Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk | contribs) |
|||
(14 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
*'''Seems professional, center-right publication'''. Mostly seems to be a venue for collected articles rather than in-house reporting, so editors should focus on individual author reputation and specific articles. Quality if biased contributors seem the rule, so would expect that it is informed and well-written but is not balanced or comprehensive. Editors should refer to [[WP:CONTEXTMATTERS]] and be aware this is an advocacy like SPLC and others used as RS -- and like those, typically attribution should be used per [[WP:BIASED]]. CHeers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 07:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Seems professional, center-right publication'''. Mostly seems to be a venue for collected articles rather than in-house reporting, so editors should focus on individual author reputation and specific articles. Quality if biased contributors seem the rule, so would expect that it is informed and well-written but is not balanced or comprehensive. Editors should refer to [[WP:CONTEXTMATTERS]] and be aware this is an advocacy like SPLC and others used as RS -- and like those, typically attribution should be used per [[WP:BIASED]]. CHeers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 07:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
*'''Bad RFC''' - what is the reason for raising this RFC? What is the actual concrete issue that we are supposed to be addressing? These general RFC on reliability of sources are swerving into [[WP:FORUM]] territory. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 09:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== RfC: ''The Herald'' (Glasgow) == |
== RfC: ''The Herald'' (Glasgow) == |
||
Line 169: | Line 171: | ||
*Good for general topics, like any other quality newspaper. As with other general interest publications, [[WP:MEDPOP]] and the like apply: defer to specialist publications for specialist topics. RSP is for sources which are controversial enough to merit discussion here at RSN. Those that are obviously reliable (such as this) and those that are not (such as [[InfoWars]]) don't really need much debate. [[User:Feminist|feminist]] ([[User talk:Feminist|talk]]) 06:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC) |
*Good for general topics, like any other quality newspaper. As with other general interest publications, [[WP:MEDPOP]] and the like apply: defer to specialist publications for specialist topics. RSP is for sources which are controversial enough to merit discussion here at RSN. Those that are obviously reliable (such as this) and those that are not (such as [[InfoWars]]) don't really need much debate. [[User:Feminist|feminist]] ([[User talk:Feminist|talk]]) 06:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
*'''Option 1''' All the caveats that would go along with any news organisation apply, it's a well-established broadsheet newspaper with a reputation for fact checking etc. For factual reporting, I'd put it in the same brackets as the Guardian or Telegraph. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#294;">Girth</span><span style="font-family:Impact;color:#42c;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 13:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Option 1''' All the caveats that would go along with any news organisation apply, it's a well-established broadsheet newspaper with a reputation for fact checking etc. For factual reporting, I'd put it in the same brackets as the Guardian or Telegraph. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#294;">Girth</span><span style="font-family:Impact;color:#42c;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 13:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
*'''Bad RfC''' - These "Is X a terrible source which should be banned from Wiki" RFCs have been like a rash on this page since the DM ban, which was the original instance of banning something just because the power existed to do it. There is no reason to classify the Herald here, no reason why help is needed to do this. Just apply [[WP:NEWSORG]]. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 09:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
==RfC: [[Taki's Magazine]]== |
==RfC: [[Taki's Magazine]]== |
||
Line 233: | Line 236: | ||
*'''Generally unusable for statements of fact (3)''' and not generally great as an opinion source, either. There's no evidence (as far as I'm aware) that it engages in outright fabrication, but that alone is not enough to get a source past [[WP:RS]], which requires an actual {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}} that this source lacks. It's clearly a [[WP:FRINGE]] outlet that posts entirely opinions; there's no evidence they do any investigation or fact-checking at all. It also lacks the reputation that would make opinions posted there automatically notable (it was difficult to find sources for its article, and the ones that came up were often critical or only mentioned it in passing), so it doesn't have much use as an opinion-piece outside of places where the author is directly the subject of the article. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 00:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Generally unusable for statements of fact (3)''' and not generally great as an opinion source, either. There's no evidence (as far as I'm aware) that it engages in outright fabrication, but that alone is not enough to get a source past [[WP:RS]], which requires an actual {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}} that this source lacks. It's clearly a [[WP:FRINGE]] outlet that posts entirely opinions; there's no evidence they do any investigation or fact-checking at all. It also lacks the reputation that would make opinions posted there automatically notable (it was difficult to find sources for its article, and the ones that came up were often critical or only mentioned it in passing), so it doesn't have much use as an opinion-piece outside of places where the author is directly the subject of the article. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 00:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
*'''Generally unusable for statements of fact (3)''' - only because even a broken clock can be right every once in a while. It's putrid garbage, and should probably be blacklisted from Wikipedia. - [[User:Jack Sebastian|Jack Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Jack Sebastian|talk]]) 04:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Generally unusable for statements of fact (3)''' - only because even a broken clock can be right every once in a while. It's putrid garbage, and should probably be blacklisted from Wikipedia. - [[User:Jack Sebastian|Jack Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Jack Sebastian|talk]]) 04:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
*'''Bad RFC''' - No concrete instances of this source actually being at-issue with relation to article content have been raised. This is simply a [[WP:FORUM]] discussion. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 09:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs == |
== RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs == |
||
Line 306: | Line 310: | ||
*'''Support''' Honestly all the RFCs without having discussion first is disruptive and not very helpful in general. A RFC should be a last resort and not a first try. It also ignores the general ideas of what we consider a RS. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 22:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' Honestly all the RFCs without having discussion first is disruptive and not very helpful in general. A RFC should be a last resort and not a first try. It also ignores the general ideas of what we consider a RS. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 22:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support''' per PackMecEng. The number of frivolous RfCs on this noticeboard discourages widespread participation, which undermines the possibility of them being authoritative answers, and encourages users to start an RfC every time they have a question about a source, or a gripe with one. Further, the wording of "generally reliable" which I take to mean "in general" conflicts with the primary meanings of "general" and may be misleading. Only an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source anyway, would be "generally reliable". The RfCs are stamping a "general" seal of approval on sources that may have only narrow applicability. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 23:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' per PackMecEng. The number of frivolous RfCs on this noticeboard discourages widespread participation, which undermines the possibility of them being authoritative answers, and encourages users to start an RfC every time they have a question about a source, or a gripe with one. Further, the wording of "generally reliable" which I take to mean "in general" conflicts with the primary meanings of "general" and may be misleading. Only an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source anyway, would be "generally reliable". The RfCs are stamping a "general" seal of approval on sources that may have only narrow applicability. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 23:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support''' - These "Is X a terrible source which should be banned from Wiki" RFCs have been like a rash on this page since the DM ban, which was the original instance of banning something just because the power existed to do it. There is no reason to classify every single potential source here, and by doing so we store up potential problems for the future (bad decisions made without any context, which when applied to an actual case are clearly wrong in the context of that case). Just apply [[WP:NEWSORG]]. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 09:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
PS - I also think a good argument can be made that these general discussions of source-reliability are against [[WP:FORUM]]. Unless there is a concrete issue related to article content being discussed, then ultimately these are just forum-type discussions about media in general. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 09:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
=== Workshop === |
=== Workshop === |
||
Line 470: | Line 478: | ||
*'''Mu''', a loud Mu against "general reliability" threads. Quoth the wise words above: {{tq| You shouldn't open threads about a source unless there is a specific content dispute. You shouldn't open a thread about the universal reliability of a source unless there is a preponderance of threads dealing with specific content disputes where they have decided the source is unreliable.}} Unless there is a specific content dispute involving the use of Newsweek as a source, this (and the other threads like it) should be closed. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 14:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Mu''', a loud Mu against "general reliability" threads. Quoth the wise words above: {{tq| You shouldn't open threads about a source unless there is a specific content dispute. You shouldn't open a thread about the universal reliability of a source unless there is a preponderance of threads dealing with specific content disputes where they have decided the source is unreliable.}} Unless there is a specific content dispute involving the use of Newsweek as a source, this (and the other threads like it) should be closed. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 14:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
:*This isn't a helpful comment, and it underlines why the proposed rule would be too [[WP:CREEP]]y. The discussion above seems reasonable and helpful to me, while "close this thread, violation of rule 376c!" seems absurd. Also, discussions of Newsweek have been [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Newsweek&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1 extensive], so this particular discussion was badly-needed - the need for this particular RFC is so clear-cut that any rule that would justify trying to shut it down is obviously a terrible suggestion. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 19:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC) |
:*This isn't a helpful comment, and it underlines why the proposed rule would be too [[WP:CREEP]]y. The discussion above seems reasonable and helpful to me, while "close this thread, violation of rule 376c!" seems absurd. Also, discussions of Newsweek have been [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Newsweek&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1 extensive], so this particular discussion was badly-needed - the need for this particular RFC is so clear-cut that any rule that would justify trying to shut it down is obviously a terrible suggestion. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 19:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::[[WP:NOTAFORUM]] is a pretty strong Wiki rule, and this amounts to a forum discussion of Newsweek, completely divorced from any specific dispute related to article content. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 10:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Generally reliable''' per Newslinger, though use with some caveats. I definitely agree that its reliability has declined to the point where we should use some caution, avoid citing it for [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL]] claims, and so on (and particular care should be taken to never cite opinion pieces there for facts, which is something to avoid in general but seems like a particular problem here). I wouldn't consider it a top-quality source at all... but [[WP:UBO]] still applies - a reputation doesn't vanish overnight. It's still a major mainstream magazine which is treated as a decent source by other reliable sources, and I don't think there's the evidence of intentionally misleading readers or flagrant disregard for the truth that we'd need in the face of that. Whether they should or they shouldn't, other sources still treat it as credible, which indicates it hasn't completely lost its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 18:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Generally reliable''' per Newslinger, though use with some caveats. I definitely agree that its reliability has declined to the point where we should use some caution, avoid citing it for [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL]] claims, and so on (and particular care should be taken to never cite opinion pieces there for facts, which is something to avoid in general but seems like a particular problem here). I wouldn't consider it a top-quality source at all... but [[WP:UBO]] still applies - a reputation doesn't vanish overnight. It's still a major mainstream magazine which is treated as a decent source by other reliable sources, and I don't think there's the evidence of intentionally misleading readers or flagrant disregard for the truth that we'd need in the face of that. Whether they should or they shouldn't, other sources still treat it as credible, which indicates it hasn't completely lost its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 18:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
*'''Bad RFC''' - No actual article-content dispute to be resolved here. As such this is just a [[WP:FORUM]] discussion about Newsweek. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 10:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*:This is not a [[WP:RFC|request for comment]]. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 10:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::It amounts to a RFC, since the author is clearly requesting comments from other editors. That it was posted without using the template matters neither here nor there. [[WP:NOTAFORUM]] applies. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 10:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::[[WP:NOTBURO|Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.]] Other editors participating in the discussion find it useful. If you're not interested in the discussion, you don't have to participate. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 10:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::But I will have to live with the outcome of the context-less discussion if it concludes "Source X committed wrongthink and should be banned". PS - funny how it's the rules people ''don't'' like that become "bureaucracy" [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 10:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::No sources are "banned", with the exception of the ones on the [[WP:SPB|spam blacklist]]. You're always welcome to start a new discussion on this noticeboard regarding any source for your specific use case. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 10:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Any of things that get "Option 4" (or whatever people want to call it) are clearly banned by any meaningful sense of the term per [[WP:DUCK]]. I mean, here we are discussing the general, context-less, badness of ''Newsweek''. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 10:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== La Griffe du Lion == |
== La Griffe du Lion == |
Revision as of 10:54, 22 July 2019
Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context! | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
RfC - CoinDesk as a source
Should CoinDesk be removed as a source from all articles on Wikipedia? --Molochmeditates (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Survey (CoinDesk)
Previous Discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_251#RfC_on_use_of_CoinDesk
RSP Entry: CoinDesk RSP Entry
Please note: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies
There is currently no consensus on whether CoinDesk should be considered a [[questionable source. Therefore I do not support the blanket removal of CoinDesk references especially in cases where it leaves statements unsourced and articles incomplete (including several criticisms). Instead, editors should refer to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.
An experienced editor is removing all CoinDesk references from cryptocurrency related articles on Wikipedia. My question is simply whether there should there be a blanket removal of all CoinDesk references from Wikipedia, even in cases where it is not used to establish notability, irrespective of context? Here is a small sample of 10 affected articles, in no particular order (there are too many to sort through):
- Andreessen Horowitz - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andreessen_Horowitz&type=revision&diff=899210046&oldid=897849761
- Initial coin offering - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Initial_coin_offering&type=revision&diff=899236284&oldid=878360173
- BitLicense - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BitLicense&diff=prev&oldid=899205899
- Virtual currency - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virtual_currency&diff=prev&oldid=899205974
- Blockchain - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blockchain&diff=prev&oldid=899204625
- Petro (cryptocurrency) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petro_%28cryptocurrency%29&type=revision&diff=899240624&oldid=898403220
- ConsenSys - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ConsenSys&diff=prev&oldid=899172771
- CryptoKitties - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CryptoKitties&diff=prev&oldid=899172717
- Vitalik Buterin - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitalik_Buterin&diff=prev&oldid=899039990
- Non-fungible token - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Non-fungible_token&type=revision&diff=899205438&oldid=898660433
So the question is,
- Yes all references to CoinDesk should be removed from Wikipedia irrespective of context
- No do not remove all references to CoinDesk per previous RfC, and instead use the context to determine whether to use the reference or not (e.g. do not use CoinDesk sources to establish notability).
Note: This is not an RfC for individual article cleanup. I am sure we can all agree that many of the cryptocurrency related articles can be improved. --Molochmeditates (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Remove it - speaking as the editor in question, here's what my thinking was:
- In general: cryptocurrency/blockchain articles are magnets for spam and advocacy. And crypto news sites are bad sources, per the previous discussion on this topic - they appear to be specialist press, but function as advocacy. You will see every possible thing being spun as good news for cryptos. We don't need crypto sites - there's plenty of mainstream coverage and peer-reviewed academic coverage to establish notability. Using crypto sites as sources in your article is a bad sign at AFD, and using mainstream RSes and peer-reviewed academic RSes is a good sign at AFD - so the observed working consensus of Wikipedia editors in practice is strongly in this direction.
- In particular: Coindesk has a terrible habit of running articles on things that don't exist yet, barely-reskinned press releases and so on. There are plenty of refs that are entirely factual content! But you can say the same about blogs, wikis and other sources that aren't trustworthy in any practical sense. And this is even though Coindesk has an editor, I know a pile of the journalists and they're honestly trying to do a good job, etc. Quite a lot of the Coindesk refs I removed were to puffed-up nonsense articles, or in support of blatantly promotional article content. So the argument that editors will check the context doesn't work in practice - using the Coindesk articles that happen to be properly-made news coverage only encourages the use of their bad stuff, on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is the most frequent AFD argument from crypto spammers.
- I urge those thinking about this to reread WP:GS/Crypto. Just think what sort of editing would cause that harsh a community sanction to be put into place. Those conditions haven't changed. Letting just a waffer-thin crypto site in the door will invite the spammers back.
- I must note I'm arguably speaking against my own interest here - I make some money as a crypto journalist, often publishing in these very sites. I know my stuff is good and my editors are good! But I also know there's excellent reason it's not good for Wikipedia - when we have mainstream sources. If some subject or fact isn't notable enough to make it into mainstream or peer-reviewed sources, perhaps it's not notable enough for Wikipedia.
- For a recent example that did make the crypto press, check this out. (I spoke to them with my Wikipedia editor hat on for once, not my crypto journalist hat.) That's about spammy interests trying to weasel their stuff into just one page. Repeat for a large swathe of the crypto articles on Wikipedia, 'cos that sort of thing is entirely usual. Mainstream-only is good in practice. (cc Retimuko and Ladislav Mecir, who are also mentioned in that piece.)
- And, really - you think crypto sites should be used for BLPs? We have super-stringent BLP rules also for excellent reasons. I can't see how a crypto site would ever be acceptable as a source for a BLP, except maybe as an accepted subject-published link or similar - David Gerard (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- - David Gerard (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- @David Gerard: I'm skeptical of your claim
"I must note I'm arguably speaking against my own interest here"
, considering that you published Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain, a book that is highly critical of cryptocurrencies. How would your !vote to remove all references to CoinDesk go against your own interests? Since you"make some money as a crypto journalist"
, wouldn't removing all references to CoinDesk effectively eliminate your biggest competitor and/or adversary from being mentioned on Wikipedia? — Newslinger talk 12:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)- I mean that my own work in the ones I write for (which include Coindesk) wouldn't be citable. If you think you have a substantiable claim of COI on my part, you know where WP:COIN is, else I'll file that with all the other unsubstantiated claims that not being an advocate means I should stop editing in the area - David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. Your statement makes more sense alongside the fact that you have contributed to CoinDesk. Ironically, the fact that CoinDesk published your opinion piece "2017: The ‘Butt’ of Bitcoin’s Joke" makes them less biased than I had previously assumed. — Newslinger talk 18:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I mean that my own work in the ones I write for (which include Coindesk) wouldn't be citable. If you think you have a substantiable claim of COI on my part, you know where WP:COIN is, else I'll file that with all the other unsubstantiated claims that not being an advocate means I should stop editing in the area - David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- @David Gerard: I'm skeptical of your claim
- Unreliable source - beyond the issues that David Gerrard lays out above, crypto news sites also have had issues with content being gneerated for pay but not noted as such. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- to be fair, Coindesk has never been credibly accused of pay-for-play, and there's no good reason to think they'd do that. However, their editorial line has long been basically boosterism for cryptos (IMO) - David Gerard (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep (do not remove all references to CoinDesk - here's my thinking and take on the matter:
- The previous RfC did a good job of getting consensus on how to treat CoinDesk articles. It clearly stated that CoinDesk shouldn't be used to establish notability but otherwise isn't barred from being used as a source. Why the sudden change in this policy by one editor deciding unilaterally that they no longer wish to adhere to this consensus?
- Yes, we all know the usual criticisms of crypto press. That's already debated and known to editors. If there are individual instances to consider incorrect usage of CoinDesk, e.g. to establish notability, by all means they should be deleted. But as long as it isn't the policy, I don't support a blanket removal of all the material from literally hundreds of articles affected.
- A lot of the material that's been removed is actually criticism of the projects. The bias is easy to understand - a lot of the overly promotional puffery has been removed by diligent editors already. This means removing all the CoinDesk references has made the problem of crypto-puffery much worse.
- Several instances of purely encyclopedic content was removed for using CoinDesk as a purely descriptive secondary source (e.g. discussion on popular standards). This hurts the quality of the articles from an encyclopedic perspective.
- This blanket removal of CoinDesk references already goes against the general consensus previously reached. There are literally hundreds (probably thousands?) of edits to go through, and I don't think it's feasible to go through them all to determine if the removal was justified. In many cases I've reviewed, I think the removal was unjustified, and in several other cases, it was totally justified. It's very hard to review now after these edits.
- In conclusion, yes, there is a problem with crypto puff material entering the articles, but the solution isn't to ban crypto press. Crypto press both has the puffiest pieces and the most critical pieces on crypto projects. As editors, we want to see a balanced article, but that balance gets lost of we cannot cite the criticisms. One editor shouldn't decide to remove criticism and encyclopedic content especially going against previous consensus
I am of course happy to comply with a consensus view that CoinDesk should never be used as a reference on Wikipedia, if that's what comes out of this RfC. In that case, we should edit the RSP entry to reflect this consensus. Also, a lot of articles now have material that are unreferenced. There is a good amount of work to be done to go through these and remove the unsourced material or find other sources. --Molochmeditates (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep as a source per Molochmeditates. CoinDesk's role in promoting the use of cryptocurrencies is no different from PinkNews's role in promoting acceptance of LGBT communities worldwide. Recognise their bias, and use discretion when citing the source; but do not systemically reject an entire topic area from Wikipedia just because it is in some way problematic or difficult to write about. feminist (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- Most of them should be removed. But it should be done more carefully. A lot of them can be replaced by mainstream sources. Examples:
- Andreessen Horowitz - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andreessen_Horowitz&type=revision&diff=899210046&oldid=897849761
- Wall Street Journal "blog" about the same thing.
- Initial coin offering - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Initial_coin_offering&type=revision&diff=899236284&oldid=878360173
- "The SEC ruled that celebrity ICO endorsements must disclose the amount of any compensation paid for the endorsement." Covered by Reuters.
- BitLicense - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BitLicense&diff=prev&oldid=899205899
- There should be zero coin news references used in an article if possible. Like do you really need to use CoinDesk to write a good article about blockchain?
- So if it's an important detail, look for a mainstream source. If it's only on a coin news site you should explain why it's needed on the talk page or edit summary. Blumpf (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all references from Coindesk and other cryptopropaganda I'd thought that this was already a settled matter. There are reliable references to cryptomatters, e.g. Bloomberg, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the Financial Times, BBC, CBC and sometimes in Fortune and some of the cable news networks. There's no reason not to just use these sources. The cryptopropaganda network is all shills all the time as far as I'm concerned. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Do not delete all references. There is not enough evidence to indict CoinDesk as a source that publishes false or fabricated information. While CoinDesk is a biased and non-independent source due to the cryptocurrency holdings of its parent company (Digital Currency Group), I don't consider the content in CoinDesk to be sponsored content, and I don't think a removal of
"all references"
to CoinDesk is justified. In my opinion, a source only crosses the line when it publishes calls to action that support its interests. CoinDesk's articles do not contain that type of promotional language. CoinDesk is much closer to TorrentFreak (RSP entry), which is another specialist publication that assumes the role of an advocacy organization, than The Points Guy's sponsored content (RSP entry), which contains actual sales pitches. However, CoinDesk should not be used to establish notability (per existing consensus), and editors should consider whether content from CoinDesk constitutes undue weight before including it into an article. — Newslinger talk 12:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)- To
"delete all references"
to a source"irrespective of context"
is a very serious action that is only taken when a source is listed on the spam blacklist. The "Yes" position in this RfC goes further than deprecation, because deprecation respects WP:CONTEXTMATTERS while the "Yes" position here does not. If CoinDesk is not eligible for the spam blacklist, then there is no valid reason to"delete all references"
to it"irrespective of context"
. — Newslinger talk 01:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- To
- Remove all, but try to replace with mainstream sources when at all possible, per Blumpf and others. The FRS/Legobot sent me. EllenCT (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Remove all. Mainstream sources are fine. Coindesk is biased, and most editors don't have context to identify the cases where they might be able to be a neutral source. – SJ + 03:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes - Remove all, unreliable is unreliable, context doesn't magically make dishonest reporting honest. They have form. Bacondrum (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes - Remove all, for the reason stated by SJ. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes - Remove all - Coindesk and publications like it are effectively WP:PROFRINGE sources advocating a worldview about cryptocurrencies that is not reality-based. We should be blacklisting it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- WP:PROFRINGE is precisely what the problem with crypto sites is, thank you! - David Gerard (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep as source per feminist. Mainstream sources are preferable, and coindesk should not be relied as a central source, but it's reasonably WP:THIRDPARTY, and often contains details that can't be found elsewhere. Forbes72 (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Discussion (CoinDesk)
I think we need to be cautious here. Crypto/blockchain is a rather large field, but awash with people fighting over virtual dollars so sources are going to be iffy. But in other fields - for example, video games, we also know there is a lot of specialized media and a LOT of "blogs" trying to be big news sites that we at the VG project reject. That said, reviewing lists of crypto news site lists, a lot are owned by companies directly involved in the crypto game so yes, COI/self-promotion has to be a factor here. Coinbank seems to fall into that but its also the first major site after you get past CNBC and Forbes (which includes their contributors) in this list (which of course may also be suspect). I think we need some strong guidance to white/black-list sites and make it clear that sites that are knownly run by crypto backers should be considered generally a non-RS and certainly not independent for notability concerns. --Masem (t) 23:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- "sites that are knownly run by crypto backers should be considered generally a non-RS and certainly not independent for notability concern" - but that's literally all the crypto news sites, though. Every single one. Is there an exception you had in mind? - David Gerard (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know, I have not had any good chance to review them in any depth, their connections, and how others see those sources. For example, if we have non-crypto-based RSes routinely quoting facts from a crypto source, even if that source is not truly independent, that still suggests that that source would be seen as authorative. All the concerns related to WP:NORG obviously should be applied to any crypto-related article, but it still doesn't mean throwing the entire work out if others see part of it as reliable. But I have spent literally only like 10 minutes looking into this, nothing I would consider suitable to say such exist.
- I do worry that this rush of mass removals without a clear consensus is into WP:FAIT territory, even though I suspect 95% of them removals would be proper, at the end of the day. --Masem (t) 14:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think your point about RS quoting something like CoinDesk is a fair point and I would hope that David Gerrard has stopped removing CoinDesk as a reference while this RfC is being conducted. However, because Crypto/blockchain is a substantial field we have non-industry sources covering notable organizations/developments regularly. We can rely on them without having to figure "Is CoinDesk acting as a booster of the industry here or is it reporting news of significance?" Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
No, do not remove all references to CoinDesk. As always, reliability is determined in context. Per Obsidi, "They have an editorial staff and an editorial policy. They do issue corrections". Benjamin (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- I see one very rarely indeed. A recent worked example of Coindesk being a sloppy and misleading source: [1] It's particularly egregious because literally nothing they claim is new - including the precise technical claim, which was detailed in InfoQ (which is a specialist RS) two years ago and its application to blockchains the same year (though that's a primary source, not an RS, it's the counterexample that Coindesk has repeated a marketing lie unexamined). Will Coindesk correct it? Still waiting ... Coindesk has a long history of repeating any press release nonsense that sounds like good news for blockchain. This means that a Coindesk reference cannot be safely used unless the editor has separately verified that this time they're not just repeating boosterism - at which point you're doing original research and should either find a RS or just not do that - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC - CoinDesk as a source. — Newslinger talk 19:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
There is very little comment on this publication. It is self-evidently somewhat to the right, but that is not an impediment to being accepted as a reliable source (given that all non-scientific publications will always carry some degree of bias). It has variously been described herein as a "major site", "reliable source", and "reputable yet biased". It includes much comment from academics and current and former (mostly the latter) intergovernmental agency and government staff members. Seeking comment as it is a significant site. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 11:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- oops. ta-da! https://www.theamericanconservative.com
- Most if not all of the magazine is opinion articles, which are generally not considered reliable sources. Note for example the first article in your link, by Robert W. Merry, which says, "The Democratic contenders want open borders and free healthcare and to pay for it by hiking taxes." In fact none of them call for open borders and most of them oppose free health care. TFD (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- "Most if not all" is based on your reading the strap line of one article then, by this veteran former WSJ reporter. I noted that it takes a right-view above. So option 2 additional considerations is reasonable. But it includes much serious reporting e.g. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/trump-quietly-promises-billions-in-new-nuke-contracts/ Cambial Yellowing(❧) 12:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- I really wish people would stop knee-jerk repeating "opinion pieces are bad" as if they were repeating policy. See also WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. GMGtalk 14:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- The American Conservative is the largest outlet in the heterodox paleoconservative movement, a small right-wing movement in the US, and a very valuable source for paleoconservative ideas. However it is still mainly an opinion outlet and has faced criticism on issues of race. I would say it is useful for opinion but should be used with caution on general reporting due to its inherent paleoconservative bias. Toa Nidhiki05 12:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Unclear or additional considerations apply (a.k.a. "option 2"). The American Conservative is a magazine published by the American Ideas Institute, an advocacy organization that describes the publication in this way:
I would use The American Conservative with caution, which is how we currently treat media from most advocacy organizations, including the Cato Institute (RSP entry), Media Matters for America (RSP entry), and the Media Research Center (RSP entry). As the publication is biased or opinionated, in-text attribution is recommended. — Newslinger talk 20:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)The American Conservative exists to promote a “Main Street” conservatism that opposes unchecked power in government and business; promotes the flourishing of families and communities through vibrant markets and free people; and embraces realism and restraint in foreign affairs based on America’s vital national interests.
