP:BLP and WP:RS lay out specific guidelines to determine the reliability of an article. I think it is abundantly clear that this Salon.com article does not fulfill Wikipedia's requirements because: 1) The online article in question has never been referenced by other reputable media; 2) It was written like (and sounds like) a tabloid article and 3) It contains negative, critical and potentially libelous information (which would require multiple sources to establish its reliability according to WP:BLP and WP:RS). Just because Salon.com may generally be considered reliable does not make ALL their online tabloid articles reliable. Goldberg's article, in my opinion, falls into the category of unreliable articles. SSS108 talk-email 03:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- As, I said and as can be verified, salon.com is generally considered a reliable source throughout Wikipedia. If you think that the article on SSB by Michelle Goldberg is an exception then the burden of proof is on you. I think the article is an example of the generally good quality of salon.com Andries 06:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Andries, you have not answered my question: Do you consider ALL the articles on Salon.com to be reliable, despite their self-admitted status as an online tabloid? Yes or no. SSS108 talk-email 15:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Reliability depends on the context, but when an editor wants to exclude a publication that is generally considered reliable, like Salon.com then the burden of proof that the specific article is unsuitable as a source for a certain article is on him/her. Andries 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- No. The burden of proof is on the editor wanting to add material, not the one wanting to remove it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. Somebody who argues that a reliable source, like the New York Times canoot be used as source for an article has something to explain. Andries 18:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Andries is correct. Given that we seem to be in agreement that Salon is in general a reliable source and no specific argument has been given as to why it would not be reliable in this case, the burden is clearly on those who wish to remove it. The NYT analogy is a good one. JoshuaZ 18:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Despite all the argumentation above, no one has responded to the main question: "If Salon.com the is the only source available for highly controversial material in a BLP, should it be used or not? Context, my friends, context. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, Salon.com is high quality journalism. Andries 18:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I would want to know the answer to this question: Are there any other sources to support that specific material? If not, why? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am not sure about specific material you are refering to, but the stance and the allegations voiced in salon.com do not differ much if they differ at all from those of other reputable sources. Andries 18:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have to check if I have time, but again I will not replace references to salon.com with references to ordinary mainstream newspapers because I consider salon.com generally better than ordinary mainstream newspapers. I may add references to mainstream newspapers. Andries 22:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Why not? If there are requests from fellow editors to use mainstream media rather than Salon.com, why not to listen and agree? You believe that Salon.com is a better source than a mainstream newspaper, but I don't, for obvious reasons. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Jossi, finding alternative reputable sources is a lot of work that does not improve the encyclopedia. However if you want to add alternative reputable sources in addition to salon.com then please go ahead. I do not agree with replacing salon.com because it is fine reputable source. Andries 22:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- No... I am not getting invovled in the editing of that article. The arguments here are not for the addition of more sources, but of the assessment of a source deemed by some editors to be suspect of being the only source for controversial material in a BLP. This is the work of invlved editors, and I am, thank God, not one. ≈ jossi ≈ <smallt • @ 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- The editor who considers salon.com suspect is free to add (not replace) alternative sources. It does not have my priority because it involves a lot of work without leading to an improvement of the article. I think that removing a reputable source, like salon.com makes the article worse. Andries 23:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- No... I am not getting invovled in the editing of that article. The arguments here are not for the addition of more sources, but of the assessment of a source deemed by some editors to be suspect of being the only source for controversial material in a BLP. This is the work of invlved editors, and I am, thank God, not one. ≈ jossi ≈ <smallt • @ 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Jossi, finding alternative reputable sources is a lot of work that does not improve the encyclopedia. However if you want to add alternative reputable sources in addition to salon.com then please go ahead. I do not agree with replacing salon.com because it is fine reputable source. Andries 22:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Why not? If there are requests from fellow editors to use mainstream media rather than Salon.com, why not to listen and agree? You believe that Salon.com is a better source than a mainstream newspaper, but I don't, for obvious reasons. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have to check if I have time, but again I will not replace references to salon.com with references to ordinary mainstream newspapers because I consider salon.com generally better than ordinary mainstream newspapers. I may add references to mainstream newspapers. Andries 22:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Andries, then you should use the other reputable sources. Not a tabloid article that is not reference anywhere else. Salon.com is NOT the same as The New York Times (which has never admitted being an opinionated newspaper talboid). Salon.com is a highly opinionated online tabloid (adittedly) that can only be referenced when it is done by other reliable media sources. That is not the case with Goldberg's article. It is upto the person wanting to include the reference to establish the reputability of the article. Andries can cite no other sources. Not even one.
