Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context. | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||
While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy. | ||||||
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability. | ||||||
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board. | ||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||
www.human.gov.az
- Links to past discussion of the source on this board: Could not find previous discussions on that source.
- Source: [1].
- Article: Garadaghly, Nagorno-Karabakh.
- Content:
.According to the State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons, 26 citizens of Azerbaijan have been reported missing since Armenian forces captured Garadaghly village. Diff
- Comment: This source is not generally viewed as reliable because it is not a third party and represents one of the conflicting parties. I do not argue with that. However, I believe that an official governmental entity(The State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons) is reliable to reflect Azerbaijan's official perspective and statistical data on missing persons if it is written with proper attribution. Abrvagl (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Do we have any examples of official government websites not being regarded as reliable for the attributed position of that government agency? Bakkster Man (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think that's perfectly fine for the governments position for the edit in question. We're not saying it in Wikipedia's voice or claiming that the entire world believes this, but we clearly state it's according to the government. Canterbury Tail talk 20:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Reliable, needs to be attributed and not stated in wikivoice. Alaexis¿question? 11:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Very biased. For example, it calls almost all Armenian forces terrorists. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Fist of all, nowhere in the article all Armenian forces called as terrorists. Article says that ASALA is a terrorist organisation, and ASALA is indeed an international terrorist organization[3]. Calling things by their names does not mean being biased. Second, the State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons is reliable to reflect Azerbaijan's official perspective and statistical data on missing persons, and actually the only source which can reflect that. Abrvagl (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- We're not accepting, or portraying, it as truth, we're accepting and portraying it as their position. This is the only reliable way to do so and as a result primary sources are aceptible. Canterbury Tail talk 11:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Canterbury Tail Still I wonder if any kind of source can be used as long as we say it's attributed, even if gov position? The source accuses Republic of Armenia having "terrorists units" and "terror activities", it's definitely not just ASALA. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Unreliable, just not usable on its own... If we're being honest its ahistorical nationalist nonsense which is of no use in building an encyclopedia. WP:RS are more than sufficient for providing the view of the AZ government, there is no need to stoop to this level. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Many sources are reliable for statement "X", but unreliable for statement "Y". In our case State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Missing Persons is the ONLY reliable source to reflect number of missing citizens of Azerbaijan. Not sure what "historical nationalist nonsense" you see in here:
According to the State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons, 26 citizens of Azerbaijan have been reported missing since Armenian forces captured Garadaghly village.
. Abrvagl (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)- If they're the only source then WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies even if they're reliable. That means that if what you just said is true even if this discussion is closed as reliable you're not going to be able to use it where you want to use it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood me. What I said it that only governmental body can give governmental statistics on the missing persons. It does not fall under EXTRAORDINARY category, nowhere close to that. We're not expressing it in Wikipedia's voice, nor are we suggesting that everyone should believe it, but we clearly attribute it to the governmental body. That is how encyclopedia works. Abrvagl (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- If they're the only source then WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies even if they're reliable. That means that if what you just said is true even if this discussion is closed as reliable you're not going to be able to use it where you want to use it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Many sources are reliable for statement "X", but unreliable for statement "Y". In our case State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Missing Persons is the ONLY reliable source to reflect number of missing citizens of Azerbaijan. Not sure what "historical nationalist nonsense" you see in here:
- Reliable, Voting as the creator of the RSN. The governmental body of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Missing Persons is reliable to reflect governmental position about the missing persons if reflected with proper attribution.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrvagl (talk • contribs)
- Unreliable I agree with Horse Eye's Back, this source shouldn't be cited anywhere on Wikipedia even with attribution. It's just a piece of hot garbanzo, simple as that. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: I reviewed the sources in this article. Nobody cares, nobody on the outside's monitoring the situation. You will have the bulk of your sources be either Armenian or Azerbaijani, and both will be biased on a scale from somewhat-very to extremely-very. Make the best of what you got: attribute in-line, balance, and use with caution. And in the end even the most nationalist governments do have to have some level of accountability to the global community and to a baseline awareness of their people. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Leaked Paul Mason - Amil Khan correspondence
There are ongoing discussions on the talk pages of Paul Mason and The Grayzone about whether to mention a recent leak of documents. The leaked documents involve Mason, Amil Khan from the intelligence group Valent Projects and Andy Pryce from the Counter Disinformation and Media Development Unit at the UK Foreign Office discussing ways to deplatform Grayzone. There has been some reluctance to include this on both pages based on the sources being put forward. The sources are as follows:
- The Hill's Rising discussed the leaks in an 11 minute segment. The discussion is hosted by Briahna Joy Gray and Robby Soave. Their guest is Katie Halper.[1]
- Private Eye magazine published a non-satirical article on the leak in Issue 1575, 17 - 30 June 2022 under the title "Grayzone Layer".[2]
- The WSWS covered the story.[3]
- In Defence of Marxism also covered the story.[4]
Regarding these sources, The Hill is a green tick source and the three participants in the discussion are well-known journalists and/or commentators. Wikipedia contains over 300 references to articles on the website In Defence of Marxism, although there appears to have been no prior discussion about its reliability. Wikipedia contains 140 links to articles in Private Eye but the only discussion about reliability was in 2011. The Private Eye piece seems to be from the print edition. The World Socialist Web Site is listed at the Perennial Sources noticeboard.