- I would argue it is quite similar to Cato, even more so because it is the only major paleoconservative outlet. It’s basically the flagship publication of that movement and was even founded by Pat Buchanan himself. It’s not really a “straight news” or even news-opinion publication imo. Toa Nidhiki05 20:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I would treat both similarly. — Newslinger talk 00:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- I would argue it is quite similar to Cato, even more so because it is the only major paleoconservative outlet. It’s basically the flagship publication of that movement and was even founded by Pat Buchanan himself. It’s not really a “straight news” or even news-opinion publication imo. Toa Nidhiki05 20:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- User:Cambial Yellowing, what you call serious reporting is actually an opinion piece. The author is commenting on a story that appeared in the New York Times about Trump's plans to increase the nuclear stockpile. There is absolutely no reason why we would use this as a source instead of the New York Times article that reported the story. GMG, it's not that opinion pieces are bad, but that policy says they are rarely reliable sources. Mostly they repeat facts already reported in reliable sources. When they report original information, they are not subject to the same editorial control as news reporting. So one writer may say Trump is a Russian agent while another says he did not collude with Russia. One may say climate change will destroy the world in 10 years while another will say there is no climate change. TFD (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- What policy says is
Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
But I have also seen this argument used to delete at AfD, and used to argue against using attributed statement of opinion from independently notable authors, writing opinion pieces in iron clad reliable publications. GMGtalk 01:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)- That's from Biased or opinionated sources. I was referring to News organizations: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The two points are consistent: opinion pieces and biased sources are reliable for what their authors say. Some biased sources may also be reliable for facts as well, if the publishers made sufficient steps to ensure accuracy. Academic papers and books for example are almost always biased, which is why they are written. TFD (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- The American Conservative is fine for accurately reporting the opinions of its writers and we can presume its stories are honestly the writing of those to whom they're bylined; it has a legal personality in a jurisdiction in which it can be held liable for libel and it has a stable and consistent history of publication. However it does not have, nor does it claim to have, newsgathering capability and is essentially an opinion publication. One of the standards we should use to evaluate reliability is whether unambiguously RS cite its reporting. When I do a Google News search for "according to the American Conservative" or "the American Conservative reported" I don't get any meaningful results. So I would say it's reliable for attributing statements to its own writers but I would not use it for Who/What/Why facts like the size of a brush fire in Montana. Chetsford (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- What policy says is
- Unclear or additional considerations apply At a cursory glance it seems factual, but obviously strongly biased. They've had some very nefarious, partisan and dishonest contributors, including white supremacists/neo-Nazi types. Bacondrum (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Bacondrum, don't forget about WP:BIASEDSOURCES. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- (Summoned by bot) Use with caution and treat similarly to other advocacy organizations per Newslinger and Toa Nidhiki05. signed, Rosguill talk 04:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Seems professional, center-right publication. Mostly seems to be a venue for collected articles rather than in-house reporting, so editors should focus on individual author reputation and specific articles. Quality if biased contributors seem the rule, so would expect that it is informed and well-written but is not balanced or comprehensive. Editors should refer to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and be aware this is an advocacy like SPLC and others used as RS -- and like those, typically attribution should be used per WP:BIASED. CHeers Markbassett (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Bad RFC - what is the reason for raising this RFC? What is the actual concrete issue that we are supposed to be addressing? These general RFC on reliability of sources are swerving into WP:FORUM territory. FOARP (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
RfC: The Herald (Glasgow)
What is the best way to describe the reliability of The Herald (Glasgow)? I have searched the archives and although there are plenty of discussions on other sources with Herald in the name, I did not find one on this Scottish newspaper which is the longest running national newspaper in the World. If we have consensus, can we please add it to WP:RSP? Thanks, --SVTCobra 23:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
- Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
- Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
- Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail
Survey (The Herald)
- Option 1 The outlet has a consistent history of publication by which it can be evaluated, it has a legal personality in a jurisdiction where it can be held liable for libel, it has a gatekeeping process, and a cursory Google News search shows its reporting has recently been cited by known RS including BBC News and The Scotsman. Chetsford (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Option 1 Unless it can be shown otherwise is a respectable and reputable newspaper.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Option 1: While the circulation isn't large, it certainly looks to be an entirely legitimate newspaper. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Bad RfC. I don't see an
{{rfc}}
tag, or any reason to have an RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)- I agree. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- So what? People can ask questions on a noticeboard without filling an official RFC as well. Asking at a noticeboard is an alternative to the RfC process. Blueboar (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- That is the point. Ask at the noticeboard or do an RfC, no need in such an ordinary case to do both. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- So what? People can ask questions on a noticeboard without filling an official RFC as well. Asking at a noticeboard is an alternative to the RfC process. Blueboar (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment re list of options. This page's header suggested such a list as "a common format for writing the RfC question". That was a recent addition, which is being discussed in an RfC on the talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Peter Gulutzan: I'm sorry, I'm new at this noticeboard. The Herald is not yet being used, but discussed in this long thread here, Talk:Carl_Benjamin#Benjamin_is_not_far-right, which I thought I'd spare the editors here from reading. I had hoped to point the editors there to WP:RSP or a previous discussion. Since I didn't find either, I thought starting this was appropriate. Maybe it's not. I don't know. Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Due to my bungling (mentioning rfc within double braces), Legobot added an RfC ID. Poof, now it's real. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's not real. First, this does not meet the requirements of WP:RFCST, it's just Legobot (talk · contribs) picking up whatever text lies between the
|rfcid=
and the next timestamp. Second, there is no actual{{rfc}}
tag being displayed here as a box beginning "An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion." is absent. It has been known for several years that Legobot does not respect<nowiki>...</nowiki>
, which is why the advice at WP:RFC#Duration explicitly says not to do it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's not real. First, this does not meet the requirements of WP:RFCST, it's just Legobot (talk · contribs) picking up whatever text lies between the
- Due to my bungling (mentioning rfc within double braces), Legobot added an RfC ID. Poof, now it's real. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Peter Gulutzan: I'm sorry, I'm new at this noticeboard. The Herald is not yet being used, but discussed in this long thread here, Talk:Carl_Benjamin#Benjamin_is_not_far-right, which I thought I'd spare the editors here from reading. I had hoped to point the editors there to WP:RSP or a previous discussion. Since I didn't find either, I thought starting this was appropriate. Maybe it's not. I don't know. Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Option 1 as per Chetsford, it has a long history as a reliable source, is not a tabloid, is quoted by other reliable sources, is long established, has received awards for its journalism, tthanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Option 5 Exclude as a journalistic source wherever academic sources are available. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Option 1 I presume this is some sort of hilarious joke that I don't understand. The fucking Glasgow Herald? Really? But anyway, per what Atlantic306 said above. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Option 1 Actually I though it was already an approved source as old as it is ~ you know ~ the last time I was there laddie ~ I picked up a four leaf clover ~ who would have thought several years later, I would have had to remember that day ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I see many of you are having a laugh, but why wasn't The Herald on WP:RSP from all those years ago? Maybe, I am missing the point of that list. But I thought, it was supposed to be a quick resource to avoid this type of discussion. Also, I still don't know what technical mistakes I made in the nomination. Something about {{ RFC }}. Peter and Redrose confused me. I am sorry if I have wasted people's time. --SVTCobra 03:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- @SVTCobra: It was Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs) who made the first technical mistake, in this post (causing effect 1 and effect 2). You didn't make a technical mistake in the nomination - but you did with this post (causing effect 3 and effect 4). I will say this once again: Legobot (talk · contribs), which is the bot that searches for and publicises RfCs, cannot tell the difference between a real RfC and a demonstration that relies on
<nowiki>...</nowiki>
to indicate to humans that it is a demo and not real. Legobot looks for the three letters "rfc" (case-insensitive) preceded by two opening braces. If it finds those five characters in that sequence, perhaps with spaces between the "{" and the "r", it assumes that it is a live RfC, even if nowiki is being used. So, as advised at WP:RFC#Duration, you should use one of the template-linking templates such as{{tlx}}
. Hence why I made this edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC) - The perennial sources list has inclusion criteria defined at WP:RSP § How to improve this list (one RfC or two significant discussions). Once the criteria are met, any editor can summarize the past discussions into a new entry on the list. If a source is not on the list, it generally means that the source is less popular, less controversial, or more specialized than the ones on the list. RfCs work best on controversial topics and topics that would benefit from community-wide discussion. To start an RfC, you'll need to add the RfC tag, which was overlooked here. Don't worry, just refer to WP:RFC, and you'll get it next time. — Newslinger talk 04:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- @SVTCobra: It was Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs) who made the first technical mistake, in this post (causing effect 1 and effect 2). You didn't make a technical mistake in the nomination - but you did with this post (causing effect 3 and effect 4). I will say this once again: Legobot (talk · contribs), which is the bot that searches for and publicises RfCs, cannot tell the difference between a real RfC and a demonstration that relies on
- OK, understood. It just seems to me the list would be more useful if certain sources were 'green listed' ahead of them being challenged. Maybe it is to keep the list short, but a long list is preferable to searching the rfc archives, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I appreciate your explaination. Thanks, --SVTCobra 09:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- SVTCobra, you may want to take a look at WP:NPPSG, which is a work in progress. The idea for that page is to primarily meet the needs of new page patrollers who are evaluating articles about topics they are unfamiliar with, so it requires a weaker level of consensus necessary for inclusion (and consequently carries less weight and should be used with more caution).signed, Rosguill talk 18:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- OK, understood. It just seems to me the list would be more useful if certain sources were 'green listed' ahead of them being challenged. Maybe it is to keep the list short, but a long list is preferable to searching the rfc archives, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I appreciate your explaination. Thanks, --SVTCobra 09:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't regard my mistake as a "laugh". Sorry, and thanks Redrose64. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, they are laughing at my bringing this here in the first place. The Herald shouldn't have been debated it appears. --SVTCobra 14:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- @SVTCobra: I'm not laughing at you, I think your bringing up the herald is a good thing ~ if you notice in my summary WP:Humor ~ by far it is not to degrade anyone in their edits ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Good for general topics, like any other quality newspaper. As with other general interest publications, WP:MEDPOP and the like apply: defer to specialist publications for specialist topics. RSP is for sources which are controversial enough to merit discussion here at RSN. Those that are obviously reliable (such as this) and those that are not (such as InfoWars) don't really need much debate. feminist (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Option 1 All the caveats that would go along with any news organisation apply, it's a well-established broadsheet newspaper with a reputation for fact checking etc. For factual reporting, I'd put it in the same brackets as the Guardian or Telegraph. GirthSummit (blether) 13:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Bad RfC - These "Is X a terrible source which should be banned from Wiki" RFCs have been like a rash on this page since the DM ban, which was the original instance of banning something just because the power existed to do it. There is no reason to classify the Herald here, no reason why help is needed to do this. Just apply WP:NEWSORG. FOARP (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
RfC: Taki's Magazine
I've seen Taki's Magazine listed as a source a number of times recently and I'm worried by its use, it appears to be something similar to Breitbart. Before I go removing it and related claims from articles I'd like some feedback regarding its reliability. Which of the following best describes the reliability of Taki's Magazine?
- Generally reliable for factual reporting
- Unclear or additional considerations apply
- Generally unreliable for factual reporting
- Publishes false or fabricated information
Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- pure opinion, not reporting--and not particularly good at it. It's not as reckless as Breitbart, but that isn't saying much. Opinion is never a reliable source for anything other than the view of the author, and I don't think their authors are notable enough to have views worth including. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely unreliable - it's well-known for publishing racist garbage. Its managing editor was once noted neo-Nazi and white supremacist Richard Spencer, and it counts among its contributors a number of fringe extremist racists such as Peter Brimelow and John Derbyshire (fired from National Review once his white supremacist work at Taki's Mag became publicly known) [2] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Option 3 or 4. Taki's Magazine (a.k.a. Taki's Mag or Takimag) occupies a similar niche as VDARE (RSP entry), which was deprecated in December 2018. The site is biased or opinionated, and its published opinions are very likely to constitute undue weight. Taki's Magazine's reputation has been panned by a number of reliable sources:
Quotes about Taki's Magazine from reliable sources
|
---|
"McInnes, Molyneux, and 4chan: Investigating pathways to the alt-right", Southern Poverty Law Center (RSP entry)
"Paleoconservatism, the movement that explains Donald Trump, explained", Dylan Matthews, Vox (RSP entry)
"Meet the White Nationalist Trying To Ride The Trump Train to Lasting Power", Mother Jones (RSP entry)
"How Alexander Chancellor’s magazine became the home of the British alt-right", Harry Eyres, New Statesman
"Beyond Alt: Understanding the New Far Right", New York (RSP entry) |
- We should not be using this. I am loathe to option-4 this without clear indication of fabrication - however it is fairly obvious we should not be using a far-right publication - mostly UNDUE for opinion, and lacking a reputation for fact checking.Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Bad RfC. The claim is it was "isted as a source a number of times recently" but not a shred of a hint of where or how. No evidence that there is a dispute requiring an RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Not claiming anything, I'm asking about the general reliability of a source. Bacondrum (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- You did indeed claim to have seen it used, or you wouldn't have been considering this post. But here on Wikipedia, we have no such thing known as "general reliability" of sources: sources are evaluated based on their ability to support various types of claims. A research study on the efficacy of aspirin is not "generally reliable" for the miracles of Jesus; the Gospel of Luke is not "generally reliable" for the efficacy of aspirin to treat headaches (despite Luke being a physician.) So this gives rise to the perennial objection to these generalized and context-free RFCs about "general reliability" of sources - yes, some sources like the Daily Mail are "generally unreliable" but we can't claim the converse: we need context about what type of claims are being made, in order to correlate them with the purview of the source in question. Only then can we evaluate reliability. So I hope you will understand the necessity of you producing some context, such as where this source was cited, and for what types of facts it is being invoked. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, so what if I never saw it used, what difference would it make? I want to know if other editors think it's reliable, it's called seeking consensus...What on Earth could possibly be wrong with that? Bacondrum (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- I can't see how it makes any difference - if the source is unreliable, then that's what it is, but here's the version of the page that I first saw it on. I removed it as it was obviously not even close to good enough. Upon reading the source I was shocked at the quality of the publication (or lack thereof), I then noticed the same crappy source used on related pages (all of which appeared to have suffered from extensive tendentious editing), so I made the request, to see what other editors thought of the thing. Bacondrum (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- "here on Wikipedia, we have no such thing known as "general reliability" of sources: sources are evaluated based on their ability to support various types of claims" Obviously false, as demonstrated here and here. Yes, context absolutely matters, but we do have standards for general reliability, claims to the contrary are demonstrably false. Bacondrum (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- I can't see how it makes any difference - if the source is unreliable, then that's what it is, but here's the version of the page that I first saw it on. I removed it as it was obviously not even close to good enough. Upon reading the source I was shocked at the quality of the publication (or lack thereof), I then noticed the same crappy source used on related pages (all of which appeared to have suffered from extensive tendentious editing), so I made the request, to see what other editors thought of the thing. Bacondrum (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- I was going to respond here, but my response is better suited for the RfC below (RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs), which focuses on this matter. — Newslinger talk 01:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, so what if I never saw it used, what difference would it make? I want to know if other editors think it's reliable, it's called seeking consensus...What on Earth could possibly be wrong with that? Bacondrum (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- You did indeed claim to have seen it used, or you wouldn't have been considering this post. But here on Wikipedia, we have no such thing known as "general reliability" of sources: sources are evaluated based on their ability to support various types of claims. A research study on the efficacy of aspirin is not "generally reliable" for the miracles of Jesus; the Gospel of Luke is not "generally reliable" for the efficacy of aspirin to treat headaches (despite Luke being a physician.) So this gives rise to the perennial objection to these generalized and context-free RFCs about "general reliability" of sources - yes, some sources like the Daily Mail are "generally unreliable" but we can't claim the converse: we need context about what type of claims are being made, in order to correlate them with the purview of the source in question. Only then can we evaluate reliability. So I hope you will understand the necessity of you producing some context, such as where this source was cited, and for what types of facts it is being invoked. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Endorse RfC. The domain takimag.com is currently used in 69 articles. A number of these citations should be removed because the referenced articles are used for factual information, for which Taki's Magazine is generally unreliable, e.g. the citations in Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23, 2010s in fashion, and Tropicana Casino & Resort Atlantic City. Some of these citations should be removed because they constitute undue weight, e.g. the citations in God Is Not Great, Death Wish (1974 film), and The New Art Gallery Walsall. This RfC addresses all of these uses, including the six citations I mentioned. — Newslinger talk 02:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Not claiming anything, I'm asking about the general reliability of a source. Bacondrum (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Terrible source that shouldn't be used for anything, except limited primary source use, e.g. the article in Takimag that got John Derbyshire fired from National Review - David Gerard (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Use only for attributed statements of opinion, with in text attribution per David Gerrard. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Question Is there any evidence they have A reputation for poor fact checking?Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Slatersteven, not that I have seen. It looks like the reasons that this source is being considered unreliable is due to some editors not liking the views of some of the sources contributors, it occupying a similar niche to sources widely considered unreliable, and due to being "far-right". Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Have a look at the articles, mostly opinion, much of it is overtly racist. It's clearly a highly-partisan site which ignores general principles of journalism in order to attack perceived ideological opponents and defend perceived ideological allies. If this is the standard for a reliable source then anything and everything should be considered a reliable source, including editors personal opinion, YouTube and Facebook. It was edited by out and out Nazi Richard Spencer. You'd be setting your standards very low to callthis anything but completely unreliable, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- So no then apart form its POV (and no the reason we do not allow YouTube and Facebook is because they are full of out and out falsehoods, So then at worst its RS for its own opinions, and at best it in fact does not have a reputation for poor fact checking. So I have to go with Unclear or additional considerations apply.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Being "highly-partisan" is not evidence that a source has a reputation for poor checking. If you are claiming it ignores general journalistic principles then please provide evidence, otherwise it will come across as you trying to say this source is unreliable because you disagree ideologically with it. YouTube and Facebook are completely different. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Have a look at the articles, mostly opinion, much of it is overtly racist. It's clearly a highly-partisan site which ignores general principles of journalism in order to attack perceived ideological opponents and defend perceived ideological allies. If this is the standard for a reliable source then anything and everything should be considered a reliable source, including editors personal opinion, YouTube and Facebook. It was edited by out and out Nazi Richard Spencer. You'd be setting your standards very low to callthis anything but completely unreliable, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Don't you have that backwards? WP:RS requires that a source have
reputation for fact-checking an accuracy
, not that nobody can prove they're inaccurate. If you want to defend the use of a source, you are the one who has to present proof that they have the fact-checking and accuracy WP:RS requires - eg. descriptions in other sources, or use in high-quality sources in a way that clearly reflects a trust in their content. I'm not seeing that here; if the best people can say in its defense is "you can't prove it's unreliable!", it probably doesn't pass WP:RS. I think that partially this discussion might be confused because we usually discuss sources that might otherwise pass WP:RS if it weren't for evidence they were intentionally publishing falsehoods (eg. Breitbart, the Daily Mail, etc.) - but this source is different. It doesn't pass even the baseline. A source with no reputation for factual reporting at all fails WP:RS completely, so you have to prove it has some sort of reputation before you can demand that others find evidence it's screwed up. --Aquillion (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- I am not trying to prove anything, I just am not sure that "its biased" is a valid justification (and in fact " However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."). That was my pointSlatersteven (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Here's the quotes again regarding Taki's as provided by Newsliinger if you need more:
Quotes about Taki's Magazine from reliable sources
|
---|
"McInnes, Molyneux, and 4chan: Investigating pathways to the alt-right", Southern Poverty Law Center (RSP entry)
"Paleoconservatism, the movement that explains Donald Trump, explained", Dylan Matthews, Vox (RSP entry)
"Meet the White Nationalist Trying To Ride The Trump Train to Lasting Power", Mother Jones (RSP entry)
"How Alexander Chancellor’s magazine became the home of the British alt-right", Harry Eyres, New Statesman
"Beyond Alt: Understanding the New Far Right", New York (RSP entry) |
- Avoid. Only as limited primary source may be of some help. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Bad RfC as per Peter Gulutzan. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Terrible source - unreliable Autarch (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Generally unusable for statements of fact (3) and not generally great as an opinion source, either. There's no evidence (as far as I'm aware) that it engages in outright fabrication, but that alone is not enough to get a source past WP:RS, which requires an actual
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
that this source lacks. It's clearly a WP:FRINGE outlet that posts entirely opinions; there's no evidence they do any investigation or fact-checking at all. It also lacks the reputation that would make opinions posted there automatically notable (it was difficult to find sources for its article, and the ones that came up were often critical or only mentioned it in passing), so it doesn't have much use as an opinion-piece outside of places where the author is directly the subject of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC) - Generally unusable for statements of fact (3) - only because even a broken clock can be right every once in a while. It's putrid garbage, and should probably be blacklisted from Wikipedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Bad RFC - No concrete instances of this source actually being at-issue with relation to article content have been raised. This is simply a WP:FORUM discussion. FOARP (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs
- Should we agree to halt the use of RFCs containing four options for "general (un)reliability" of a source, particularly when said RFC contains no specific instances of claims or citations?