Examples of the articles in Salon.com: Regarding Sex, Regarding People. All these read like highly opinionated stories (because they are talboids) and do not read like media stories whatsoever. These are the articles that Andries and JoshuaZ are saying are indisputably reliable. SSS108 talk-email 19:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, were saying that unless you have a good reason to think something in Salon isn't reliable then it is (the above reads like human interest stories/opinion pieces which are for obvious reasons sometimes not as reliable in any magazine or newspaper. For example, the boldfaced names section of the NYT is probably not a reliable source even though almost everything else in the NYT is. ). JoshuaZ 20:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ, I have good reason to think that Goldberg's article is not reliable. Not even one other reputable media source made reference to it. Therefore, it does not meet the standards in WP:BLP. Since you have problems understanding me, let me provide quotes from WP:BLP:
- "Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims."
- "Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."
- "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."
Salon.com is a secondary source, not a third-party source. SSS108 talk-email 20:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Mmmm... Salon.com is a secondary source. What we are discussing is if having only one source for some material, and if that source is Salon.com, warrants its use or not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Jossie, according to WP:BLP, if the material might be critical, defamatory, malicious or biased it has to be documented by reliable third-party sources. Using a primary or secondary source is not enough. Same is stated in WP:V:
- "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources."
A tabloid article with no other references to it does not fulfill any of these policies, in my opinion. SSS108 talk-email 20:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
So what? Not even the New York Times or any other qualtiy newspaper mentions its references. Andries 21:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)- Salon.com is itself a reputable source, so the question whether there are any references to it is irrelevant. Andries 21:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- SSS108 confuses third-party sources with tertiary sources. Salon.com is a third-party secondary source. Andries 22:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Argue what you like Andries, neither you or anyone else can fulfill the requirement of Goldberg's article being well-documented by reliable published sources. You can only cite one source that is a self-professed online tabloid. Period. End of discussion. SSS108 talk-email 23:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- So what now? Revert two times three times a day until somebody drops dead? Andries 23:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think ArbCom is going to ignore this issue. So I think it is best we file a RFC. SSS108 talk-email 23:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm constructing an ongoing list of articles on my talk page about articles that could be cited if Salon.com is deemed a stand-alone reliable source. Needless to say, liberals are going to a have field day. They can justify any liberal, opinionated bias they may have on Wikipedia because "Salon.com said so": List Of Reliable(?) Salon.com Articles SSS108 talk-email 03:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Not a great source on its own
- Given the editors' identification of Salon as a "tabloid" and wikipedia policy on tabloids, Salon should be used with care and other sources would be preferred.
- Given the nature of the awards (see criticisms above) Salon appears to have had some credibility by one legitimate journalism awarding agency, but only with respect to on-line journalism. This suggests that when other sources are available they should be preferred.
- I note that when I have seen Salon used, it is used to insert a writer's opinion by proxy through a quote. Quoting editorials and opinions, even from more reliable sources should be discouraged. From a biased source, they should be especially limited.
However, Salon apparently strives for journalistic competence and should not be considered to be on the same level as a single editor "Blog". It might be considered on par with [World Net Daily]. In both cases a second source is a good idea and reliance on editorial types of articles expressing opinions should be discouraged. --Blue Tie 13:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)