What do editors think about the strength of these sources in regards to mentioning the leak at Paul Mason and Grayzone? Burrobert (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Private Eye might be ok, but the other 3 are definitely not reliable. The Rising segment is covered under WP:RSOPINION as an opinion piece (how other cable talk shows are handled); the WSWS and IDOM sources are obviously unreliable as they clearly take a side and thus must be treated as opinion pieces, and that is not even taking into consideration whether or not the outlets are reliable or not (which they aren't). Curbon7 (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- There are quite a few journalists beyond these who have talked about the leak in informal contexts, but it looks like most respectable media doesn't want to give "newspaper of record" treatment to a story that only exists because of hacking that may have the backing of the Russian state. It is not true that we can't use a source that takes sides: generally we recognise a class of sources that are partisan but are conscientious in getting their facts right. I'd put Declassified UK in this camp, who were mentioned in the leak. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Belated postscript - I had meant to conclude the above by saying I don't think we currently have the sourcing to treat this story, but my feeling is that in time we will see sufficient coverage in RSes. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'll basically repeat what I said at Talk:The Grayzone#Masongate: the leaked Paul Mason - Amil Khan correspondence. These aren't reliable sources for facts. As Curbon7 alluded to, Rising is an opinion talk show and doesn't have the same level of factual reliability as The Hill. @Mhawk10 was kind enough to send me a copy of the Private Eye article and...I'm not exactly sure how it gives credibility to the story. Most of article is criticizing Blumenthal and Kit Klarenberg. Since we're allegedly dealing with leaked documents from a living person, we would need some extremely high-quality sources confirming the authenticity of the leaks. WP:BLPGOSSIP comes into play here. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Rising 's Wiki page describes it as "an American daily news and opinion web series". It describes itself as "the premier source for policy and political news " and a "daily news show ". The format is similar to that of Democracy Now!. In the linked episode, the hosts Briahna Joy Gray and Robby Soave spend the first 1.5 minutes detailing the content of the Grayzone story including:
- that Mason created a "Putin-influence map", and "tried to get the Grayzone deplatformed"
- "The emails show [Mason] allegedly plotting with Andy Pryce of the UK Foreign Office Counter-disinformation and Media Unit”.
- "Mason also called for suspending UK libel law to smear targets".
- Soave mentions the removal by YouTube of a video posted by Blumenthal in which he and Aaron Mate discussed the leaked emails.
This part of the show is a factual recounting of the content of the Grayzone ’s story. The hosts then call in Katie Halper to discuss the revelations in more detail. This part of the show does contain some factual content such as Halper’s description of Amil Khan as "the founder of Valent Projects which is funded by USAID and its goal is to investigate disinformation". It also contains some opinion such as Halper’s statement that Khan and Mason decided to avoid confronting Grayzone on substance and instead "resort to these smear tactics".
The article in Private Eye does provided sufficient coverage of the leaked documents. For example it states:
- Last week Paul Mason announced that someone had tried to hack his encrypted email account. ... [O]n 8 June the spoils of the hack surfaced on The Grayzone.
- From "anonymously leaked emails and documents" [The Grayzone] learned that Mason wanted a "relentless deplatforming" of the Grayzone and "a kind of permanent rebuttal operation" to discredit it.
As mentioned by Charles, biased sources are still usable and there are many listed at the Perennial Sources noticeboard. Some examples are The Daily Beast (which is used six times in The Grayzone ’s Wikipage) and green tick sources such as The Intercept, Jacobin, Mother Jones, The New Republic, Reason and SPLC.
The point about Declasiffied UK is a good one. Its investigations are detailed and meticulous so it may take longer for it to publish.
My intention is to use the sources for a basic and brief statement of facts, not opinion. An example of the intended text is:
The Grayzone was given access to documents and emails hacked from Paul Mason. The leaked documents involve Mason, Amil Khan from the intelligence group Valent Projects and Andy Pryce from the UK Foreign Office's Counter Disinformation and Media Development Unit allegedly discussing ways to deplatform Grayzone.
Burrobert (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Those aren't basic facts. Too many BLP issues and we should not be saying this in WP:WIKIVOICE to begin with. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Probably not a discussion for this page. The exact wording can be discussed on Paul Mason and Grayzone 's talk page. All four sources state that Grayzone had access to documents and emails leaked from Paul Mason. All four sources state that the discussion between Mason, Amil Khan and Andy Pryce was about deplatforming Grayzone (among other things). The word allegedly has been used in the suggested text but this could be changed to "according to ... " if editors prefer. However, best to transfer that part of the discussion to the talk pages of the two articles. Concerns about BLP issues can be discussed at the BLP noticeboard. Burrobert (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- The article in Grayzone has been reprinted in the Monthly Review, which is definitely RS . I would say there is no BLP problem whatsoever reporting the story in the article, though not in wikivoice, especially as Mason does not deny it. --Boynamedsue (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Monthly Review reprinting the Grayzone, which is a deprecated source, does not make it "RS." Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't follow the logic of that statement. Are you saying that the Monthly Review isn't a reliable source? Or that anything that has been published in a deprecated source can never become reliable, even if reprinted by a reliable source?--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- The latter (although I am not totally sure of the general reliability of Monthly Review for factual claims). How does reprinting a deprecated source suddenly make that source reliable? Did the other source, in this case Monthly Review, fact-check the claims made in the deprecated source? Obviously not. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- The monthly review has been discussed here before and the consensus was that it was reliable. If a reliable publication reprints something from a non-reliable publication, then they are putting it through their own editorial processes which we deem to be acceptable. There is no basis in our processes for saying that everything published in a deprecated publication must be untrue. Once it is taken up by a trusted source, we can use it. Of course, there are the same considerations we use for every other article, in this case it is solved by attribution. The factual basis of this story is not disputed by anyone, not even Mason. It is just a question of WP:DUE at this point. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Can you link to a recent discussion finding MR reliable? I can only see a very old discussion of the journal, not a discussion of the website which very different. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is a difference between a reliable source analyzing and examining an article found in another source and a source simply hosting another source's article. In this case, Monthly Review is simply republishing/hosting an article straight from the Grayzone. They are not endorsing the reliability of the article. There is even a disclaimer at the bottom stating:
Monthly Review does not necessarily adhere to all of the views conveyed in articles republished at MR Online. Our goal is to share a variety of left perspectives that we think our readers will find interesting or useful. —Eds.
Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)- If a reliable source publishes views, it confers those views with notability. By republishing the article, they take equal legal responsibility for any factual inaccuracy, and that disclaimer does not disavow responsibility for factual inaccuracy. Now, nobody is arguing for language stating that Mason did the things he is accused of, though there is near unanimity that he did, and he doesn't even deny it himself, but an attributed statement detailing his activities is warranted. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- No. Such a website would most likely be protected by Section 230. Per Bollinger et. al.,:
Section 230(c)(1) is a barrier to liability for hosting, republishing, and disseminating content furnished by third parties. Specifically, it provides: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
[4]. Please also read WP:SYNDICATED:A syndication company may offer the same story in multiple formats...Whatever the length or format, they usually contain the same claims and are written or edited by the same person or team. Syndicated news pieces may be independent of the subject matter, but they are not independent of one another. When considering notability or due weight within an article, all of the related articles by the same publishing syndicate, no matter how widely they were sold, are treated as the same single source
. All claims of reliability and due weight, in this case, rests with The Grayzone--not Monthly Review. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)- Well, I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps they don't have legal liability under US law. However, they have chosen to repeat it, without any disclaimer regarding facts, which means they lend it their own credibility. WP:SYNDICATED is not relevant here, I am not claiming that two sources exist. It is one source, but its credibility is higher because it has been reprinted by a better publication. I consider the Grayzone article to be reliable due to its publication in Monthly Review, I do not think there are two sources, one reliable and one not.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
...but its credibility is higher because it has been reprinted by a better publication. I consider the Grayzone article to be reliable due to its publication in Monthly Review.
Sorry, this opinion is not backed up by any known policy or guideline. The WP:GRAYZONE consensus still applies which found that the sitepublishes false or fabricated information
. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)- Well, I don't see your view that once something has been published in a non-reliable source, it can never become reliable as being valid or in any way logical. You are arguing that the first place something is published defines its status forever, and that is plainly not correct.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- So if InfoWars decided to pay CNN to republish one of its articles in full, does that make the InfoWars article a reliable source now? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- If a news source accepts paid content without distinguishing it from its own content it is not reliable, so no. However, if CNN looked at an infowars article and decided it was worthy of publishing due to its value and importance as a piece of news, then, theoretically, yes. Your argument would state that if a blog piece was picked up by the New York Times and put on its front page, then it would not be a reliable source or notable. That is not the way it works here. --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think there may be some confusion here. If, say, a New York Times journalist wrote an original story saying: "Grayzone reported X about Paul Mason. We, at the New York Times, are able to confirm the accuracy of that account," then Grayzone's story would be verified and we are able to include it in WP, citing the New York Times. But if for some reason the New York Times simply decided to republish the Grayzone article with a disclaimer "The New York Times does not necessarily adhere to all of the views conveyed in articles republished at NYTIMES.com" then the reliability rests with the original publisher. This is fairly routine. Just check some entries on WP:RSP, e.g., WP:WND:
WorldNetDaily's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher
. Also see: Web syndication. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC) - What you write here is a little straw-clutchy. Nothing on WP:RSP or WP:WND seems applicable to this case, and the specific case of WorldNetDaily is not applicable beyond that individual publication. It is the opposite of the situation we are discussing, where a the reprinter is MORE reliable than the initial publisher. I don't think there is much to be said here, I think republishing by a better source can render a source reliable, you don't.--Boynamedsue (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think there may be some confusion here. If, say, a New York Times journalist wrote an original story saying: "Grayzone reported X about Paul Mason. We, at the New York Times, are able to confirm the accuracy of that account," then Grayzone's story would be verified and we are able to include it in WP, citing the New York Times. But if for some reason the New York Times simply decided to republish the Grayzone article with a disclaimer "The New York Times does not necessarily adhere to all of the views conveyed in articles republished at NYTIMES.com" then the reliability rests with the original publisher. This is fairly routine. Just check some entries on WP:RSP, e.g., WP:WND:
- If a news source accepts paid content without distinguishing it from its own content it is not reliable, so no. However, if CNN looked at an infowars article and decided it was worthy of publishing due to its value and importance as a piece of news, then, theoretically, yes. Your argument would state that if a blog piece was picked up by the New York Times and put on its front page, then it would not be a reliable source or notable. That is not the way it works here. --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- So if InfoWars decided to pay CNN to republish one of its articles in full, does that make the InfoWars article a reliable source now? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I don't see your view that once something has been published in a non-reliable source, it can never become reliable as being valid or in any way logical. You are arguing that the first place something is published defines its status forever, and that is plainly not correct.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps they don't have legal liability under US law. However, they have chosen to repeat it, without any disclaimer regarding facts, which means they lend it their own credibility. WP:SYNDICATED is not relevant here, I am not claiming that two sources exist. It is one source, but its credibility is higher because it has been reprinted by a better publication. I consider the Grayzone article to be reliable due to its publication in Monthly Review, I do not think there are two sources, one reliable and one not.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- No. Such a website would most likely be protected by Section 230. Per Bollinger et. al.,:
- If a reliable source publishes views, it confers those views with notability. By republishing the article, they take equal legal responsibility for any factual inaccuracy, and that disclaimer does not disavow responsibility for factual inaccuracy. Now, nobody is arguing for language stating that Mason did the things he is accused of, though there is near unanimity that he did, and he doesn't even deny it himself, but an attributed statement detailing his activities is warranted. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Where was there a consensus attained that Monthly Review is WP:GREL? I've looked through the archives and I can't find a discussion that clearly agrees with that. Meanwhile there are multiple WP:GREL sources that have pointed out its promotion of Xinjiang denialism through the republication of Qiao Collective trash. Why would we trust that stories republished by them are reliable? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, there is a consensus in this discussion, the OP initially double its reliability, many voices state it is reliable, the OP then changes their mind.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- That thread is from 14 years ago and I don't think the participants reached a clear consensus about the reliability of Monthly Review. They were mostly arguing if "extremist" sources are permissible or not. Also, about half of those participants are indefed. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- To echo Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, an informal noticeboard discussion that took place over fourteen years ago on the publication's reliability does not constitute present consensus. The WP:RS guideline has changed a bit during that time and a source's reliability for facts can be different now than it was a decade ago (see WP:NEWSWEEK and WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS). Especially since Monthly Review has had substantial and more recent problems with its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in media it republishes, the 2008 discussion does not establish current consensus that the publication is WP:GREL. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, there is a consensus in this discussion, the OP initially double its reliability, many voices state it is reliable, the OP then changes their mind.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- The monthly review has been discussed here before and the consensus was that it was reliable. If a reliable publication reprints something from a non-reliable publication, then they are putting it through their own editorial processes which we deem to be acceptable. There is no basis in our processes for saying that everything published in a deprecated publication must be untrue. Once it is taken up by a trusted source, we can use it. Of course, there are the same considerations we use for every other article, in this case it is solved by attribution. The factual basis of this story is not disputed by anyone, not even Mason. It is just a question of WP:DUE at this point. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- The latter (although I am not totally sure of the general reliability of Monthly Review for factual claims). How does reprinting a deprecated source suddenly make that source reliable? Did the other source, in this case Monthly Review, fact-check the claims made in the deprecated source? Obviously not. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't follow the logic of that statement. Are you saying that the Monthly Review isn't a reliable source? Or that anything that has been published in a deprecated source can never become reliable, even if reprinted by a reliable source?--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Note: This has been previously discussed at Talk:The Grayzone#Masongate: the leaked Paul Mason - Amil Khan correspondence. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Also that discussion (and presumably all references to this thread about reliability) refer to the monthly publication (hence the name), while the particular article in question is from MROnline (About MR), which has open submissions and unknown review standards (Do they fact-check? They simply say "Our goal is to share a variety of left perspectives that we think our readers will find interesting or useful."). The one thing that's for certain is that Blumenthal himself submitted/adapted the Grayzone article for MROnline.
- And the notion that the green check mark suddenly grants an aura of quality to all the crap that a publication associates with is nonsense, notably if they do not make their editorial practices known. Standards vary, as does scrutiny – there is some gray area in say NYT commentary/guest submissions where they have been known to fail to fact-check despite claiming they do – which is why at minimum in-line attribution is necessary, to the original source. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would suggest MR provides notability for attributing a view, I don't see any evidence of unreliability, except that it published one opinion article that specialists in a field strongly disagreed with. I personally consider it reliable, and so did the users the last time it was discussed. One contested article is not enough to render a source unreliable. The Times is considered reliable despite regularly being castigated by regulators for publishing false information. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think any of this pertains to WP:N. If you're saying that their online blog is reliable, even though it more or less provides the same disclaimer that an op-ed section would have, I don't really know what say except that op-eds and guest blog posts are rarely reliable for statements of fact owing to a lack of fact-checking in that area. That MRO published it as a guest blog post doesn't allow us to do anything except to make our weighting decision based on the reliability of The Grayzone itself, which is truly subpar. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would suggest MR provides notability for attributing a view, I don't see any evidence of unreliability, except that it published one opinion article that specialists in a field strongly disagreed with. I personally consider it reliable, and so did the users the last time it was discussed. One contested article is not enough to render a source unreliable. The Times is considered reliable despite regularly being castigated by regulators for publishing false information. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not reliable for BLP information and absolutely not in Wikivoice None of the sources given seem to be what would be considered reliable sources for inclusion of details in Wikivoice. If due weight considerations and discussions determine that the sources are important enough to include, then they should be included with attribution due to them being opinion pieces. But I would find due weight hard to support in this regard without higher quality sources covering the subject, particularly for the BLP article. SilverserenC 06:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for participating. I'll summarise the discussion by saying that the sources mentioned are strong enough to support mentioning the leaked emails and the Grayzone 's view on their significance. Most editors agree that Wikivoice should not be used based on these sources, so any opinions should be attributed appropriately. In a few days I'll start RfC's on the pages for Paul Mason and the Grayzone. Burrobert (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree with that summary. The consensus is clear that these are very weak sources at best and certainly to weak for contentious BLP material. My own view is that the Rising talk show cannot be used as a source for facts or in determining due weight for opinion; an MRonline report of a piece in a deprecated blog is straightforwardly unreliable; that WSWS is not reliable and certainly not for this sort of content; and that In Defence of Marxism might be reliable for facts to do with Trotskyist sectarians or Leninist theory but not for content relating to the topics involved here. Therefore Private Eye is the only potentially usable source, which doesn’t leave much to say, particularly about Mason. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'll leave it up to the participants in the RfC's then. They can make up their own minds about this discussion. The reliability will of course depend on the nature of the proposed text. All sources support including the uncontroversial points that
- - Mason's email account was hacked.