- While it may be useful to deprecate heavily-used and clearly-unreliable sources, the corollary is not true: Wikipedia is unable to promote a source to "reliable for any assertion about any topic whatsoever"; reliability is always assessed based on the nature of the claims being made.
- With these parameters in mind, is it futile for us to continually open RFCs here on WP:RSN if an outcome of "generally reliable for everything" is counter-productive and misleading?
- Sub-question: should such RFCs be permitted as long as they include at least one concrete example of an assertion of fact, such as one which is currently in dispute on an article's talk page?
Elizium23 (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Elizium23: Could you provide a couple of examples of the types of RfCs you think should be halted? 01:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkimaria (talk • contribs)
- Sure: WP:RSN#RfC: Quadrant Magazine, WP:RSN#RfC: Daily Graphic and graphic.com.gh, WP:RSN#RfC: The Herald (Glasgow). I didn't even have to visit our archives for them. I am not sure where this template originated, but it has rapidly become the de facto method for opening discussions here on RSN, and I do not like it, no sir, not one bit. Elizium23 (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: This RfC is related to the RfC at WT:RSN § RfC: Header text, which affects the header text of this noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 01:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose halting RfCs. By generally reliable, we're referring to sources that have a strong reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. They usually have a reputable editorial team, and tend to be endorsed or used by other reliable sources for factual information. Context always matters, and the consensus shown in some discussions on this noticeboard restrict the scope of what a source is generally reliable for (e.g. The Verge RfC).
Note that the word generally means "usually" in this context, not "always". The general classification of a source is only the starting point for evaluating reliability, and specific uses of a source can always be brought to this noticeboard for a more targeted review. If a source frequently publishes articles outside of its circle of competence, like in your example about science and religion, then the source should not be considered generally reliable. — Newslinger talk 01:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Then perhaps the question we should be asking is: Is there evidence that [source] have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight? If a source meets these criteria, and independence from the topic, etc., then per WP:NEWSORG we may deem it to be generally reliable for statements of fact. But I do not think it is useful to whip up boiler-plate RFCs directly asking whether [source] is 'generally reliable' (and it's interesting that the qualification for statements of fact is, here on RSN, often missing from this question. Elizium23 (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth,The 3 RfCs you have linked (Quadrant, Daily Graphic, The Herald) do include the"for factual reporting"
qualifier after"Generally reliable"
. If this is not descriptive enough, then I agree that it would be helpful to provide more detailed definitions of each option in RfCs of this type. — Newslinger talk 01:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)- For what it's worth? Zilch. Newslinger opposed directly quoting or pointing to the RfCs, successfully. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Your reference and link to a discussion on edit filters have nothing to do with generally reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 03:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- For what it's worth? Zilch. Newslinger opposed directly quoting or pointing to the RfCs, successfully. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Newslinger: If "generally reliable" is supposed to mean "usually" it should be worded differently, because "generally" sounds like it means in the broadest sense. "In general" is not equivalent to saying "in the cases where this source is applicable as a potential RS". If Scientific American is "generally reliable" then it would be reliable for politics too. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this up. I've started a discussion at WT:RSP § "Generally" in search of a less ambiguous word than generally. — Newslinger talk 23:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- I am neutral on the restriction (
"include at least one concrete example of an assertion of fact"
) suggested in the sub-question. While we should encourage editors to provide examples of how a source is being used, a question on the general reliability of a source shouldn't be unduly focused on one specific use of that source. — Newslinger talk 01:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Then perhaps the question we should be asking is: Is there evidence that [source] have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight? If a source meets these criteria, and independence from the topic, etc., then per WP:NEWSORG we may deem it to be generally reliable for statements of fact. But I do not think it is useful to whip up boiler-plate RFCs directly asking whether [source] is 'generally reliable' (and it's interesting that the qualification for statements of fact is, here on RSN, often missing from this question. Elizium23 (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose halting RfCs. What's wrong with seeking a consensus as to the reliability of a source? I thought we were aiming to have high quality reliable sources? If an outlet is unreliable, it is unreliable WP:SPADE. I personally think it's a very useful means to ensure quality citations and avoid myriad edit wars and content disputes before they happen. Bacondrum (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Isn't the whole purpose of this noticeboard to ask questions regarding reliable sources? Bacondrum (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Shouldn't this discussion be held somewhere else? This is the reliable source noticeboard, isn't it? Perhaps the talk page would be more appropriate? Bacondrum (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose halting RfCs. It's appropriate to have one big discussion about a source's reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction since this doesn't usually change from article to article. This doesn't prevent us from discussing its appropriateness in a specific instance where things like attributed quotes or scientific/medical claims come into play. –dlthewave ☎ 12:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, though there are a tad too many of these lately. Generally a RfC here on the general use should be preceded by a discussion on a particular use (here), and also demonstrating that we have a general problem (e.g. We use source X in 100 articles, despite source X being described as Y....). Lately - there have been some RfCs here that jumped the gun on proper pre-RfC discussions. However, we definitely shouldn't have a moratorium on RfCs of these type generally - as discussions sources is exactly what this board is for. Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Be more careful Don't reach straight for the RfC unless other options have proved fruitless. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support. RfCs should only be used in order to cleanly remove/"deprecate" currently in-use sources. For sources where no formal action is envisaged, start with a standard discussion. feminist (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support as there ahave been far too many in a short period so that the discussion is often truncated, undetailed, lacking participation and depth of investigation, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support. The four-way question is deceptive and not consistent with WP:RS. It misleads by claiming to be a "deprecation" so people who know this dictionary definition will think it's about "disapproval" but in fact the intent (not necessarily implemented) is that an edit filter will result in a message that references are generally prohibited. It misleads by claiming to be "as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail" but in fact the Daily Mail closers didn't say "deprecating", said the prohibition is of use as a reference, and said opinion pieces are okay. It misleads by causing links to essay-status pages as if they have some sort of authority, when the real authority is WP:RS policy (the one that says to always take context into account). The Herald (Glasgow) RfC is an example of misuse -- an editor included the question about treating like The Daily Mail, not with evidence that serious people might think that but it's in the four-way question. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Excuse me, sir, but "misuse"? I felt The Herald belongs on WP:RSP. What is the process if not posting here and getting consensus? It was my first time at this noticeboard. I saw the "four option" query being used here as if it was a template or standard format, so I followed suit. Other contributors even thanked me for the submission or said they thought The Herald was already on the list of perennial sources. And since this is policy currently being voted on, I don't think I was wrong, so I thank you not to characterize my submission as misuse or abuse of the noticeboard. --SVTCobra 20:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- SVTCobra Indeed, all this talk of misuse and dishonesty is way out of line, what happened to the assumption of good faith? I too saw that NEWSLINGER had used that format and I thought it was a clear and efficiant way to get feedback, I never asked for anything to be depreciated. Isn't this notice board precisely for asking about the reliability of sources? I've seen very little reasoning used here, just claims that too many people are asking questions or that those who ask are being dishonest. Should probably get rid of this noticeboard then, why have it if you aren't allowed to ask too much or your going to be accused of dishonesty. Bacondrum (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Neither of the Daily Mail (RSP entry) RfCs (2017 nor 2019) concluded that
"opinion pieces are okay"
. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for what reference means.Even deprecated sources qualify for the WP:ABOUTSELF exception, which allows their use for uncontroversial self-descriptions in the rare case that they are WP:DUE and covered by reliable sources. The reliable sources guideline is being honored in all of these RfCs, because context matters in each of the four options. (The only exception is the CoinDesk RfC, and I opposed the proposal in that RfC's statement because this criterion was not met.) WP:DEPS defers to WP:RS and explicitly states,
"reliability always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others"
. If there is any confusion about what deprecation means, a link to WP:DEPS will clarify.When an editor asks about a low-quality source, we should be able to say that it is questionable, and that it generally shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. Repeatedly debating the inclusion of poor sources that have earned abysmal reputations for repeatedly publishing false or fabricated information, conspiracy theories, or pseudoscience is a waste of the community's time. RfCs of this type allow us to make decisive evaluations resulting in consensus that endures until there is evidence that the source's reputation has changed. Consensus is a policy. — Newslinger talk 21:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- I said "misuse" correctly but should have emphasized it was innocent misuse, which is obvious. I said "and [Daily Mail RfC closers] said opinion pieces are okay" because despite Newslinger's irrelevancies it is a fact, see the NPOVN archive of a May 2017 discussion and look for the words "Attributed opinions of the author were not considered in the RFC, and a reasonable exception from the ban appears correct here." Nobody said anything against "we should be able to say that it is questionable" because that's not the topic. Consensus is not a policy that allows overriding WP:RS because WP:CONLEVEL. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- At Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 65 § Daily Mail, the full statement from Tazerdadog (one of the 2017 Daily Mail RfC closers) was:
- I said "misuse" correctly but should have emphasized it was innocent misuse, which is obvious. I said "and [Daily Mail RfC closers] said opinion pieces are okay" because despite Newslinger's irrelevancies it is a fact, see the NPOVN archive of a May 2017 discussion and look for the words "Attributed opinions of the author were not considered in the RFC, and a reasonable exception from the ban appears correct here." Nobody said anything against "we should be able to say that it is questionable" because that's not the topic. Consensus is not a policy that allows overriding WP:RS because WP:CONLEVEL. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Excuse me, sir, but "misuse"? I felt The Herald belongs on WP:RSP. What is the process if not posting here and getting consensus? It was my first time at this noticeboard. I saw the "four option" query being used here as if it was a template or standard format, so I followed suit. Other contributors even thanked me for the submission or said they thought The Herald was already on the list of perennial sources. And since this is policy currently being voted on, I don't think I was wrong, so I thank you not to characterize my submission as misuse or abuse of the noticeboard. --SVTCobra 20:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Attributed opinions of people other than the author were considered in the RFC and were included in the ban (IAR notwithstanding). Attributed opinions of the author were not considered in the RFC, and a reasonable exception from the ban appears correct here.)
