Frequently asked questions (FAQ) | |
---|---|
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62
|
Threads older than 60 days days may be archived by MiszaBot II. |
Contents
Contradiction
If Wikipedians can't be trusted to determine the truth or falsehood of each others' original research then why be trusted to determine the reliability of media outlets? If truth isn't the main metric of determining the reliability of these media outlets then what is? Approval or disapproval of said outlets from other "reliable sources"? If so, then how does this not just encourage widespread corruption? Aube123 (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am not sure where you get the idea that our ban on original research relates to the truth or falsehood of the material in question. That’s not the issue. The reason we don’t allow OR is that an encyclopedia is the wrong venue in which to publish original research, ideas, conclusions, etc. - we actually don’t care whether OR is true or not because we avoid the issue by banning all OR (or to put it another way: because we care about the originality of the material, we don’t have to worry about its truth or falsehood). An encyclopedia is a tertiary source... a summarization of what has already been published elsewhere. Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Then you're choosing convention over the principle that the convention is meant to protect: reliability, AKA tendency to be true. Is an encyclopedia not a collection of facts? Aube123 (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- The purpose of citing sources is to point readers to reliable authorities for confirmation of anything they find on Wikipedia. We never point to ourselves as reliable authorities, and it is not our goal to collect literally all true facts. It is inevitable that a bit of original research will happen on talk pages as we attempt to decide who the reliable authorities are on any subject, but we agree from the outset that we are not it (this is found in the second of the five pillars, our most important rules). The beauty of citing sources, though, is that we never have to ask readers to trust us, a bunch of pseudonymous internet accounts. The information and sources are there, and readers can decide for themselves if our sources are trustworthy, and whether we have accurately cited them. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- If you're not really asking for people's trust in who you trust as sources because people can decide for themselves who's trustworthy, then you also wouldn't be asking people to trust your original research, since it would necessarily need to be supported by explicit reference to evidence that people can research for themselves, and if they come to a more truthful conclusion, make edits. The big difference is the undue power given to organizations. If an individual believes that they can prove something written here to be false, they cannot simply argue why its false in order to change it, they must start an organization and hope to be voted in by Wikipedia as a reliable source. Then, both the truth and lies of that organization becomes one label: "reliably sourced". Far more trust is required in this way of doing things. Aube123 (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
is the undue power given to organizations
-- This statement is nonspecific therefore impossible to discuss. Given by whom? in what context? Which organizations? I strongly suspect that at least in context of wikipedia you are mistaken, but, as I said, I have no idea what you mean. In any case, for the purpose of Wikipedia, "If an individual believes that they can prove something written here to be false" the individual in the first place must find reliable sources which say something to this end and then discuss with fellow wikipedians that the new found source is just as trustworthy as the one the contested fact was based upon. We do know that knowledge changes and even reliable sources may be mistaken or underinformed. Finally there may simply be no consensus on the issue, an if so established, Wikipedia duly reports both opinions (with caveats). Staszek Lem (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)- Individual editors who can prove something on Wikipedia to be false with original research cannot make an edit that would replace the provable falsity with the provable truth, Wikipedia instead is dependent on what you could call the original research of secondary sources, typically organizations. There's nothing special about many of these organizations that gives them inherent merit to be the monopolies on original research, Wikipedia grants them this power when they are determined by the community to have an acceptable tendency to tell the truth, hence the contradiction: nothing and no one commands Wikipedia editors over which sources are reliable and which aren't, they trust themselves to reach that conclusion. To do so, they must conduct original research into the tendency of sources to tell truths or lies, indicating that editors can distinguish between the two. At the same time, editors are not trusted to distinguish between the truth and lies of the content of articles which necessarily stems from sources which had to have been evaluated based on their truths and lies. Aube123 (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- If you're not really asking for people's trust in who you trust as sources because people can decide for themselves who's trustworthy, then you also wouldn't be asking people to trust your original research, since it would necessarily need to be supported by explicit reference to evidence that people can research for themselves, and if they come to a more truthful conclusion, make edits. The big difference is the undue power given to organizations. If an individual believes that they can prove something written here to be false, they cannot simply argue why its false in order to change it, they must start an organization and hope to be voted in by Wikipedia as a reliable source. Then, both the truth and lies of that organization becomes one label: "reliably sourced". Far more trust is required in this way of doing things. Aube123 (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- The purpose of citing sources is to point readers to reliable authorities for confirmation of anything they find on Wikipedia. We never point to ourselves as reliable authorities, and it is not our goal to collect literally all true facts. It is inevitable that a bit of original research will happen on talk pages as we attempt to decide who the reliable authorities are on any subject, but we agree from the outset that we are not it (this is found in the second of the five pillars, our most important rules). The beauty of citing sources, though, is that we never have to ask readers to trust us, a bunch of pseudonymous internet accounts. The information and sources are there, and readers can decide for themselves if our sources are trustworthy, and whether we have accurately cited them. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Then you're choosing convention over the principle that the convention is meant to protect: reliability, AKA tendency to be true. Is an encyclopedia not a collection of facts? Aube123 (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is a lot of confusion about the precise meaning of the No Original Research rule, including the very concept of "research". The wrong meaning, which in my opinion is largely the fault of the appalling slogan "verifiability, not truth" that is now thankfully gone, is that Wikipedia doesn't care about its own reliability. On the contrary, we care very much, but we control the means by which reliability is achieved. If we allowed editors to put their own theories into articles, the result would not be reliability but chaos. So, if you have a proof that black holes are impossible, or if you conduct your own interviews with participants in a current event, you need to get the material published in a reliable source (such as a physics journal or a newspaper, respectively) before we can use it. On the other hand, if you find a high quality published source that contradicts the weaker source used in an article, you are most welcome to replace the weak source with the strong source. That's the sort of "research" we strongly encourage: searching for the best available sources. The best editors spend more time looking for good sources than they spend editing articles. There is some truth to the claim that this just moves to the problem to a different place: how do we determine which sources are reliable? But in practice the grey areas are shrunk substantially. Our experience is that the NOR rule greatly enhances encyclopedia reliability, contrary to initial impressions. Zerotalk 09:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm happy to hear that Wikipedia actually is interested in the pursuit and preservation of truth. I agree that to achieve this, certain subjects are far too complicated for any statements within the domain of that subject to be considered fact unless they come from experts. However this doesn't extend to every single statement about every single subject because many things are simple enough to be easily proven or falsified without complete dependence on statements from secondary sources, or lack thereof. So, which subjects are so unknowable that expert consensus should be treated essentially as doctrine and not up for debate except from other secondary sources treated with equal or greater reliability? Where do you draw the line? The line has already been naturally drawn in the way that editors conduct original research when determining the reliability of secondary sources. Editors do their own fact checking to prove sources as reliable or unreliable on matters simple enough for other editors to in turn conduct their own fact checking on the same matter and based on this agree or disagree, where they then vote, based on this original research, on the reliability of the source. On the other hand, if there has ever been a time when an editor has attempted to use his own theories on the existence of black holes to prove the unreliability of a trusted astrophysics organization, it wouldn't be necessary for other editors, who also are not astrophysics experts, to prove his theory incorrect since knowledge of that particular subject is so reliant on expertise that his non-expert challenge to the reliability of experts on their own expert knowledge can be readily dismissed, regardless if it might be true. He can take his theory to the experts, not wiki editors who have no way of disproving his theories. This difference which already exists I think would easily apply to the way that editors would conduct original research to determine the truth or falsehood of individual statements within Wikipedia articles, and not just the general level of reliability of secondary sources whose individual statements could very well still be lies. Aube123 (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The requirement that contributions must be "directly" related to an article's topic is being used to support deletions such as this one. I propose clarifying that, "An article's statements and the sources that support them need not refer specifically to the article subject as long as they refer to one of its component parts or sub-topics." This is long-standing practice and I have only recently encountered suggestions to the contrary. EllenCT (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Strongly Opposed - “Directly related” does indeed mean that source X must actually mention topic Y. Otherwise any connection between X and Y is indirect (at best) or outright OR (at worst). Blueboar (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Blueboar's claim is utter nonsense. This position would, for example, prevent using any source about the Boeing 737 MAX 8 in Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 unless the source mentioned the latter crash. Jc3s5h (talk)
- In fact, the article on the flight, when talking about the plane itself, uses sources about the specific plane that crashed, not sources about MAX 8s generally. As it should be. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not all of them, and most of those in the "Aircraft" section that are about the specific plane are not about the crash. Where do you draw the line? EllenCT (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- The line: When a source is being used to support or imply a POV that the source does not itself mention. It's more than just the precise subject that the source is about. It's a combination of that and what claim the cited source is being used to support. A background section in an article about a plane crash might give details about the plane, and it wouldn't necessarily be an OR issue if those sources were about that specific unitary plane, but not the crash itself. However, if you were to cite a source about MAX 8s generally (that never mentions this crash) in a section about crash theories, you are in hairy territory. Basically, if those sources are being used to imply a cause of the crash that is not suggested by any sources explicitly about the crash, you are probably creating original research. Does that make sense? Again, to that article, the sources about MAX 8s generally are just there to say when this type of plane entered service and similar details, but not to say anything about the crash. The sources that are about this plane but not the crash are used to give details about the plane, but not the crash. In the black helicopter article, on the other hand, sources about literal black helicopters were being used to "possible explanations" for a conspiracy theory that was not mentioned in the cited sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Someguy1221: I took a few days off away from editing to think abut this. In short, no, it does not make sense to me. How can you operationalize this in the form of an edit to the policy which would allow us to cite sources about declining elephant populations in an article about an elephant population increase conspiracy theory, which do not refer to the conspiracy theory? EllenCT (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- You could not, and that is a feature rather than a bug. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Someguy1221: I took a few days off away from editing to think abut this. In short, no, it does not make sense to me. How can you operationalize this in the form of an edit to the policy which would allow us to cite sources about declining elephant populations in an article about an elephant population increase conspiracy theory, which do not refer to the conspiracy theory? EllenCT (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- The line: When a source is being used to support or imply a POV that the source does not itself mention. It's more than just the precise subject that the source is about. It's a combination of that and what claim the cited source is being used to support. A background section in an article about a plane crash might give details about the plane, and it wouldn't necessarily be an OR issue if those sources were about that specific unitary plane, but not the crash itself. However, if you were to cite a source about MAX 8s generally (that never mentions this crash) in a section about crash theories, you are in hairy territory. Basically, if those sources are being used to imply a cause of the crash that is not suggested by any sources explicitly about the crash, you are probably creating original research. Does that make sense? Again, to that article, the sources about MAX 8s generally are just there to say when this type of plane entered service and similar details, but not to say anything about the crash. The sources that are about this plane but not the crash are used to give details about the plane, but not the crash. In the black helicopter article, on the other hand, sources about literal black helicopters were being used to "possible explanations" for a conspiracy theory that was not mentioned in the cited sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not all of them, and most of those in the "Aircraft" section that are about the specific plane are not about the crash. Where do you draw the line? EllenCT (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- In fact, the article on the flight, when talking about the plane itself, uses sources about the specific plane that crashed, not sources about MAX 8s generally. As it should be. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Blueboar's claim is utter nonsense. This position would, for example, prevent using any source about the Boeing 737 MAX 8 in Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 unless the source mentioned the latter crash. Jc3s5h (talk)
- Opposed to that wording, as it would encourage SYNTH. But OP has a point, and Blueboar's response is a little too strong. Good articles contain background that helps readers understand the topic better. In the plane-crash example, I would allow a source stating when the first plane of that model was delivered, provided it was not accompanied by an implication that the delivery date had anything to do with the crash. I don't think that such background violates NOR, though the boundary is nearby. Zerotalk 01:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- About "Background": this is the part I am always uneasy about. This is the place whre it is so easy to push lots of POV, because it is "just background that helps to understand blablabla". "Helps to understand" is a road to hell of POV: it may help to understand in some convenient way. And trying to balance it out may easily make things even worse. Therefore IMO "Background" section mus obey the same rule: if sources on the subject do not mention particular elements of "background" then its relevance is an opinion of the Wikipedian, hence implicit WP:SYNTH. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Blueboar's post reflects the extreme case of WP:NOR, where the whole topic fails WP:N, and article supports are scrounging for minimum sources for independent coverage of the topic. If the source does not explicitly refer to the topic, then it is not useful in demonstrating notability. It does not mean that if other sources have established notability that the source can't be used. WP:NOR speaks to balance of the sources. There must be secondary sources, but a proportion of of other sources, usually primary sources citing something very specific, even if tangential, are not excluded by this policy as a rule. Black helicopter helicopter is a borderline article, many sources mentioning black helicopters as a topic of conspiracy theory, but few giving direct coverage. If none give direct coverage, it is a WP:SYNTH failure. The sources of this article are borderline. The direct coverage of the topic from the first reference is this: "Alien conspiracy theorists claim unmarked black helicopters are often seen in the vicinity of UFO sightings", a newspaper reporting anonymous hearsay. I agree with User:EvergreenFir's removal, including the remove of this external link masquerading as a source: http://www.viewimages.com/Search.aspx?mid=71498993&epmid=1&partner=Google. It should be removed, for a multitude of reasons, including excessive primary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- If something is included in articles about a subject, then editors are unlikely to complain about a source not directly about the subject. The air crash article for example mentions that the Boeing 737 MAX 8 entered service in 2017, but that information is frequently mentioned in articles about the crash. If someone challenged the relevance of the information to the article, then a source about the crash would be needed. It is very hard to argue however that information that reliable sources on the crash have failed to provide is relevant in a brief article. The relevant policy is "Balancing aspects": "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." If reliable sources on the topic fail to mention something, then it is unimportant and should be omitted. TFD (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- EllenCT points to the black helicopter article but the more germane one to OP's question is white genocide conspiracy theory. There, OP is asking through an RFC whether or not articles about birth rates among whites should be included in the article (for context, see also Talk:White_genocide_conspiracy_theory#Renamed_Critics_section_to_Criticism, this edit, NPOVN, and Jimbo's page). I am glad EllenCT is seeking clarification here though.