- - the contents surfaced on the Grayzone
- - the contents included a discussion about deplatforming the Grayzone which involved Mason, Amil Khan and Andy Pryce (we could discuss whether this point should be attributed to the Grayzone).
- Some points from the Grayzone articles have not yet been well covered by other sources. Some of this is probably due to the threat of legal action. For example Emma Briant's role in the discussion has not been well covered so it would be best not to mention her in any proposed text. Mason's idea of astroturfing black and Asian voices to push back on black and brown critics of the Ukraine proxy war may have been mentioned in Rising but probably should also be left out. I can't find a link to the BBC's assault on Stop The War Coalition in which Mason apparently appears. We may be able to include that item once the programme is published and generates coverage. In short, any proposal should be limited to the three uncontroversial items above. Burrobert (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
"I'll summarise the discussion by saying that the sources mentioned are strong enough to support mentioning the leaked emails and the Grayzone 's view on their significance"
. Come on, that's a poor summary of the consensus. If you count Bob now, 6 editors in this thread agree the sources are extremely weak. Only one editor, besides the OP, agrees the sources are good enough. We are dealing with a BLP here. We need explicit consensus and robust sourcing. I'm not sure how many times I need to say this but the hacked contents of a living person's email will never be an"uncontroversial"
point (even if we have super strong sources). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)- I am not aware of any BLP policy related to leaked or hacked documents. There are many well-known examples of such documents being subject to reporting and then finding their way into Wikipedia articles. It would be worth raising the issue at the BLP Noticeboard. Burrobert (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Max Blumenthal's Grayzone TARGETED Over Pro-Kremlin 'Disinformation': Katie Halper". The Hill. Retrieved 21 June 2022.
- ^ "Private Eye | Lord Ashcroft: Mail Privilege". www.private-eye.co.uk. Retrieved 21 June 2022.
- ^ "Emails confirm pro-NATO warmonger Paul Mason works with intelligence agencies". World Socialist Web Site. Retrieved 21 June 2022.
- ^ Laight, Stan; Curry, Ben. "Britain: Paul Mason – from class collaborator to outright renegade". In Defence of Marxism. Retrieved 21 June 2022.
Trans Safety Network
Source: [5]
Articles: Stella O'Malley and Genspect
Content: Trans Safety Network described SEGM as "an anti-trans psychiatric and sociological think tank" and fringe group. They reported that most of SEGM's funding came in donations greater than 10,000 dollars. In addition, they reported that seven of SEGM's eleven clinical advisors are also members of the Genspect team. Namely, O'Malley, Julia Mason, Avi Ring, Sasha Ayad, Roberto D'Angelo, Marcus Evans and Lisa Marchiano.[1]
For context, Trans Safety Network is a registered non-profit Community Interest Company which reports on anti-trans groups. They are often quoted and referred to in accepted sources as an expert source, and we cite them in other locations on Wikipedia. Does this count as a reliable source/acceptable reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTranarchist (talk • contribs) 14:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- The website itself appears to entirely contain self-published blogposts, so citing the website for facts about living people seems like a bad idea policy-wise. I'm not particularly familiar with whether Mallory Moore is a
WP:SMESME for this sort of stuff; the extent to which the source is reliable for facts (that are not about living people) hinges on that. That being said, if the only basis for claiming that the individual is an SME is that they once wrote for TruthOut, I'm skeptical given that the website has been OK with and doubled down on per se libelous complete fabrications in the past even after being proven wrong. What's your rationale for considering Moore an SME? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- They are notable enough to be treated by other reliable sources as worthy of comment, and are a registered non-profit devoted to this issue. Mallory has been cited for her statements as a researcher by various other reputable news orgs. The claims present are all backed with sources in the article and easily verifiable. Namely, that is how TSN described SEGM, most of the donations are > $10,000, and those members are on the board of both teams. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Source X is always reliable for the claim "Source X says Y", where Y is a direct quote. But WP:SPS says to
Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
The group does not appear to be a well-established news outlet nor does the report appear to be WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If I were to make an investigative report on a subject about which I am an expert and post it on my own blog, I don't think anybody would reasonably be able to cite it on Wikipedia for contentious facts about living people even if my analysis is wholly correct. And, that a source is a "registered non-profit" that news organizations find worthy of comment does not make their website reliable within its area of focus; by that logic, the website of Moms for Liberty would satisfy the qualifications to be a reliable source for public education in the United States. While there are some nonprofits that are WP:GREL, this doesn't exactly have the longstanding reputation for fact-checking and accuracy coupled with strong editorial review processes that something like Amnesty International or Pew Research Center does. - On top of that, the text of the report doesn't quite support the sentence as-written; the only way to conclude that
most of SEGM's funding came in donations greater than 10,000 dollars
would be to conclude that the GoFundMe accounted for over two-thirds of the group's funding at the time the report was written. The report itself doesn't allege this, but instead says that they can't find tax return data on the group despite efforts to search online. So, in that sense, no the source is not reliable for the claim thatThey reported that most of SEGM's funding came in donations greater than 10,000 dollars.
