"Possibly reliable"
That is potentially confusing. I would change it to "No consensus" for clarity, and then the readers can click on noticeboard links to get more info. Also, my reading of the The Daily Wire discussion suggests that it's at best "Questionable"; i.e. more editors speak against it as RS than for it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I will change the middle category name. Feel free to change the Daily Wire to "questionable" if that's how you read the discussion.- MrX đ 21:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Perennial sources
Can we have some guideline on what is a "perennial source". We know them when we see them, but a guideline would still be useful. If we don't have a guideline, we will have to debate every new entry (or deletion) on its own. Work permit (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Good question. The guideline that I used was at least two discussions at WP:RSN, or at least one WP:RSN discussion and multiple talk page discussions about the source. I believe that all of the sources currently on the list meet those criteria, and probably several more that have not yet made it to the list. - MrX đ 22:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add TechCrunch
Please could those with time add an entry for TechCrunch. Easily meets the requirements above, with a comment today suggesting that the consideration is consistent now. MPS1992 (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sure thing. I'll try to find time to dig through the RSN discussions tomorrow morning if no one beats me to it. GMGtalk 00:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Â Done Incidentally, I'm not really sure we're providing much value added here if we simply say in the notes section "there is no consensus", and we should instead be trying as much as possible to summarize the nuances of the particular discussions. I may try to go back over time and provide more in depth summaries. Of course, anyone is welcome to help with that. GMGtalk 12:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Change "Perennial" to "Recurringly discussed"?
On the RFC, user:Humanengr felt " the name âPerennial sourcesâ provides a bit too much imprimatur". "Perennial" may have a negative connotation to some editors? How do people feel like changing it to something like "Recurringly discussed" or "Frequently discussed"? Work permit (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- "Recurring discussions" seems to fit alright. "Perennial" probably does have a somewhat negative connotation in the context of Wikipedia. In many circumstances here it strongly implies "lost hope", which is not the case at times with sources. I can't recall which one off the top of my head, but there was one "techy" source that recently fell into favor after getting its game together and doing serious reporting. GMGtalk 04:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Aaaah ⌠Thx for that. What tripped me up is that âPerennialâ in the title modifies âsourcesâ, but the intent is that this page is about âPerenially discussed sourcesâ. Thatâs an alternative fix. Iâm much less sensitive to choice of modifier than target. So perenially, frequently, repeatedly, recurringly, reoccuringly?, etc., all work well enough as long as they modify âdiscussedâ rather than âsourcesâ. Humanengr (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Good point. Would a page move while this is under discussion be too complicated? Should it be done after the Rfc is closed? Work permit (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Aaaah ⌠Thx for that. What tripped me up is that âPerennialâ in the title modifies âsourcesâ, but the intent is that this page is about âPerenially discussed sourcesâ. Thatâs an alternative fix. Iâm much less sensitive to choice of modifier than target. So perenially, frequently, repeatedly, recurringly, reoccuringly?, etc., all work well enough as long as they modify âdiscussedâ rather than âsourcesâ. Humanengr (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - The title was selected for consistency with WP:EL/P, a supplement that has been very helpful in providing guidance for the use of external links. "Perennial" in this context means that the same discussions keep coming back. That parlance is frequently used on noticeboards and article talk pages by experienced editors. While 'perennially discussed sources' would be slightly more grammatical, titles should be concise and recognizable. - MrX đ 15:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- So therefore the issue is not with this entry, it is with WP:EL/P.Work permit (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- @MrX, By being âfor experienced editorsâ, âparlanceâ misleads everybody else. The fix is not only grammatical in a structured sense â but extremely important to the general reader in terms of connotation and hidden bias. Do you have a policy reference for use of âperennialâ in such titles given that WP:EL/P is an 'Explanatory Supplement' that says "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Humanengr (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- I expect the best way forward here is to determine in the RfC whether such a list of some type is in principle helpful. Once that is determined, we can decide what the best name would be through discussion here or an RM, and have what will probably be many follow up discussions about format and scope. GMGtalk 16:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment: "Perennial" is the normal description for WP pages of this kind. As precedent, see WP:PEREN (aka WP:Perennial proposals), WP:DEEPER (aka WP:Deletion review/Perennial requests), WP:ELPEREN (aka WP:External links/Perennial websites), and so on. The oldest of these originally dates back to 2005. Sunrise (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thx for that research. âPerennial proposalsâ and âPerennial requestsâ both implicitly embed a type of âdiscussionâ artifact in the target term, and are therefore not as misleading. The target of âPerennial websiteâ has no positive or negative connotation. The instant case âPerennial sourcesâ has as target a word meaningful â in a positive way â to the entire WP community. As a phrase, it conveys a stature similar to âReliable sourcesâ and is thereby the most misleading of this set. None of those pages has been thoroughly vetted. For these reasons, this convention should be used only where the risks are of little consequence. âPerennially discussed sourcesâ both carries little risk of misinterpretation and can be viewed as an extended family member to the examples you provided, and so should be satisfactory to all. Humanengr (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Support - the similar âPerennially discussed sourcesâ for reasons stated above. Humanengr (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Democracy Now
A friend remembered me of DN tonight and as such I searched RSN and realized that it has a number of threads. Maybe enough to fit on this list? Thanks, âPaleoNeonate â 08:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. It looks like a yellow (no consensus) source based on the discussions.- MrX đ 12:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Telesur
Telesur does not seem to be a subject of recurring discussions. How do we avoid this list becoming an index to every source thatâs ever been discussed? Any objections to deleting it? Work permit (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe a link to WP:Potentially unreliable sources would work. I think that's probably the right place for Telesur right now, even if we can already be fairly confident that more extensive discussion would result in treating it like similar sources. A specific note to clarify that we can refer to similar sources already on the list might also help, since otherwise there's a (reasonable) incentive to copy existing descriptions multiple times as clarification. Another approach might be to divide the table into subcategories if it gets too large. We could possibly set explicit minimum requirements for amount of discussion, though they'd probably need to be set fairly low to account for all the possible situations. Sunrise (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Sunrise and Work permit: Has the overlap between WP:PUS and WP:RS/P been discussed? The former summarizes without linking to discussion. Humanengr (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Good point. WP:PUS is as you say different then WP:RS/P since the purpose of this page IS to be a list of prior discussions. When a controvery comes up, and editor can come to this page and find the link of actual discussions about sources. Quoting those sources in an article's talk page can carry some weight. WP:PUS is truly an essay. Different use case.Work permit (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- And the use case for the essay given the presence of WP:RS/P? The latter seems (potentially if not already) of higher value to me as a reference. I'm wondering about whether and how to better integrate. Also, in your view, how well do the 'summary' comments on WP:RS/P comport with matching items on WP:PUS? Thx, Humanengr (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- If I were in a dispute over a source I would use this page, and refer to the linked discussions. I would never use WP:PUS. If I were learning more about categories in general, I would find WP:PUS useful. Work permit (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- So at some point mention on WP:PUS of WP:RS/P should be given greater prominence â perhaps in the intro beside the mention of "reliable sources noticeboard"? Humanengr (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- If I were in a dispute over a source I would use this page, and refer to the linked discussions. I would never use WP:PUS. If I were learning more about categories in general, I would find WP:PUS useful. Work permit (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- And the use case for the essay given the presence of WP:RS/P? The latter seems (potentially if not already) of higher value to me as a reference. I'm wondering about whether and how to better integrate. Also, in your view, how well do the 'summary' comments on WP:RS/P comport with matching items on WP:PUS? Thx, Humanengr (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Good point. WP:PUS is as you say different then WP:RS/P since the purpose of this page IS to be a list of prior discussions. When a controvery comes up, and editor can come to this page and find the link of actual discussions about sources. Quoting those sources in an article's talk page can carry some weight. WP:PUS is truly an essay. Different use case.Work permit (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Sunrise and Work permit: Has the overlap between WP:PUS and WP:RS/P been discussed? The former summarizes without linking to discussion. Humanengr (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Work permit: No objections for its deletion for now, but there are multiple talk page dicussions in Venezuelan articles that quickly die down after the government bias is brought up. Maybe another discussion to make a determination? I think the concensus would be similar to PressTV or RT, but that is for other users to decide.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Work permit: Also, there is this. Telesur shares that Infowars is banned by Facebook, criticizing it as a "conspiracy-driven content" site without mentioning anything about free speech. Then when their friend Venezuelanalysis is blocked from Facebook, they start to mention free speech rights in a hurriedly published article with misspellings. Then Telesur is blocked by Facebook for Terms of Service violations and continues to criticize the move. Just thought that this was an interesting development.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- I do wonder if we should be including links to talk pages as well. Work permit (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