- The attributed opinions of any article's author are covered under WP:ABOUTSELF, which applies to all questionable (and deprecated) sources, although due weight should also be considered. If you don't like the results of the two Daily Mail RfCs, you can try to convince the community that
"its use as a reference"
should not be"generally prohibited"
. Overturning the current consensus would require a third RfC on the Daily Mail, which is not advisable right now because it's highly unlikely to succeed.Nobody is suggesting that WP:RS should be overridden; the type of RfC being discussed here uses WP:V and WP:RS to identify questionable sources for what they are:
"generally unreliable"
. — Newslinger talk 08:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)- WP:ABOUTSELF is "about self", an honest title that has nothing whatever to do with Newslinger's assertion. But that doesn't matter since now there's no dispute that the closers said attributed opinions are okay, which is one of the reasons the question is misleading. I said nothing in this thread about overturning WP:DAILYMAIL, perhaps Newslinger mixes that up with my remarks that one shouldn't say something is like The Daily Mail and its RfC when it's not. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Please re-read WP:ABOUTSELF. Using the example from the NPOVN discussion, the article that Katie Hopkins published in the Daily Mail qualifies under WP:ABOUTSELF as an uncontroversial representation of what Hopkins's own opinions are. However, this is only due in the article on Katie Hopkins (and if it were more prominent, it would be due in the Daily Mail article). It is not due anywhere else. Claiming that
"the closers said attributed opinions are okay"
is extremely misleading, since it conflates WP:RSOPINION (which the Daily Mail does not qualify for, because it's not considered a reliable source) with WP:ABOUTSELF (which is a restrictive exemption granted to all questionable sources and self-published sources). — Newslinger talk 20:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)- The closer remarks that I pointed to made no mention of WP:ABOUTSELF, Newslinger while claiming to quote "the full statement from Tazerdadog" quoted only one full statement, another was "However, the DM does not have a reputation for altering the words of the author of the piece, so this can be taken as one of the exceptions we tried to write into the close.", the point at issue wasn't secretly WP:ABOUTSELF unless one believes that when Katie Hopkins wrote "Britain is faced with some hard questions ..." the word Britain was a synonym for Katie Hopkins. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- That is covered under WP:ABOUTSELF, because the claim is that Hopkins wrote the statement in the Daily Mail, not that the statement is true. It is used in the Katie Hopkins article as a primary source equivalent, but is not due anywhere else. Since WP:ABOUTSELF covers this situation entirely, no additional exceptions were made for the Daily Mail beyond what is normally allotted for questionable sources. The 2017 Daily Mail RfC does not support the use of the Daily Mail for all
"opinion pieces"
, but the ones eligible for WP:ABOUTSELF"were not considered in the RFC"
. — Newslinger talk 00:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)- I asked a closer, Primefac. The reply is here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying with Primefac. The Katie Hopkins case was not the ideal example, since it falls under WP:ABOUTSELF in the Katie Hopkins article. I will defer to Primefac's explanation for attributed opinions of Daily Mail authors in articles other than the article of the author, although due weight still applies. — Newslinger talk 21:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- I asked a closer, Primefac. The reply is here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- That is covered under WP:ABOUTSELF, because the claim is that Hopkins wrote the statement in the Daily Mail, not that the statement is true. It is used in the Katie Hopkins article as a primary source equivalent, but is not due anywhere else. Since WP:ABOUTSELF covers this situation entirely, no additional exceptions were made for the Daily Mail beyond what is normally allotted for questionable sources. The 2017 Daily Mail RfC does not support the use of the Daily Mail for all
- The closer remarks that I pointed to made no mention of WP:ABOUTSELF, Newslinger while claiming to quote "the full statement from Tazerdadog" quoted only one full statement, another was "However, the DM does not have a reputation for altering the words of the author of the piece, so this can be taken as one of the exceptions we tried to write into the close.", the point at issue wasn't secretly WP:ABOUTSELF unless one believes that when Katie Hopkins wrote "Britain is faced with some hard questions ..." the word Britain was a synonym for Katie Hopkins. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Please re-read WP:ABOUTSELF. Using the example from the NPOVN discussion, the article that Katie Hopkins published in the Daily Mail qualifies under WP:ABOUTSELF as an uncontroversial representation of what Hopkins's own opinions are. However, this is only due in the article on Katie Hopkins (and if it were more prominent, it would be due in the Daily Mail article). It is not due anywhere else. Claiming that
- WP:ABOUTSELF is "about self", an honest title that has nothing whatever to do with Newslinger's assertion. But that doesn't matter since now there's no dispute that the closers said attributed opinions are okay, which is one of the reasons the question is misleading. I said nothing in this thread about overturning WP:DAILYMAIL, perhaps Newslinger mixes that up with my remarks that one shouldn't say something is like The Daily Mail and its RfC when it's not. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- The attributed opinions of any article's author are covered under WP:ABOUTSELF, which applies to all questionable (and deprecated) sources, although due weight should also be considered. If you don't like the results of the two Daily Mail RfCs, you can try to convince the community that
- If the term deprecation is an issue, anyone can submit a requested move from Wikipedia:Deprecated sources to Wikipedia:Highly questionable sources or some other name. The name makes no difference to me. However, I get the impression that you're not objecting to the name, but to the adoption of edit filters and other mechanisms that discourage the use of highly questionable sources. There is consensus that RfCs are the preferred process for determining whether these mechanisms should be implemented. You can verify this through the 18 successful RfCs that deprecated 17 different sources, and you can also read this paragraph from the closing statement of the 2019 Daily Mail RfC:
Finally, a number of editors argued that other publications were similarly, or more, unreliable than the Daily Mail. We note that the unreliability of a different source is a reason to remove that source, and is irrelevant here; regardless, these other publications are outside the scope of this RfC, and if there are lingering concerns about other tabloids or tabloids in general, a separate RfC is necessary to assess current consensus about them.
- — Newslinger talk 08:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- There was absolutely zero "lingering concern" that something like The Herald (Glasgow) is a tabloid meriting removal, but there is concern here about the misuse of a misleading 4-way question that was never suggested in WP:DAILYMAIL closing remarks. As for "identifying questionable sources" -- great idea, because it's normal behaviour following instructions at the top of this WP:RSN page, i.e. it's not an RfC with four fixed questions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- As of right now, nobody in the RfC for The Herald has claimed that it is a
"tabloid meriting removal"
. WP:RFC lists a number of accepted uses for an RfC:"Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content."
The type of RfC under debate solicits input on whether a source generally meets the requirements of WP:V (a policy) and WP:RS (a guideline). Outside of the instructions in WP:RFCST, declaring whether an RfC format is or isn't"normal behaviour"
for other editors is excessively bureaucratic, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. — Newslinger talk 20:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)- You brought up "lingering concerns about tabloids", I observed there was no lingering concern, so the excuse that you brought up doesn't hold. You brought up how good identifying questionable sources was, I said that's normal and in keeping with WP:RSN, I don't think I need to excuse that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- These 18 RfCs, some of which you participated in, show ample
"lingering concerns"
regarding a wide variety of sources, including tabloids. One of the goals of these RfCs are to identify low-quality sources like InfoWars (RfC), Breitbart News (RfC) (which you defended), and Occupy Democrats (RfC) as sources that should be discouraged from use. — Newslinger talk 00:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)- I assume the closer of this RfC will be capable of noticing that Newslinger changed the subject instead of addressing the point. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- You're ignoring the 18 RfCs that showed consensus for deprecating the source (including two tabloids, The Sun (RfC) and the National Enquirer (RfC)) and cherry-picking one RfC that doesn't. I've addressed your point. — Newslinger talk 21:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- I assume the closer of this RfC will be capable of noticing that Newslinger changed the subject instead of addressing the point. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- These 18 RfCs, some of which you participated in, show ample
- You brought up "lingering concerns about tabloids", I observed there was no lingering concern, so the excuse that you brought up doesn't hold. You brought up how good identifying questionable sources was, I said that's normal and in keeping with WP:RSN, I don't think I need to excuse that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- As of right now, nobody in the RfC for The Herald has claimed that it is a
- There was absolutely zero "lingering concern" that something like The Herald (Glasgow) is a tabloid meriting removal, but there is concern here about the misuse of a misleading 4-way question that was never suggested in WP:DAILYMAIL closing remarks. As for "identifying questionable sources" -- great idea, because it's normal behaviour following instructions at the top of this WP:RSN page, i.e. it's not an RfC with four fixed questions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- — Newslinger talk 08:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Strong oppose as per dlthewave. François Robere (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - David Gerard (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose also per Dlthewave. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - those kind of RfCs are appropriate for sketchy sources which are widely used. Like Daily Mail or Fox News kind of stuff. They are not appropriate for more narrow topics or sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Newslinger and others, with the added notes that 1) this should probably take place on the talk page for this board and 2) there's already a discussion under way there on an overlapping topic. signed, Rosguill talk 22:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Let's have a moratorium on RfCs about RfCs. Softlavender (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hahaha! My thoughts exactly, thanks for the chuckle.
- Oppose but I agree with Icewhiz about the need to first establish that a source has specific reliability issues before going for a general RfC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comment above: These RFCs are useful to get a very rough barometer for how a source is seen by the community and how specific questions about it are likely to be evaluated. Unless an RFC is worded as an outright ban (which is very rare, and generally invoked as a last resort), I don't think any outcome is taken to mean "always reliable, can never be questioned" or "always unreliable, remove on sight"; rather, they provide editors with a quick reference point so they know where they're starting from and the mood of the room if they want to argue for or against using a particular source in a particular context. Additionally, while it's accurate to say that we should judge each case individually, the reality is that we can't reliably get enough people to weigh in on each of them to ensure consistent assessment of sources; going entirely case-by-case with no broader RFCs would result in inconsistent and sometimes random responses based on who happened to weigh in. In particular, one of the requirements of WP:RS is that a source have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", often the most difficult thing to assess - and one that usually doesn't vary much from use to use (or, if it does, it does so in a consistent expected way that can be noted during the RFC.) These RFCs can't predict or account for all possible uses of a source, but they're absolutely useful in terms of giving us a consistent, reasonably well-grounded definition of "does this source, on the whole, have the baseline reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires?" --Aquillion (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is that a source may have a “baseline reputation for fact checking and accuracy” in one area, and not have one in another area. This was pointed out in the several Daily Mail RFCs... the DM is accurate when reporting on sports... not when reporting on politics and celebrities. This is why I am not a fan of these RFCs. They don’t examine context. Blueboar (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- So, several things. First, and most importantly, the Daily Mail RFC was one of those "last resort" things I mentioned - it's different from most of the RFCs we use here. Because a few people kept trying to use the Daily Mail as if it were a top-tier New York Times-quality source despite a very clear informal consensus that it was generally not reliable (and even though it kept coming back to WP:RSN and getting basically laughed off the page), we took the unusual step of formalizing that consensus into a general banned-by-default RFC. Those are and should be extremely rare, reserved only for when people keep insisting on trying to use a source in clearly unworkable ways over and over (ie. when a source both rarely passes WP:RS and is extremely popular for controversial topics where it clearly fails WP:RS.) It wasn't a gauge-the-general-room-temperature-for-the-Daily-Mail RFC, it was a we're-at-wits-end-and-need-this-to-stop RFC. Those are a separate thing, but I think they're justifiable occasionally; even in sports, I don't feel there much we would want in Wikipedia uniquely sourceable to the Daily Mail that can't be found elsewhere. But for the more common sorts of "what does the community think of X?" RFCs, things like this can be noted in the RFC, if it's true. We're not limited to binary yes / no options - the purpose of those RFCs is to collect a general measure of the community's consensus on a source in one place; if you look at the RFCs above, they're generally cautiously worded and lead to fairly cautiously worded entries in WP:RSP to provide guidance to editors, not strict bans or the like. Also, you are more likely to have someone contribute who knows those details in a large month-long RFC with a lot of people contributing than to have it come up in a tiny brief discussion with only a few people - what makes you think that if you come here saying "I want to use the Daily Mail as a source for Joe Sportsman", you'll get anything but "hahaha the Daily Mail? No." from the vast majority of responses? In this sense the RFCs are useful because they're more likely to turn up someone who says "wait, source X is actually usable in situation Y!", which (if they convince people in the RFC) can then be noted down on WP:RSP as something that came up and will then be available to editors who wouldn't otherwise have known it (and may not have discovered it, if they just poked WP:RSN and got a response from a handful of random people for their exact issue, which seems to be what the support voters here want us to go back to.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is that a source may have a “baseline reputation for fact checking and accuracy” in one area, and not have one in another area. This was pointed out in the several Daily Mail RFCs... the DM is accurate when reporting on sports... not when reporting on politics and celebrities. This is why I am not a fan of these RFCs. They don’t examine context. Blueboar (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose It is what is says on the box: an RfC about general reliability. ANY website is reliable for the material it says about itself, but we try not to use / should be very careful with the use of those (primary) sources in the first place. It is a good thing that we establish as a community that a certain source is generally reliable, sometimes/often reliable or generally unreliable. The ones that the community decides that they are generally unreliable should be removed for non-primary sources, and the use as primary source should be scrutinized and may need removal. The use of such unreliable sources should be strongly discouraged and sometimes plainly be made 'impossible' (i.e. only be possible after a consensus discussion). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Alternate proposal - define and restrict General Reliability RFCs to cases where they actually make sense:
- A General Reliability RFC is useful for adding a source to the list of perennial sources.
- A General Reliability RFC is only appropriate if there have been at least 3 previous RSN discussions on the same source, each linked in the General RFC. This establishes that there is a genuine purpose for a generalized discussion, and it ensures at least previous three disputed cases for examination as well as that previous ground work of research and analysis. A general RFC on a source no one ever heard of, which no one will ever bring up again, and with no substantial evidentiary basis, is a bad use of other people's time.
- The instructions and documentation should prominently state that that the outcome of a General Reliability RFC does not resolve any open dispute about any particular usage at any particular article. RSN already lays out separate instructions and requirements for that. Alsee (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- At least in as much as it applies, I have long said that we should not be having RfCs or even dedicated threads purely for the purpose of listing a source (one way or the other) on WP:RSPS. See also Goodhart's law. GMGtalk 14:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support strongly. If someone cares about looking into a sources reliability and answering questions about it they can go here. RfCs for sources which have not been brought here before just bludgeon the process and waste everybody involved's times. Sources should only be brought to RfC if there was no consensus or the consensus was not wide enough. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support While some publications are more reliable than others, it's not as if some sources are gospel truth while others are heretical. Above, we are spending time on the American Conservative which publishes conservative opinion. Policy is however clear. Opinion pieces are rarely reliable unless written by experts. What point is there in having an argument about what people think about these opinions? TFD (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support The whole idea of a broad brush for a source is badly flawed. First every source varies in reliability. Second, reliability varies with respect to the text which supports it. Britney Spear's sister's book might be reliable as a cite for a "Britney's favorite color is.." statement, but not for a statement on particle physics. North8000 (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Honestly all the RFCs without having discussion first is disruptive and not very helpful in general. A RFC should be a last resort and not a first try. It also ignores the general ideas of what we consider a RS. PackMecEng (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support per PackMecEng. The number of frivolous RfCs on this noticeboard discourages widespread participation, which undermines the possibility of them being authoritative answers, and encourages users to start an RfC every time they have a question about a source, or a gripe with one. Further, the wording of "generally reliable" which I take to mean "in general" conflicts with the primary meanings of "general" and may be misleading. Only an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source anyway, would be "generally reliable". The RfCs are stamping a "general" seal of approval on sources that may have only narrow applicability. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support - These "Is X a terrible source which should be banned from Wiki" RFCs have been like a rash on this page since the DM ban, which was the original instance of banning something just because the power existed to do it. There is no reason to classify every single potential source here, and by doing so we store up potential problems for the future (bad decisions made without any context, which when applied to an actual case are clearly wrong in the context of that case). Just apply WP:NEWSORG. FOARP (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
PS - I also think a good argument can be made that these general discussions of source-reliability are against WP:FORUM. Unless there is a concrete issue related to article content being discussed, then ultimately these are just forum-type discussions about media in general. FOARP (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Workshop
Some editors have suggested restrictions on when an RfC on the general reliability of a source would be appropriate, as well as changes to the commonly used 4-option RfC format. For more coordinated discussion, please list your suggestion in a new subheading under this "Workshop" section, so other editors can comment on them individually. — Newslinger talk 21:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Emir of Wikipedia's proposal
I still oppose option 4 of the "commonly used" format. In my view an RfC on reliability is only appropriate if there has not been a discussion here which generated clear consensus, or if there has been discussion scattered around Wikipedia which needs centralising in an easily referable place. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Alsee's proposal
Alternate proposal - define and restrict General Reliability RFCs to cases where they actually make sense:
- A General Reliability RFC is useful for adding a source to the list of perennial sources.
- A General Reliability RFC is only appropriate if there have been at least 3 previous RSN discussions on the same source, each linked in the General RFC. This establishes that there is a genuine purpose for a generalized discussion, and it ensures at least previous three disputed cases for examination as well as that previous ground work of research and analysis. A general RFC on a source no one ever heard of, which no one will ever bring up again, and with no substantial evidentiary basis, is a bad use of other people's time.
- The instructions and documentation should prominently state that that the outcome of a General Reliability RFC does not resolve any open dispute about any particular usage at any particular article. RSN already lays out separate instructions and requirements for that.