The bigger question is whether or not the source is WP:DUE for the remainder of the content. If there aren't any established NEWSORGs or scholarly works that have provided weight to the particular parts of this report, then the answer is that it's almost certainly WP:UNDUE. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Source X is always reliable for the claim "Source X says Y", where Y is a direct quote. But WP:SPS says to
- Did you mean Subject-matter expert when you linked to WP:SME?? SVTCobra 17:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes I would say that Trans Safety Network are reliable. Articles published by TSN have been cited in scholarly research as authoritative; [6], [7], [8], as well as in reliable media; [9], [10], [11].
- Mallory herself has been quoted in media sources as a researcher; [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] as well as in scholarly research; [17], [18], and by at least one legal scholar [19]. As such I believe she qualifies as a subject matter expert. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe related Draft:Trans Safety Network ( | [[Talk:Draft:Trans Safety Network|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --SVTCobra 19:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Mhawk10. WP:BLPSPS is very clear and we have to be cautious with BLPs. Sometimes well-known blogs and other SPSes are cited in the occasional academic paper, and lots of blogs and tweets get linked in media sources - especially ones with a clear political POV on a matter. Crossroads -talk- 06:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Mallory counts as a subject-matter expert per what Sideswipe9th said, and Trans Safety Network has at least some use by others; they're reasonably citable with attribution for the opinions in the first part of the paragraph. But we cannot cite a SME directly for WP:BLP-sensitive stuff, and should generally use the highest-quality sources for that regardless. Based on that, is fine for the first three sentences (which do not name any individuals) but I'd skip the final sentence with the names, which isn't really necessary anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd say that anyone commenting on politically sensitive trans issues should be attributed in-line, expert or not. It's still an extremely young movement with a pretty vigorous and sometimes messy debate even in academia. Now what's known specifically about Moore that would make her articles an RS? She's a relatively local journalist, so she knows the editorial process, but that says nothing of whether the blog in question has any such process or standard. She's also not an academic, and most of the reason academics can be considered reasonably reliable as self-published sources is that they face significant consequences if they are academically deceptive or negligent even in something like a personal blog. Of course the other test is if the work itself is verifiable -- if all sources are meticulously cited -- and she does a pretty decent job of that in her SEGM article. The warnings above about BLP are correct, but this seems like a reasonable article to use when discussing an organization, with attribution. And use common sense with hot issues to avoid nonsense: if you use it for a fact, double-check their source link for the fact, and remember to cite "source, as quoted by blog." SamuelRiv (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Moore, Mallory. "SEGM uncovered: large anonymous payments funding dodgy science". transsafety.network. Retrieved 2022-06-26.
drugs.com for MEDRS
Source: www.drugs.com
It has recently come to my attention during a discussion that "drugs.com" is possibly widely used as a MEDRS-quality source for backing up medical claims on Wikipedia articles. For example, the Wikipedia article in question made claims based on the "Clinical Overview" section of the drugs.com lavender page, a conclusion reached by the anonymous author of the page. This is worrying because according to https://www.drugs.com/support/about.html
1. This is not a peer reviewed journal. It is a private company's database "powered by several independent leading medical-information suppliers".
2. "The Drugs.com website is owned and operated by Drugsite Limited, as trustee of the Drugsite Trust. Drugsite Limited is a privately owned company administered by two New Zealand Pharmacists."
3. "The only funding we receive from pharmaceutical companies is by way of advertisements that appear on the Drugs.com website"
4. In this particular case, almost every paper listed on the page as a "source" was more than 5 years out of date.
The Wikipedia editor that was defending drugs.com as a source also didn't seem to be aware of the above information, as he was also insisting that drugs.com was a superior source to a recent meta-analysis that I found in a peer-reviewed journal. So I'm curious if other editors are aware of this, if they use it for citations that should meet MEDRS standards, and if Wikipedia as a whole should continue using it in that way. It seems to fly in the face of nearly every recommendation on the MEDRS page 50.45.170.185 (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I use drugs.com for work; it's generally reliable as it's run by pharmacists, but it's mostly unsourced/commercial info, I prefer to use better sites like the FDA, CDC or Health Canada for drug info. They don't present incorrect info on drugs.com, it's more of a commercial site, used for the average Joe to look stuff up. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can't see how this would fit into the WP:MEDRS criteria as they stand. This doesn't mean the information is necessarily unreliable, but like a lot of other cases we should be citing the peer reviewed secondary studies or medical body recommendations instead of a third party aggregator of that information. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- For the IP: The top of this page says to please include:
- Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html].
- Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]].
- Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X", but unreliable for statement "Y".
- It is not really possible to make a one-size-fits-all determination about whether absolutely everything in that website is usable/unusable for any and all purposes on Wikipedia. Sometimes it's okay; sometimes it's not. Drugs.com is more likely to be useful for statements like "the active ingredient is ____", taken from their copy of a Medication package insert. It is (much) less likely to be useful for statements like "This proves that alt med works". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Given that it is "powered by several independent leading medical-information suppliers, including; American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Cerner Multum and IBM Watson Micromedex", wouldn't those "information suppliers" be a better source for such information rather than the aggregator itself? Citing it feels like citing Wikipedia (no offense). 50.45.170.185 (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
It is not really possible to make a one-size-fits-all determination about whether absolutely everything in that website is usable/unusable for any and all purposes on Wikipedia.