âPopular pressâ, âMedia concentrationâ, âState-sponsored or controlledâ
Given that only a fraction of the âpopular pressâ (a term used in The NY Times entry) are covered and that âmedia concentrationâ is not, it would seem useful to have an entry for the latter. Also, a pointer to discussions of âstate-controlledâ, state-sponsored, and other such groupings might also be appropriate. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
templates
There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#RfC:_Should_Template:Supplement_be_added_to_WP:Identifying_reliable_sources/Perennial_sources? about changing the template from an "essay" to a "supplement". There is alot of debate between these two proposals. How do other editors feel about using an "information page" rather than a supplement. Or use a "generic" template? The following are four proposals:
Personally, I prefer the last choice. None of the other three seem to "fit" was this page really is: A summary list of previous discussions. Work permit (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with the general intent, but I think we should try to come up with a common grouping that applies to other similar pages. There's supposed to be a discussion to that purpose at Wikipedia talk:Project namespace, although not very many people have commented there yet. Tamwin (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Designers & Dragons
Would someone consider adding the below to the perennial sources grid? I think this represents an accurate summary of the latest discussion, however, since I was a party to it I should probably not add it and it should be checked by an uninvolved person to determine whether it is an accurate representation of the discussion. Chetsford (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Source | Status | Discussions | Date of Last Discussion | Notes | Current usage on Wikipedia |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Designers & Dragons | No consensus | [1] | 2018 | Designers & Dragons is a book on the history of roleplaying games that has been published in several editions, both by Mongoose Games and Evil Hat Productions. Editors generally agree that Designers & Dragons is reliable for non-extraordinary claims regarding games and game companies. There is no consensus as to whether it is, or is not, a reliable source for biographical statements or WP:BLPs. | uses |
- Before adding it I believe an uninvolved third party should review the summary. I believe there is also a moderate consensus that, for non-BLP, it is OK for facts but not notability. Jbh Talk 19:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
-
- There is certainly not a consensus, much less a policy-based consensus, that Designers & Dragons would not contribute to Notability. First of all, there is no policy basis for a category of sources regarded as reliable where SIGCOV would not contribute to Notability. Second, only a couple of editors have even articulated this position, so it is hardly a consensus even if it were policy-compliant (which it is not). The GNG is met by multiple significant mentions in RS. Newimpartial (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- There is certainly not a consensus Yes, I think that's why we've recommended the status indicate "no consensus." Chetsford (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Chetsford, I was responding to I believe there is also a moderate consensus that, for non-BLP, it is OK for facts but not notability [2] to which you replied Agree on both.[3] I am glad that we now have an understanding that no such "moderate consensus" exists.[4]
- By the way, I agree in general with your formulation, Editors generally agree that Designers & Dragons is reliable for non-extraordinary claims regarding games and game companies. There is no consensus as to whether it is, or is not, a reliable source for biographical statements or WP:BLPs[5], though of course I do not agree with you or jbh about the underlying policy issues discussed there. Newimpartial (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we're understanding each other here, but it may be an indenting issue. In any case, I'll leave it to a forthcoming third party to referee the wording of this addition. Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Of what addition? There should be no added text re: a "moderate consensus" against WP:N, for which no significant number of contributors at RSN expressed support. Newimpartial (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we're understanding each other here, but it may be an indenting issue. In any case, I'll leave it to a forthcoming third party to referee the wording of this addition. Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Both of you. Give it a rest! An uninvolved editor will sort stuff out. All you are accomplishing is spreading your BS all over the place. Keep it up and I'll take you both to ANI and ask for an interaction ban. Jbh Talk 22:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Seems to me one discussion diff does not a "perennial source" make, unless it's to a formally closed rfc that's predicated on previous discussions being unclear. Is this page also supposed to be an index of reasonably well attended rsn threads? â Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- That me be a valid point, Rhododendrites. This has recently been the topic of discussion in a number of AfDs; the link above was just to a formal, centralized discussion at RSN that arose out of those. That said, perhaps several discussions are needed before qualifying for this list? Pinging Mrx to see if he can clarify. Chetsford (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)