Alsee (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support some combination of this with GMG's proposal below being added to instructions at top of this noticeboard. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Alsee's proposal ensures that general reliability RfCs are decided on at least four rounds of examination (three previous discussions plus the RfC itself), and directs attention to sources that need the most input from editors. It delineates the difference between the general case and specific cases, and does not place undue weight on any single use of a source. RfCs are most useful for reducing the volume of discussions on sources that are discussed too often. This proposal is likely to make the greatest reduction on editor workload by ensuring that there are not too many RfCs nor too many discussions on this noticeboard. (A requirement of 4–5 discussions instead of 3 also sounds reasonable to me.) — Newslinger talk 00:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, too WP:CREEP-y. An essay to this effect might make sense, but these discussions are useful to gauge the general temperature of the community's views on a particular source, which helps people decide whether to open specific discussions and how to word them if they do (eg. letting people know the starting point and whether they need to argue a particular usage is an exception to the general community opinion on a source in one way or another.) More specific RSN discussions are useful but not sufficient for our purposes on their own, since they usually have very little participation and can therefore produce extremely swingy results between similar sources based on who happens to weigh in. --Aquillion (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough, maybe best left for an essay (or some mildly worded friendly advice at the top of this page). I think that formal RfCs exacerbate the problem of these swingy results because if there are 10 active RfCs on here all the time, people watching for RfCs may just start to ignore them. So while it being an RfC may give the impression of being authoritative or representing general consensus, the flood of them may make that not true. Or is that off base? —DIYeditor (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo's proposal
You shouldn't open threads about a source unless there is a specific content dispute. You shouldn't open a thread about the universal reliability of a source unless there is a preponderance of threads dealing with specific content disputes where they have decided the source is unreliable. GMGtalk 23:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- ^^^^ !!!! Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes - though I'd loosen this somewhat. I think it is OK to discuss a widely used source prior to article level discussions (however that shouldn't be a RfC - but a request for input - and should have specific examples - e.g. source W is used for X, Y, and Z. I have concerns because of A, B, C. In any case not universal). A blanket deprecation RfC should only be opened if there is an indication of a problem on Wikipedia (e.g. Daily Mail - was widely used). Icewhiz (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --GRuban (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support – This should become policy. – Levivich 02:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support CThomas3 (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support adding to instructions at top of noticeboard. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, too WP:CREEP-y. Perhaps as a general suggestion, but not as a rule - as discussed above, it is useful for editors to gauge the general "temperature" of opinion on a particular source, and I don't think we should have any hard restrictions on them doing so. --Aquillion (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Aquillion. And honestly there are sources out there that people try to use that are beyond the pale in basically any circumstance. So while no source is always reliable, being able to find out if a source is always unreliable is useful. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- A more specific issue, which came up for the Newsweek RFC below, is that the precise wording of this suggestion would bar people from making general RFCs when a source is frequently discussed and frequently found reliable. (It would also bar RFCs when a source is frequently discussed with no consensus, which is utterly absurd, since those are the situation that most desperately requires a broader high-participation RFC that might reach some sort of consensus.) Having a broad RFC to settle perennial discussions of all sorts is general policy. I'm not sure we even can bar future RFCs of that nature per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:CCC. The whole idea of "let's have an RFC to set the rules under which people can make future RFCs" seems both WP:CREEP-y and sketchy. --Aquillion (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- 100% on the issue of perennial discussion and general policy. Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- That makes sense, we cannot change the rules for RfCs without an RfC advertised as doing such. I was thinking more along the lines of "advice" at the top of this page. Something to the effect that starting a formal RfC for every question about a source may overload the RfC process and limit participation. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is... no source is ever “always unreliable”... if nothing else, every source will be reliable for citing a quote from that source (and is, in fact, the MOST reliable source for that purpose). Blueboar (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- A more specific issue, which came up for the Newsweek RFC below, is that the precise wording of this suggestion would bar people from making general RFCs when a source is frequently discussed and frequently found reliable. (It would also bar RFCs when a source is frequently discussed with no consensus, which is utterly absurd, since those are the situation that most desperately requires a broader high-participation RFC that might reach some sort of consensus.) Having a broad RFC to settle perennial discussions of all sorts is general policy. I'm not sure we even can bar future RFCs of that nature per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:CCC. The whole idea of "let's have an RFC to set the rules under which people can make future RFCs" seems both WP:CREEP-y and sketchy. --Aquillion (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
bozhdynsky.com
http://www.bozhdynsky.com/ Has been used at a number of article about cars [[3]], but appears to be just another website by someone who does not appear to be a noted expert in the field. So is this an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with the assessment that this may be someone's website with any lack of credentials for fact checking. My opinion is that this is not a reliable source. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Generally unreliable. "Yaroslav Bozhdynsky's Personal Website" is a self-published source. A web search shows that Bozhdynsky is most likely a painter by profession, and there's no indication that they're a subject-matter expert. — Newslinger talk 10:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Found the same painter, I just assumed in could not be the same person.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, I made the assumption based on this forum thread. — Newslinger talk 22:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Found the same painter, I just assumed in could not be the same person.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- For details on the term subject-matter expert, please see WP:SPS:
"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."
Unfortunately, Internet forums and personal blogs are also considered self-published sources; they aren't reliable and don't establish Bozhdynsky as a subject-matter expert under Wikipedia's policies. — Newslinger talk 04:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Me and my website quoted as an expert in Alfa Romeo/Maserati/Ferrari/Lancia history:
- citethisforme.com: "Your Bibliography: Bozhdynsky.com"
- ateupwithmotor.com: "Yaroslave Bozhdynsky, “Interview with Enrico Fumia,” Bozhdynsky.com, 2012, www.bozhdynsky. com/cars/ interview-with-enrico-fumia/"
- mlsclassiccars.dk: "Mere info kan findes på Yaroslav Bozhdynsky Bozhdynsky.com"
- squadra916.com: "according to Yaroslav Bozhdynsky" "More invaluable information on standard and limited editions can be found on our member’s personal page Bozhdynsky.com."
- ferrarichat.com: "This is a great resource, one that slipped past my radar previously. Thanks for the link!"
- automotiveviews.com: "bozhdynsky.com/cars/maserati-shamal/"
- sportsmaserati.com: "Not the answer to your question, but some data"
- carstyling.ru: "www.bozhdynsky.com"
- maseratichat.nl: "Een lijst met 124 typen Maserati op deze site: http://www.bozhdynsky.com/tipos/maserati-tipos/"
- petrolicious.com: "bozhdynsky.com"
- wykop.pl: "http://www.bozhdynsky.com/lancia-thema-8-32-sw/"
- alfetta.pl: "miała być lancią deltą )za www. bozhdynsky. com!"
- clubgtv916.com website copied partly from mine, see same photos
- forum.alfaholicy.org: "Co do broszur słabo szukasz, pierwszy wynik z google, strona Bogdańskiego;"
- autocar.dendronet.com: "electric heated seats » yaroslav bozhdynsky's personal website"
- alfa-romeo-portal.com: "Hier findet man fast alles über die 916er, Motoren,Ölmenge,Farben,Sondermodelle usw !"
- alfa916register.nl: "Weet niet of deze site al bekend is, kon het niet vinden met de zoekfunctie. Maar dat zegt niet veel ;) Staan wel interesante zaken op, o.a. produktieaantallen etc. "
- ab.onliner.by: "Автору в помощь про данную версию авто: http://www.bozhdynsky.com/gtv-2-0-ts-ss-elegant-n-062/"
- autogaleria.pl: "Mam fotele ze skórą poltrona frau (http://www.bozhdynsky.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/0252084674007.jpg)"
- alfaklub.dk: "Næppe, ihvertfald iflg denne kilde: www.bozhdynsky.com/alfa-romeo-gtv-spider-history/colour-codes/"
- italian-supercar.blogspot.com: "alfa_romeo__alfa_spider_2_0_edizione_elegant_2002_4_lgw, image source: www.bozhdynsky.com"
- alfistas.es: "Info extraida de EPER y de http://www.bozhdynsky.com"
- When GTV Conrero was sold on carandclassic.co.uk they linked to my website as an expert's website
- forum.alfaholicy.org: "Dzięki wspaniałej stronie zrobionej przez Alfaholika z Łodzi Jarka Bożdyńskiego (tutaj daję link http://www.bozhdynsky.com/alfa-romeo...pider-history/ )"
- forums.ov9.co.uk link to: http://www.bozhdynsky.com/alfa-romeo-gtv-spider-history/timeline/
- One of couple of comments so please be patient. YBSOne (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- citethisforme.com: "Your Bibliography: Bozhdynsky.com"
- Second comment. Alfa 147, 156, 159, 166, GT production dates subpage. This page shows earliest found VINs, and their corresponding production dates, that can be verified by anyone using same tool as I used for its research, Fiat ePer. Some of the VINs were earlier sent to Centro Documentazione Alfa Romeo and confirmed by them also. YBSOne (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Third comment: Ferrari Tipos subpage. Information here is sourced from sites: Ferrari.com, barchetta.cc, RMSothebys.com, Bonhams.com, VIN plates showing engine/chassis type, books. It is correct, updated and verifiable. Same applies to other 'Tipos' subpages on Maserati, Alfa Romeo, Lancia.
- Fourth comment: Interview with Maserati Heritage Interview with Chris Bangle Interview with Paolo Martin Interview with Enrico Fumia. Those pages show that I research my topics from the primary sources and am in contact with manufacturer's historical divisions.
- Fifth comment: Alfa Romeo GTV and Spider Limited Editions. One of my great accomplishments as a historian. "This is the first and only place where You can find every limited edition discovered, researched and described.". All data needed to research every limited edtion was sourced from manufacturer via ePer or brochures and press releases.
- Sixth comment: Press Releases Alfa Romeo GTV Brochures Alfa Romeo Spider Brochures. A collection of manufacturer sourced sources that helped with research and fact-checking. Like here.
- Seventh comment: Engines. Information on engines was created by me, see my sandbox. Sourced from manufacturer's provided data as presented above.
- Eighth comment: As a noted expert in the field, people contact me with interesting information like here. Owner of this prototype contacted me to help him research information about it.
- Final comment: It's a shame this was so rushed maybe I would be able to prepare myself better. I would like my website to be judged as it was without the "personal website" tag as I feel it clouds the judgement a bit. It started out as one but is no longer the same. Yes I am an artist by profession but automotive historian by heart. I have researched many interesting new facts and will continue to do so. This website was a sort of a notepad for it. Right now its contents are only used when no better are available but I feel they are reliable and verifiable. YBSOne (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Almost forgot about this. Praise from Centro Documentazione Alfa Romeo. YBSOne (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Ybsone: (and before anyone wonders about WP:OUTING see YBSOne say it is his site in 2012) The fact that a number of forums and other enthusiast sites point to your site as a resource does not help much. The most credible site I saw on your list (petrolicious.com) only credited your site with photos. You are stating you are doing your own research for your site. If you are also using you site as a reference for your contributions to Wikipedia, it becomes indistinguishable from original research which I hope you know is a big no-no. In your third comment, you mention details for your website are sourced from reliable sources. Well, in that case, your citations on Wikipedia should be for those sites, not back to your personal website. Cheers, --SVTCobra 12:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- What is seen as just a couple of forums is in fact a great deal of people that visit those forums from all-over the world and use the data I collected and analysed. I presented what I hastily found to counter the "not a subject-matter expert". I would also like to point out that I cannot be sure if I'm being quoted in paper publications. I do research history, I research facts that were previously unknown and source this research in hard data or interviews. Someone has to be the first to uncover a piece of history. And if I do that i'm blamed for original research and or for putting it on a personal website. Not a single piece of information on my website is a fake fact. There was one incident when manufacturer made a mistake and it was copied but I researched it and actually corrected them on it, wheather they changed it is another matter. Typology of cars is not used as a source on wikipedia, it was a proof to counter the "lack of credentials for fact checking" allegation. YBSOne (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Ybsone: (and before anyone wonders about WP:OUTING see YBSOne say it is his site in 2012) The fact that a number of forums and other enthusiast sites point to your site as a resource does not help much. The most credible site I saw on your list (petrolicious.com) only credited your site with photos. You are stating you are doing your own research for your site. If you are also using you site as a reference for your contributions to Wikipedia, it becomes indistinguishable from original research which I hope you know is a big no-no. In your third comment, you mention details for your website are sourced from reliable sources. Well, in that case, your citations on Wikipedia should be for those sites, not back to your personal website. Cheers, --SVTCobra 12:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Two users, at least, commented that I may not be an expert in the field. This person is selling his Alfa Romeo Spider 3.0 V6. And out of 7 billion people in the world wrote down my name and website "Mere info kan findes på Yaroslav Bozhdynsky Bozhdynsky.com" for more information on the subject, as he only added rudimentary. Why would he do that if in Your opinion I'm not a noted expert? Bear in mind I do not know this person, but he knows my website. YBSOne (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- I fully understand the dilemma. I am speaking as one who believes the foremost experts on automobiles are in fact enthusiasts who concentrate on a few brands. There are enthusiasts who I would trust more for depth of knowledge on the history and variations of the Ford Mustang than I would trust articles from Car and Driver or Road & Track, for example. On the other hand, it is incongruent with Wikipedia policies. Cheers, --SVTCobra 12:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- I dont think thare is any original research on my website. If I did any original research in my work I kept it to be published in future book. YBSOne (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- And when you book is published others can add information from it. But at this time it is OR because it is research you did and then published yourself. wp:v is a policy that comes into play here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment against original research. An example limited edition [Motus GTV]. Its specifications, available colours, engines etc. were sourced from manufacturer's provided press releases, brochures, optoins documents. And it is not an original research. Will You find other sites with this information? No, or at least not original, there are copies. This part: "Number made: ." would be an original research but is not published and is reserved for paper publication. YBSOne (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- If my websites contents are used by another publisher, it validates the reliability of it as a source, in my opinion. squadra916.com: Production 3/1994–5/1998 bozhdynsky.com: Years produced: 3/1994–5/1998 This is not coincidental. Researched content from my website was published by someone else. And that someone deemed it a reliable source. YBSOne (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Depends upon who it is that deems it reliable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Surely a member of automotive community and a particular make/model enthusiast. And in that community I am seen as a noted expert in the field. As it was pointed out at the begining it is an important requirement. YBSOne (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- http://www.squadra916.com/ is a fan site, nor is there any information about how writes for it. So for all we know you added it yourself (not that I can see were it cites you , rather then just repeats facts they might have got form the same source you did).Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Here is clear who wrote it and who was cited: Four of a Kind: The Alfa Romeo 164 and the “Type Four” Cars Notes on sources: "Yaroslave Bozhdynsky, “Interview with Enrico Fumia,” Bozhdynsky.com, 2012, www.bozhdynsky. com/cars/ interview-with-enrico-fumia/". YBSOne (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- these are reliable sources , why marked as unreliable? -->Typ932 T·C 18:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Unreliable, self published by an author no one has ever heard of, not an expert, just one more random opinion on the web Bacondrum (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Unreliable for virtually every possible use. It's a self-published site by a hobbyist, and all of the evidence provided only shows it is frequently cited by other self-published hobbyists. It should be replaced by citations to reliable sources (including primary sources) where possible, and removed otherwise. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Unreliable. First of all, this is a wordpress blog, which makes it a self-published source. There is no site notice/publishing information/legal information, and what Jaroslaw Borzdynski writes in the "about" section, raises some concern: All the content on my page is either found easily on the internet or gathered throught original research. If You are an owner of a picture found here and You don’t like me using it, please contact me. Is YBSOne trying to use his wordpress blog as a catalyst for original research? I mean, technically, he could write whatever he wants to write about cars on his blog; another editor would then use his blog as a source on Wikipedia, which would convert original research into "verified knowledge". After some digging (I don't want to post any private information here), I found out that Jaroslaw Borzdynski is most likely just a hobbyist. In my opinion, his blog is what Bacondrum describes as „one more random opinion on the web“. On the other hand, YBSOne says that other pages cite his page. Well, they do, but most of them are also self-published hobbyists. It doesn't really convince me. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- You are sadly mistaken, cherry-picking only the least notable cites, not seeing the big picture and focusing more on the medium in which I publish my knowledge and research and the fact that I did not pursue being published in other publications, yet. Accusing me of being able to write "whatever he wants" is beside the point. Writing that "no one has ever heard of" is just laughable in light of all the voluntary citations above. Not only that but by getting rid of my website You will create at least four instances of this fiasco. Because You'll have to revert the uncited information back to it's incorrect state. IF I were just a "hobbyist" I would not be commended by Centro Documentazione Alfa Romeo. YBSOne (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- As I pointed out on my talk page, we could just tag it is RS needed or fact? Or even (as it is uncited) remove it. We do not have to have any information, and it might even be argued that much of this stuff is far too technical for our needs anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Production dates are too technical? Production dates are unimportant? YBSOne (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- At least one use talks about badges on the front fenders, trivial at best. Also I find it hard to believe that RS would not have information about production dates. So at this time it is being used for technical trivia or information where there must be better sources.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- museoalfaromeo.com: 1997-2007 Me 1996-. Manufacturers simplify data. Questions? YBSOne (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, does their website list the production dates of the make? Because that is all we need, we are an encyclopedia that gives a general overview, not a technical manual.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Also I note that only one of your 156 production dates has been confirmed (according to your own page, you do not link to the source, so we cannot confirm this), can you not see why unconfirmed OR cannot be used?Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Either this car IS produced from 1997 or ISN'T. This is called fact and I have found that fact. Encyclopedia should contain them and not rumors or simplifications. I wrote down the manual how to verify this info. YBSOne (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Also some of those numbers were "additionally" confirmed, so not to stumble upon an error in the programme. YBSOne (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well the manufacturer disagrees, and whilst they might be wrong so might you. We have no way to judge the veracity of what you claim, but we can judge the veracity of the manufacturer. It maybe (for example) that the company website lists the production dates, whilst whatever you used listed also the concept construction, or the test models (rather then production ones). That is why we have rules about wp:or, how you read "a fact" may not be how I read it. Now we can say that alfa romeo's website says 1997-2007 (we van all [wp:v]]) that. We cannot verify what your source said, as you have not provided it (and we only have your word for it). Thus it fail our verifabilty and original research guidelines.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- If there is a VIN the car is produced. And what manufacturer states as production is just a code for introduction. YBSOne (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Which is exactly the kind of over technical information I am talking about, we need to know (and this is what I take "production" to mean the production run). Pre-production cars come after prototypes or development mules, which themselves may be preceded by concept cars. Pre-production vehicles are followed by production vehicles in the mass production for distribution through car dealerships. This is just what I meant above about wp:v, how you read something may not be how someone else reads it. This is my last word here, this is practically a working model of OR, and there really is no more to say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- It is only You assumption that those cars produced before intrduction are pre-production and does not count towards production run. I have seen recently a Spider from 1994, introduction 1995. Car exists, VIN plate exists. It is a regular car. Produced in 1994. So the production run cannot start in 1995 now can it?YBSOne (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Not only that but at least one of the four Spiders produced in 1993 was sold to a customer. YBSOne (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Production dates, next the actual name, are the most basic information about a car. As numbers produced are. To arbitrary exclude some of them as pre-production with no factual proof and at the same time discredit actual VINs and their corresponding production dates is beyond me. YBSOne (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Therefore this is not original research. And as a source of it there are VINs that anyone can take to the VIN-checking site or to the manufacturer's historic division. Not every source is a link away. YBSOne (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Information here is also not an original research but a transcription and analysys of an email from Maserati Classiche, again contary to their own claim, with a direct quote from that email. Verifiable when anyone contacts their historic division. YBSOne (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- You're providing a lot of arguments for why your site is useful, and a lot of examples of where your site has been considered reliable by other hobbyists, but you've have done nothing to indicate your site satisfies Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. If there is information that is true but cannot be found in any properly published source, it should be left out of Wikipedia. If what has been published can be proved false, it should be left out of Wikipedia. In no circumstance do I see a reason compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines to reference or even link to your website. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- I count 4 definite No's and two yes's, do we have enough opinion now to make a decision?Slatersteven (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Unreliable. I don't think anyone has a problem with Ybsone adding well-referenced information to articles, but if they are finding this information "easily on the internet", they should be citing the sources where they got it from, not adding it first to their own website and then citing it from there. That is the whole point of WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. For information "gathered through original research", we simply can't use it on Wikipedia, regardless of how true it might be. http://www.bozhdynsky.com/ might be chock-full of great facts, but it is still self-published, and the fact that the maintainer is also a Wikipedia editor introduces a possible conflict of interest, or at least the appearance of one (editor adds/modifies information on website to win content dispute). I am absolutely not accusing this editor of ever doing anything like this or insinuating that they might, but the mere perception that this could happen is unfortunately a deal-breaker. CThomas3 (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Seems to me we can close this as unreliable.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Newsweek
Should Newsweek be moved to questionable? Newsweek hasn’t used fact checkers since 1998 and has published numeral articles that after fact checking have been proven false, over exaggerated or only half factual. Here is a couple sources for you guys to check out. I don’t believe it should be moved to unreliable but I do believe it should be questioned.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/02/19/bots-force-al-franken-resign/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/polish-first-lady-trump-handshake/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/marlboro-cigarettes-production/
Hurledhandbook (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, let's go through these one by one.
- "No fact checkers" does not imply "no fact checking". The position disappeared, but the duties were subsumed by other positions. There is an allegation this had an effect, so let's look deeper... oh, I see. They're complaining about an opinion piece that was explicitly framed as an argument to not vote for Obama in 2012. If anyone was using that as a source for... really, anything other than Niall Ferguson's opinion, they have a problem no matter which outlet it was published in. Oh, also the thing about babies eating carrots, but I note, "a correction was issued..." That's the sort of thing we hope for.
- This one definitely presents a much more substantive concern, though it is absent any information on how long it took for the errors to be corrected or articles to be pulled. Retractions are an ordinary thing, and again, a hallmark of a reliable source - they not only try to avoid errors, but are willing to admit them after the fact. I also honestly cannot get a sense from this story how common these errors are.
- It's about this newsweek story, which accurately describes French's article, and proposes by implication a motivation/hidden-message of the story. French says the alleged motivation is bullshit. Whatever, this is not a reliability issue, but using Newsweek's characterization could potentially be a due weight issue.
- This one is a substantial and concerning goof on Newsweek's part.
- Another embarrassing goof, later corrected, but I honestly think they would have been better off just 404ing the whole page than keeping the entire article that now just seems obnoxious considering the central event didn't happen.
- Another embarrassing goof.
- Oh you've gotta be kidding me. There are actually no factual disagreements at play in this one - the Examiner is just whining that Newsweek didn't fit enough nuance into the headline. Ignore it.
- Okay, so what does this all mean? I guess it means that opinion pieces are stupid and shouldn't be cited for facts, which we already knew, and that Newsweek seems to suck at getting breaking news accurate... like essentially every other outlet. But they also correct themselves when they actually make mistakes, so that's good. Yeah, I'm not overly concerned about it. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Hurledhandbook, I've removed "RFC" from the section heading because this discussion was not designated as a request for comment. If you think an RfC is necessary, please see WP:RFCST for instructions. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 05:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Unreliable I mean, of course I said that; I've questioned Wikipedia's dependence on American and British newsmedia outlets for a long time. The truth is that journalists aren't particularly good at providing verifiable, dispassionate accounts of historical and current events at the best of times. It's not really what they're trained for. When a journalistic outlet shows signs that it doesn't exert significant editorial oversight and regularly fails fact checking, we should definitely be considering not using that source. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Generally Reliable per Someguy1221, especially post-independence from IBT. Has anything changed since Newsweek was last discussed, in April in the larger context of IBT? --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Probably no worse than most small-scale newspapers which have experienced staffing cuts following declining readership. feminist (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Generally reliable for news topics. Newsweek has robust editorial guidelines, and maintains a list of corrections they have made to their articles. Issues with accuracy can be minimized by not including information on current events into Wikipedia articles immediately after it is published, and this line of advice applies for all news sources. — Newslinger talk 08:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Generally reliable as per Newslinger, it has a good reputation, is used by other reliable sources, not a tabloid in content. Also agree that care should be taken with using breaking news, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Generally reliable. Has a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy, fairly non-partisan, and is used by others.Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Mu, a loud Mu against "general reliability" threads. Quoth the wise words above:
You shouldn't open threads about a source unless there is a specific content dispute. You shouldn't open a thread about the universal reliability of a source unless there is a preponderance of threads dealing with specific content disputes where they have decided the source is unreliable.
Unless there is a specific content dispute involving the use of Newsweek as a source, this (and the other threads like it) should be closed. – Levivich 14:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- This isn't a helpful comment, and it underlines why the proposed rule would be too WP:CREEPy. The discussion above seems reasonable and helpful to me, while "close this thread, violation of rule 376c!" seems absurd. Also, discussions of Newsweek have been extensive, so this particular discussion was badly-needed - the need for this particular RFC is so clear-cut that any rule that would justify trying to shut it down is obviously a terrible suggestion. --Aquillion (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- WP:NOTAFORUM is a pretty strong Wiki rule, and this amounts to a forum discussion of Newsweek, completely divorced from any specific dispute related to article content. FOARP (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Generally reliable per Newslinger, though use with some caveats. I definitely agree that its reliability has declined to the point where we should use some caution, avoid citing it for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, and so on (and particular care should be taken to never cite opinion pieces there for facts, which is something to avoid in general but seems like a particular problem here). I wouldn't consider it a top-quality source at all... but WP:UBO still applies - a reputation doesn't vanish overnight. It's still a major mainstream magazine which is treated as a decent source by other reliable sources, and I don't think there's the evidence of intentionally misleading readers or flagrant disregard for the truth that we'd need in the face of that. Whether they should or they shouldn't, other sources still treat it as credible, which indicates it hasn't completely lost its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Bad RFC - No actual article-content dispute to be resolved here. As such this is just a WP:FORUM discussion about Newsweek. FOARP (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- This is not a request for comment. — Newslinger talk 10:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- It amounts to a RFC, since the author is clearly requesting comments from other editors. That it was posted without using the template matters neither here nor there. WP:NOTAFORUM applies. FOARP (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Other editors participating in the discussion find it useful. If you're not interested in the discussion, you don't have to participate. — Newslinger talk 10:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- But I will have to live with the outcome of the context-less discussion if it concludes "Source X committed wrongthink and should be banned". PS - funny how it's the rules people don't like that become "bureaucracy" FOARP (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- No sources are "banned", with the exception of the ones on the spam blacklist. You're always welcome to start a new discussion on this noticeboard regarding any source for your specific use case. — Newslinger talk 10:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- But I will have to live with the outcome of the context-less discussion if it concludes "Source X committed wrongthink and should be banned". PS - funny how it's the rules people don't like that become "bureaucracy" FOARP (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Other editors participating in the discussion find it useful. If you're not interested in the discussion, you don't have to participate. — Newslinger talk 10:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- It amounts to a RFC, since the author is clearly requesting comments from other editors. That it was posted without using the template matters neither here nor there. WP:NOTAFORUM applies. FOARP (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
La Griffe du Lion
Is La Griffe du Lion (lagriffedulion.f2s.com) a reliable source, and should it be linked from Wikipedia articles? I encountered this source as one of the links in John Derbyshire's notorious Taki's Magazine article, "The Talk: Nonblack Version", and was surprised to see this site linked in three Wikipedia articles:
- History of the Jews in Canada: "Some Thoughts about Jews, IQ and Nobel Laureates" is cited for the statement
"La Griffe du Lion cites the 23% of the top 100 wealthiest Canadians are Jewish."
- Black elite: "Educating a Black Elite" is listed as a further reading suggestion.
- Robin Hood effect: "Affirmative Action: The Robin Hood Effect" is listed as an external link in the article's "Examples" section.
— Newslinger talk 01:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Looks to me it might fail SPS, possible Fringe. As an anonymous "just another web site" no I fail to see how this would pass RS.Slatersteven (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
As it seems to be completely pseudonymous, with no detail regarding who is responsible for editing, writing or publishing it, I would say not reliable for anything at all, ever, not even as an external link", and that is without reading any of the rather dubious content. Metapedia claims that Griffe du lion is "the pseudonym of an American academic". Steve Sailer likes them though here and here; not much of an endorsement. Curdle (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you both for your input. I've removed all of the links. — Newslinger talk 08:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Citing one's own primary research
- Petropoulos (AfD discussion)
- Labros S. Skartsis
This is not merely an AFD matter, and needs checking out. I have also drawn attention on the original research noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- I concur with Icewhiz´s opinion in linked AfD: selfpublished source written by someone who is not renowned expert in the field is not a reliable source (taking origin of the content in that book aside). Original research by editors themselves is an issue in a Wikipedia article, but we expect some OR from sources we use. Eg. if book I wrote about post 1945 regional history was published by reliable publisher, I could use it as a source for some Wikipedia article (note due weight and possible concerns about self-promotion apply here). However, if I "published" my archival research via Wikipedia, that would be an original research. Pavlor (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
H-net.org discussion (forum) source for Hebrew Bible
I am wondering whether this discussion on H-net is a reliable source for this edit by Ar2332, the statement being "The acronym 'Tanakh' is first recorded in the medieval era." Are we certain that the people posting are who they claim to be (does H-net conduct identity verification?), or that the books they reference say what is claimed? Is any editorial oversight necessary or are forum posts by published experts considered reliable sources?
H-net.org is not listed on Wikipedia:Perennial sources. Prior discussions mentioning H-net but not offering a conclusive answer:
- Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 14#Citing an e-mail posted on a personal site to disprove academic sources
- Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 227#New York Journal of Books
- Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 216#German Luftwaffe pilot "rabidly anti-Nazi"?