The question wasn't about all purposes, just whether it meets WP:MEDRS guidelines for WP:BMI. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- For the IP: The top of this page says to please include:
- It violates MEDRS, which says, "Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources." This is clearly a tertiary source. Otherwise it would meet rs for information that fell outside MEDRS. Personally, I never use tertiary sources for any articles, but there is rule against doing so. TFD (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Good point. Also I just noticed that many, many pages for various drugs have a direct link to www.drugs.com at the top of the page. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secobarbital 50.45.170.185 (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- WP:MEDRS does allow tertiary sources - it recommends textbooks and suggests that biomedical encyclopaedias by certain publishers can be good quality, for instance (both of which are tertiary sources). WP:MEDBOOK. Tristario (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- These are actually secondary sources as defined by Wikipedia. Notice your link does not use the term tertiary source. TFD (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- MEDRS used to say, "Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information.[1] For this reason, all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge."
- That was the original reason for implimenting MEDRS, although that has since been removed. However, I think that just as Wikipedia should not provide advice, it should not tell readers where to get advice. While the source is in my opinion generally reliable, Wikipedia does not have a method of determining whether a source is totally reliable in all its information. If people are trying to determine whether to take a drug or to seek treatment, they should look at several advice sites, talk to their doctors and make their own decisions. But I can't tell them which sites to visit or who to talk to.
- TFD (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Under WP:MEDDEF textbooks and encyclopaedias are defined as tertiary sources. Tristario (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- There is an important distinction you might be missing.
- An example of a tertiary source is an
"undergraduate or graduate level textbook."
- Whereas WP:MEDBOOK says
"medical textbooks published by academic publishers are often excellent secondary sources."
50.45.170.185 (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)- Textbooks for undergraduates and graduates are typically published by academic publishers and they're still medical textbooks. WP:MEDBOOK even mentions undergraduate and postgraduate textbooks, with the caveat that those for students may not be as thorough.
- If you read through all of WP:MEDRS it's pretty clear that tertiary sources aren't forbidden - it also mentions them under Basic advice. Information in tertiary sources is still based on secondary sources - the use of them doesn't contradict the first sentence in WP:MEDRS. This is all besides the point, though, this doesn't mean that Drugs.com is a reliable medical source. I don't have an opinion on that currently. Tristario (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Under WP:MEDDEF textbooks and encyclopaedias are defined as tertiary sources. Tristario (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, the opening line of MEDRS is very explicit: only secondary sources are allowed for biomedical information.
- WP:MEDBOOK does not contradict this:
"Medical textbooks published by academic publishers are often excellent secondary sources."
- The rest of the section is mainly pointing out difficulties when using books such as them often being out of date, containing too terse of information, and not being peer-reviewed. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Also, some encyclopedias are considered to be secondary sources. Typically, these are specialized and contain signed articles written by experts and providing sources. Do not confuse use of the term tertiary in Wikipedia and in the rest of the world. Review studies for example are considered tertiary in the rest of the world, because they summarize secondary sources. First year university textbooks are generally considered tertiary in Wikipedia, while advanced textbooks are considered secondary. TFD (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Example of an encyclopedia that is a secondary source? 50.45.170.185 (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Encyclopedia of Government and Politics, Volume 1. TFD (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant relevant to this discussion about medical sources. Also, how did you determine that this particular encyclopedia is a secondary source? WP:TERTIARY explicitly states all encyclopedias are tertiary. Perhaps this page needs clarification? 50.45.170.185 (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Encyclopedia of Government and Politics, Volume 1. TFD (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Example of an encyclopedia that is a secondary source? 50.45.170.185 (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Also, some encyclopedias are considered to be secondary sources. Typically, these are specialized and contain signed articles written by experts and providing sources. Do not confuse use of the term tertiary in Wikipedia and in the rest of the world. Review studies for example are considered tertiary in the rest of the world, because they summarize secondary sources. First year university textbooks are generally considered tertiary in Wikipedia, while advanced textbooks are considered secondary. TFD (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm still uncertain on my view of this, but it seems like this might fall under the advice given about webmd and eMedicine under Other sources on WP:MEDRS - okay for uncontroversial information, but other sources are preferred. Tristario (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Since MEDRS is a guideline, there may be exceptions, but each one needs to be explained. In this case, you would need to explain why drugs.com is preferable to reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 04:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. I was just answering about drugs.com generally but in this particular case there may be a reasonable argument for preferring it, but that wasn't what the question was. Tristario (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- In the exact same sentence that WebMD is mentioned there is
"however, as much as possible Wikipedia articles should cite the more established literature directly".
i.e. according to WP:MEDRS, things like WebMD are never preferable when reliable secondary-sources are available. And when reliable secondary-sources aren't available, things like WebMD should never be used for anything that could be considered controversial as per the rest of the sentence. Uncontroversial things might be chemical name or molecular formula for a drug, not the supposed health benefits or lack thereof. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- In the exact same sentence that WebMD is mentioned there is
- Yes, I agree. I was just answering about drugs.com generally but in this particular case there may be a reasonable argument for preferring it, but that wasn't what the question was. Tristario (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Since MEDRS is a guideline, there may be exceptions, but each one needs to be explained. In this case, you would need to explain why drugs.com is preferable to reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 04:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- This argument about whether Drugs.com is a tertiary source (and therefore in some people's opinion, less good) is silly. It is a big site. Some of its material is secondary and some tertiary. The disputed article for Lavender Oil cites the primary research literature and therefore is more similar to a secondary literature review than it is to other more typical tertiary sources like the NHS, WHO or CDC websites, say.