I oppose the proposed language because I believe it mischaracterizes the issue at hand on the other linked pages and because it is too loose to the point of allowing SYNTH. The issue that led to this question by OP is less that she included sources not directly mentioning the page topic, but rather that she used those sources to make an independent counterclaim to the page's topic that was not present in other sources which explicitly discussed the page's topic. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: when you say "independent counterclaim" do you mean to imply that I was making the counterclaim? Do you agree that the counterclaim is supported by the WP:MEDRS reviews cited? Do you mean that the counterclaim was independent of the conspiracy theory; if so, in what sense other than contradicting one of its central tenets? EllenCT (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, you were the making it a counterclaim. The issue is not the source, it's your connecting them to the topic of WGCT. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: when you say "independent counterclaim" do you mean to imply that I was making the counterclaim? Do you agree that the counterclaim is supported by the WP:MEDRS reviews cited? Do you mean that the counterclaim was independent of the conspiracy theory; if so, in what sense other than contradicting one of its central tenets? EllenCT (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose one more argument the the ones already given:
as long as they refer to one of its component parts
- this part is a straight road to WP:COATRACK. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Generally, opposed. Everything is arguably a sub-topic or component part of something else, but we don't want everything in every article (or one long article titled, 'Everything'), and particularly pertinent, here, we don't draw connections that RS don't directly connect. If say, there is a type "a" defect in the Boeing lighting system that RS connect to the crash then sure discuss type "a" in the crash article, but if there is also a type "b" defect in the lighting system that RS do not connect to the crash, we don't connect "b" to the crash, in our crash article, even though lighting system is a component part. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
[Withdrawn] Clarifying question in terms of BLPs
If a celebrity commits a notable crime, under what circumstances may sources about the celebrity written before the crime occurred be included in the article about the crime? I urge review of at least a few featured articles about celebrity crimes while considering this, as I have been unable to find any which do not include several sources from before the event. EllenCT (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Do you have examples of something like: 'Celebrity X, fifty years before the crime graduated from Country Day High School (just thought you, Dear Reader, would like to know, although no one can guess why this matters).' Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- In fact, you are right; we do have something that looks like an exception here: per WP:SINGLEEVENT we have an option to fold the perpetrator's bio into the event article. However this is because if the crime was noisy, then pieces perp's bio (what a good/bad boy he was) are included in articles about the crime.
- At the same time IMO if the perp is a celeb, I would sugest move the bio pieces into the bio page, per WP:UNDUE. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Affiliations of officeholders
Throughout the encyclopedia, we have editors with a fondness for filling holes solely for the sake of filling holes, without regard for whether the end result is to provide readers with credible, useful information. Particularly in the popular media and perhaps also in other sources, a capital letter in parentheses next to an officeholder's name means that the person is serving in that office under a political party or other affiliation. In recent years, we had the case of an officeholder who served nearly a four-year term while registered to vote as a Democrat but who wasn't elected to the office as a Democrat. Various editors filled infoboxes and navboxes with "(D)" next to his name, leaning on media accounts which failed to tell the whole story but which provided suitable enough justification for their position (declaring them to be "reliable sources" despite the absence of fact checking, etc.). The average reader would look at the "(D)" next to his name and take that to mean that he served in the office as a Democrat. Since the community repeatedly demonstrated a desperation to avoid discussing this matter, I really don't want to pursue it here. However, it does bring cause to discuss related matters. The same type of editors with a fondness for filling holes have similarly filled infoboxes and navboxes elsewhere and I wish to get a sense as to whether the following constitutes OR:
- When an officeholder's registered affiliation is unclear, but it is clear that they're not registered as a Democrat or Republican (in the case of the United States; I dunno if or how this may apply to the politics of other nations), editors declaring the person to be an independent without clear evidence that they're explicitly affilated as such;
- Perhaps more importantly, when the person holds a nonpartisan office, appending their registered affiliation. If they're holding a nonpartisan office, their registered affiliation may be revealed by media sources, but those same sources typically take care not to specify that they're serving in the office under that affiliation. Once again, if a holder of a nonpartisan office has "(R)" next to their name, the average reader is going to take that to mean that they're serving in the office as a Republican, not that they're simply registered to vote as a Republican. A lot of times that an affilation has been placed next to the name of a nonpartisan officeholder, it's entirely unclear that this affilation has ever been revealed by a third-party reliable source. I get the impression that editors are repeating what they find on VoterRecords.com or similar sites. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)