Thanks, —DIYeditor (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Probably would be seen as a WP:SPS by an expert (depending on the poster to h-net - the people posting on that particular thread are credentialed in the field). Though response there can be quite off hand (so you get whatever someone remembered from the top of their head). So - yes - it is a borderline usable source, though for an article such as Hebrew Bible - you should be able to find much-much better sources (the h-net discussion can be a great pointer on what to look for in sources). On an editorial note - I personally wouldn't place this in the lead (Tanakh is only really an acronym - the date it was adopted on - is a bit meh for the lead (though interesting in the body)). Icewhiz (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, and that is precisely what I said in the talk page discussion. The H-Net discussion contains a wealth of sources that need to be looked into more carefully. Unfortunately, I do not have the time right now to do that, but the reliable secondary sources are all there. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 16:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Using J. Randy Taraborrelli as a source in Michael Jackson articles
As seen at Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 35#Taraborrelli a good source?, Talk:Michael Jackson#Removing Taraborrelli & Maureen Orth as sources, and Talk:Michael Jackson#Sourcing, Taraborrelli has been questioned as a reliable source with regard to Michael Jackson articles. Partytemple is currently the main editor advocating against using Taraborrelli as a source. I'd rather get the opinion of neutral editors. Like I stated I stated at Talk:Personal relationships of Michael Jackson#Taraborrelli is unreliable., our guideline on reliable sources is at WP:Reliable sources. And we also have a WP:BIASEDSOURCES section. Questions about the reliability of a source should be asked here at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard if one doesn't get a solid answer about the matter from one or more other editors. We have the WP:Reliable sources guideline to guide us, and the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard to ask about a source's reliability when we question it. A lot of what Taraborrelli has stated can be supported by reliable sources, which is why it has been relatively easy to replace him as a source with other sources at the Michael Jackson article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Taraborrelli is inconsistent and a known gossip columnist. He does not provide footnotes or corroborating sources of his claims, particularly the more intimate and personal details of a celebrity (someone who is typically in control of their public image). He has been sued for defamation by Berry Gordy, resulting in his removal of materials about Gordy in his book. He does not provide anything better than the typical reliable news sources or official documents from authorities. It's evidently unwise to use him as a source when there are better sources, that value fact-checking, available. It is well-known that the entertainment business is surrounded by tabloids and gossip. Anyone who doesn't approach these stories with some skepticism is, quite frankly, not using their heads. —Partytemple (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: J. Randy Taraborrelli is a notable biographer and is used on Wikipedia for more than just the Michael Jackson articles. If he should not be used for the Jackson articles, he should not be used for any other biography articles. Of course, Wikipedia also has a WP:CONTEXTMATTERS section with regard to sources. Reviews of Taraborrelli's biographies trend toward the positive side in reliable sources. Any editor who has an opinion that differs from Partytemple's on this matter, please state so and why. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Just because he is used frequently doesn't mean he's reliable. That's why I was fixing the Michael Jackson articles in the first place. —Partytemple (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Did I state that? No. I wasn't implying it either. Your "fixing" is based on your personal belief that he's unreliable. Unless you can point to a policy or guideline as to why he's unreliable, or why WP:CONTEXTMATTERS shouldn't apply to him and we just rid all articles of him as a source, I don't want to hear it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- You've responded multiples times to this but still haven't proposed why you think Taraborrelli is reliable. You haven't refuted any of my reasons. And I will keep repeating this until you do, because none of what you said advances this conversation. You showing more and more that you are WP:NOTHERE to discuss improving articles with reasoned argument. —Partytemple (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Haven't refuted any of your reasons? LOL. And I'm WP:NOTHERE? LOL! I can imagine the many Wikipedians rolling their eyes at that one. I'm WP:NOTHERE says the WP:Single-purpose account pushing their Jackson agenda all over Wikipedia, including at the Leaving Neverland article, where their POV editing has been complained about. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Here and here. There are better sources out there than to rely on this. The best approach is to corroborate with a different reliable source. One should at least be skeptical. —Partytemple (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Haven't refuted any of your reasons? LOL. And I'm WP:NOTHERE? LOL! I can imagine the many Wikipedians rolling their eyes at that one. I'm WP:NOTHERE says the WP:Single-purpose account pushing their Jackson agenda all over Wikipedia, including at the Leaving Neverland article, where their POV editing has been complained about. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- You've responded multiples times to this but still haven't proposed why you think Taraborrelli is reliable. You haven't refuted any of my reasons. And I will keep repeating this until you do, because none of what you said advances this conversation. You showing more and more that you are WP:NOTHERE to discuss improving articles with reasoned argument. —Partytemple (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Did I state that? No. I wasn't implying it either. Your "fixing" is based on your personal belief that he's unreliable. Unless you can point to a policy or guideline as to why he's unreliable, or why WP:CONTEXTMATTERS shouldn't apply to him and we just rid all articles of him as a source, I don't want to hear it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Just because he is used frequently doesn't mean he's reliable. That's why I was fixing the Michael Jackson articles in the first place. —Partytemple (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- In the aforementioned "Taraborrelli a good source?" discussion, we can see that Taraborrelli is questioned as reliable because this The Independent source states that Taraborrelli and Jackson were friends. The source says "his long-term friend and biographer, J Randy Taraborrelli." And then we have the other view that Taraborrelli is unreliable because he's biased against Jackson. This is what I mean about personal opinion regarding the reliability of Taraborrelli. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Here and here. Jackson cut Taraborrelli from his circle a long time ago, and before Taraborrelli began writing those biographies. There is also a leaked audio recording of Jackson saying how upset he was that Taraborrelli wrote an unauthorized biography. Berry Gordy is still alive and Taraborrelli is potentially libelous, according to WP:BLP policy. —Partytemple (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- I asked you before, at Talk:Personal relationships of Michael Jackson, "What makes a book published by Select Books reliable?" Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Here and here. Jackson cut Taraborrelli from his circle a long time ago, and before Taraborrelli began writing those biographies. There is also a leaked audio recording of Jackson saying how upset he was that Taraborrelli wrote an unauthorized biography. Berry Gordy is still alive and Taraborrelli is potentially libelous, according to WP:BLP policy. —Partytemple (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
For others, an RfC has commenced on the matter Talk:Michael Jackson#RfC: Is Tarraborrelli a good source for this article?. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi all,
We've been having a discussion about criteria for inclusion on lists related to terrorism at List of terrorist incidents in July 2019 and we believe (as per @Doug Weller:'s comment) that a broader consensus should be used than just what we decide upon in the July 2019 iteration of this ongoing list series. Would this board be open to hosting an RfC on issues of inclusion criteria for this category of lists? Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Question about Quora
Can Quora be considered a reliable source? Is Quora considered WP:UGS? Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Generally unreliable. Quora (RSP entry) is a Q&A site, which is a type of Internet forum. It's a self-published source that includes user-generated content, and that makes it generally unreliable. However, all self-published sources have an exception for experts: if an established subject-matter expert publishes a question or answer on Quora, that can be cited as a statement from the expert, although it should be properly attributed. WP:SPS explains it like this:
"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."
Also, Quora can be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions of any person or organization, subject to due weight. — Newslinger talk 22:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)- And I agree with Filelakeshoe below, who made a point I missed. Since anyone can claim to be someone else, content written under a person's name on Quora should only be considered to be from that person if it's published from a verified account, or if the Quora account is confirmed to be owned by the person in some other way (e.g. linked from the person's official website). — Newslinger talk 22:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Can it be used accordingly with WP:DUE if the an article in question has all of the stated multiple issues of, " This article relies too much on references to primary sources", "This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. "? On a side note I am not sure if any of these aurthors to answering the question can be considered experts in that field, [4]. The first answerer looks more like an expert in the engineering field. Although the YouTube channel does talk about engineering. The second one is an 18 year old YouTube fan. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, this Quora answer does not qualify for any of the exceptions to WP:SPS. The author (Abhishek Xavier) isn't considered an expert because he doesn't have any works published in independent reliable sources, as far as I can find. (To qualify for the exception, subject-matter experts must have a Wikipedia article or be notable enough for one. "Expert" is a much stricter category than "notable".) And since Xavier is just a viewer of Vsauce, not a representative, his statements can't be used under WP:ABOUTSELF, either. In this case, Xavier's Quora answer is undue. — Newslinger talk 00:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Some public figures, including academics, use Quora and have blue ticks like on Facebook and Twitter. Their content might be usable as sources in certain situations, as per WP:SPS, otherwise it's just a social media site. It's also largely moderated by artificial intelligence and full of fake profiles, for this reason I would insist on the blue tick being present when using Quora as a source. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Having answered some questions, no its not reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Dependent on author If the author is a recognised expert in a particular field, then yes. But that will apply regardless of platform. feminist (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Is Gizmodo considered a reliable source?
I have a feeling that the following article is not considered an reliable source, just wanted to make sure. [5] Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Gizmodo is generally a reliable source for tech news. But that's not even what it's being used for in this case. Right now that source is just being used to support the claim that Vsauce has been featured in Gizmodo. Well, that is true. It's not like we really need an even more reliable source to confirm what is before our eyes. Whether that is relevant/significant to the article, that's another matter. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- (EC) Gizmodo is a generally okay RS for things related to pop culture, current entertainment, etc. But this specific question (What's the hottest temperature) is a scientific one , and there I would suspect we need a WP:SCIRS-meeting publication - something like Wired, Scientific American, or even a good NYTimes article. Gizmodo is too "bloggy" for stating something like that as a fact. --Masem (t) 23:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
National Post: Accusations of Plagriarism made in an opinion column
Two guest writers for the National Post make severe accusations of plagiarism against Thomas Rosica in an opinion column cited in this DIFF. Here is a direct link to the opinion column: link. The writers do not provide any information to substantiate the claim that there were eight retractions of articles written by Rosica, and I cannot find any other source that makes this claim. While both writers have reputable positions as professors at academic institutions, it is clear that both writers harbor significant personal animosity toward Father Rosica. The first writer seems to be on a crusade against Rosica, personally writing to various publications to request that articles written by Rosica be retracted (see here: https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Request_for_Retraction_Worship_Liturgical_Press.pdf). The first writer's integrity for reporting plagiarism accusations has been called into question by the University of Lugano here: https://www.tio.ch/ticino/attualita/1236159/il-docente-dell-usi-ha-copiato-anche-il-papa. The second writer has been writing in multiple publications to rant against Father Rosica (see here: https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/02/fr-rosica-fraud, wherein the writer launches into a rant about Dante's Inferno and tries to connect plagiarism to the Catholic Church sexual abuse crisis: "The church crisis is about pedophiles, harassers, and abusers, but it is also about panderers and seducers, false counselors and flatterers, hypocrites and impostors.") Sources can be biased, but in a biography of a living person, articles need to be written conservatively, and the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Moreover, it appears that these writers are basing their accusations on their own personal investigation into Rosica's articles. No reliable secondary source has reviewed their accusations and deemed them credible.
Note that this is an opinion column and the ideological bias of the National Post has been acknowledged in prior discussions: here, here and here. --PluniaZ (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, he's admitted to the plagiarism and the CCCB themselves have said they're retracting several of his works, so this seems kind of moot. 199.247.43.74 (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Teen Vogue for political or crime news?
I'm really not familiar with the current status of Teen Vogue but it struck me as an unusual source for the serious article 2019 Tacoma attack. I could not find any determination about its reliability despite several mentions in the archives here, and a couple cases of editors dismissing it. Is this article reliable for the statement Van Spronsen was also a member of the Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club and active in the Occupy Wall Street protests.
? —DIYeditor (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's probably reliable, yes. However, much better sources exist for the topic - if others sources aren't reporting this - it may be an error or UNDUE. If it is correct other sources should be reporting this - e.g. WaPo is reporting on the gun club and saying he was a self-proclaimed anti-fascist. Teen Vogue could be a good source for popular culture, but should be seen as marginal in the context of geopolitics.Icewhiz (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Their news coverage is solid - surprising for a fashion magazine, but it's like the surprise when Buzzfeed News turned out to be a good solid RS too - David Gerard (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- It may be solid (at the moment... How the news desk might evolve....) - however I hazard a guess we won't be seeing the Guardian/BBC/WaPo/NYT running a news piece in which they write "In a expose by Teen Vogue, X was revealed to be Y") - at least in anything not related to teen fashion/culture. I'd guess that TV mostly runs off of wires/other reporting. So - I don't think they would score high on the WP:USEBYOTHERS metric for this content. Icewhiz (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- PER WP:SOURCE its publisher Conde Nast would generally go in the RS column, is there any information on the news desk reporter? But I would agree at any rate, it probably is an editorially good move to switch to others sources.Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'd be hard pressed to look back and find the particular places I've used it, but to my memory, I have been pleasantly surprised more than once by the quality of Teen Vogue. I know I know, you would expect it to be a source primarily for emojis and what kind of eye liner Justin Beiber is wearing, but somebody there seems to actually get up in the morning and do work. GMGtalk 13:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Actually not that hard pressed at all. Looking through my talk page, it seems that this was one of the last run-ins I've had with TV. This particular article was by Ruth Hopkins (who should probably have an article of her own), who is a lawyer, former judge, and Clarion Award winner, who also writes for HuffPo and The Guardian among others. So long as TV is pulling people of that caliber to write actual educational content, then they may be quite a bit more reliable than a lot of other mainstream sources, whose name we don't intuitively cringe at. GMGtalk 13:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- GreenMeansGo, I was going to go ahead and make an article for Ruth Hopkins but all I found before hits for other people were bios on a few sites. I don't think she would pass GNG from what I have seen. If there are secondary sources I missed I will go ahead and make a stub for her. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Actually not that hard pressed at all. Looking through my talk page, it seems that this was one of the last run-ins I've had with TV. This particular article was by Ruth Hopkins (who should probably have an article of her own), who is a lawyer, former judge, and Clarion Award winner, who also writes for HuffPo and The Guardian among others. So long as TV is pulling people of that caliber to write actual educational content, then they may be quite a bit more reliable than a lot of other mainstream sources, whose name we don't intuitively cringe at. GMGtalk 13:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Teen Vogue made a pivot to including a lot more political coverage a few years ago, and it appears to have been a successful gambit for increasing their readership. I think that the comparisons to Buzzfeed News are apt. I would consider their coverage since the appointment of Phillip Picardi and Elaine Welteroth to be reliable (so, ~2015-2016, although both have since left the publication, they seem to be holding their course). signed, Rosguill talk 15:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
William Lane Craig sourcing - The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Philosophers in America
Hi all, I'd appreciate if a few could chime in here. I need a bit of a sanity check.
I'm mediating a dispute on William Lane Craig (located at Talk:William Lane Craig/Mediation) and some questions have come up across the use of a certain source, "The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Philosophers in America" - which has information below.
- Link to about info of book on Google Books
- Link to start of section on subject in Google Books - bibliography cannot be seen in the preview. The introduction section of the book may give some further context to the book overall here
I've recommended that this source not be used, and be replaced with other sources, for a few reasons. While this book is titled as an encyclopaedia (normally a tertiary reference) editors involved who have a hard copy of the book have asserted that the bibliography section for the entry on Craig has cited sources, these do not actually support the content in the entry, so we cannot determine where the two authors of that entry obtained their information from. I would think this would possibly bring the "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" requirement of books as reliable sources possibly into question for this entry. Some of the editors have asserted that because the book was published by Bloomsbury Academics, this makes the source automatically reliable, I have considered other factors in my assessment that the source may not be.
Secondly, statements in the article referenced to this encyclopaedia entry are sometimes superfluous to other secondary sources in the article. The two people who wrote the entry do hold PhD's in philosophy, however their works or research from what I've been able to see haven't been published in mainstream books or research publications (there has been some publication in some books, and I may be incorrect here in my assessment, hence me bringing this here). I would appreciate another editors views here (more information on my rationales I've posted in the above mediation page, so that should probably be reviewed for background if possible). Thanks in advance, Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 17:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Consider WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which says "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses". This says that if the material comes from a book that is published by a "well-regarded academic press" then the book is RS. As with any policy or rule, it could be overcome in special circumstances. But in this case we have three PhDs signing off on the work, and we are wishing to use the source for biographical facts about the subject. Seems clearly RS, especially for these sorts of facts. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Doctoral thesis being used as a main source in the article
There is currently a discussion over at Template:Did you know nominations/String Quartet in A major (Bliss) regarding the fact that much of the article is cited to a doctoral thesis. The reviewer notes that part of the main hook fact (that the quartet in question) was composed in 1913, which is cited to the thesis, and they note that in one of their previous DYK nominations, there were concerns about using such kinds of sources as main references. The thesis in question, submitted by a certain Sam Ellis, was submitted at Bangor University. Under the circumstances, would the thesis be considered a reliable source? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- WP:SCHOLARSHIP may have something helpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)