- The underlying dispute is about "a patented lavender flower extract, known as Silexan" and a review of small studies all conducted by the same team and funded by the manufacturer, is sufficient evidence. Looking at the current article, it seems editors have found PMID 33638614 to be an acceptable current review upon which to make limited claims. Arguing over whether Drugs.com is generally better than x or y or z is not really productive, as it is too varied in its content. -- Colin°Talk 07:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
"tertiary source (and therefore in some people's opinion, less good)"
. WP:MEDRS is more than just some people's opinions. It's a very important community-wide guideline with community-wide consensus. The conclusions reached on drugs.com are not peer-reviewed by a third-party, and they are self-published. It's important that we reach a consensus about whether or not drugs.com is WP:MEDRS compliant because it is currently being widely used as such, which is potentially extremely dangerous for the readers and Wikipedia's reputation.- After-which... Wikipedia might need a lot of clean-up depending on the consensus reached. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- The premise introduced by the IP for this discussion is incorrect: Drugs.com is not used as a MEDRS source, to my knowledge or in my editing, but rather mainly as a monograph for herbal products and prescription drugs, providing for the former some of the best reviews available in its Natural Products Database where publications are commonly in unreliable alt-med journals, and are reviewed critically by Drugs.com editors. Drugs.com has a relationship with the FDA for disseminating time-sensitive consumer information, and among clinical practitioners I know, the professional edition is a go-to resource for pharmacology and prescription details, and for FDA drug monographs and approvals. Wikipedia has included Drugs.com monographs in most drug article infoboxes under Clinical data, and has been used by experienced medical editors for more than a decade. I suspect it will continue to be a valued resource for updated drug information. The frantic editing behavior illustrated in this thread and nearly all of some 150 edits in 4 days by IP 50.45.170.185 indicates WP:SPA over a single issue: that weak publications on lavender oil be used to claim efficacy in treating anxiety. Two admins have page-protected Lavandula and Lavender oil against the disruptive editing by IP 50.45.170.185. Please stop and move on - WP:DEADHORSE. Zefr (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
>Drugs.com is not used as a MEDRS source
It absolutely is. And you even admit to wanting to use it for a biomedical claim here. "I retain the position of our previous article conclusion: 'There is no good evidence to support the use of lavender oil for treating dementia or anxiety', as well as here admitting that not only do you not know who publishes drugs.com but you thinkDrugs.com is a superior source over a meta-analysis
, which flies completely in the face of MEDRS. This is like adding "Vaccines don't protect against viruses." to a page and sourcing it to some self-published for-profit encyclopedia under your dishonest concern of"better to side with skepticism about research quality"
[20]>and are reviewed critically by Drugs.com editors
Reviewed and published by drugs.com? That's makes their reviews WP:SELFPUBLISH and thus not suitable for biomedical information.>Drugs.com has a relationship with the FDA for disseminating time-sensitive consumer information
What does publishing FDA alerts in this blog have to do with anything?>has been used by experienced medical editors for more than a decade
Doc James's 10+ year old inquiry didn't even have that much support in the discussion you linked, only a handful of responders, and them saying things like "I wonder occasionally if it has an American bias" and "I'd say it was preferred to editors doing an amateur version of NICE themselves">Wikipedia has included Drugs.com monographs in most drug article infoboxes
Which is very concerning, considering Doc James was the one who added an external link to a private website filled with ads at the top of every drug-related Wikipedia page after his inquiry got that weak response. I notice you yourself are also a major source of edits adding reference to the site.<more personal attacks against me>
Can you please stop? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment/Hounding- Thanks 50.45.170.185 (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also since you seem to have not seen it, I will quote WP:MEDRS again here:
"Respect the levels of evidence: Do not reject a higher-level source (e.g., a meta-analysis) in favor of a lower one (e.g., any primary source) because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level source. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review."
50.45.170.185 (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- The premise introduced by the IP for this discussion is incorrect: Drugs.com is not used as a MEDRS source, to my knowledge or in my editing, but rather mainly as a monograph for herbal products and prescription drugs, providing for the former some of the best reviews available in its Natural Products Database where publications are commonly in unreliable alt-med journals, and are reviewed critically by Drugs.com editors. Drugs.com has a relationship with the FDA for disseminating time-sensitive consumer information, and among clinical practitioners I know, the professional edition is a go-to resource for pharmacology and prescription details, and for FDA drug monographs and approvals. Wikipedia has included Drugs.com monographs in most drug article infoboxes under Clinical data, and has been used by experienced medical editors for more than a decade. I suspect it will continue to be a valued resource for updated drug information. The frantic editing behavior illustrated in this thread and nearly all of some 150 edits in 4 days by IP 50.45.170.185 indicates WP:SPA over a single issue: that weak publications on lavender oil be used to claim efficacy in treating anxiety. Two admins have page-protected Lavandula and Lavender oil against the disruptive editing by IP 50.45.170.185. Please stop and move on - WP:DEADHORSE. Zefr (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Drugs.com may be useful as an external link, but clearly is not a MEDRS source for statements in Wikipedia's voice. It may also be a source of further MEDRS-compliant references. I hope that clarifies matters. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- In response to the extensive WP:TENDITIOUS editing and commentaries by IP 50.45.170.185 in this thread and others, use of Drugs.com in the lavender oil article is appropriare because the topic under dispute there - that an oral lavender oil product can be used to treat anxiety - is less of a MEDRS issue and more of an herbalism issue, a topic for which high-quality MEDRS sources, like systematic reviews or Cochrane reviews, either don't exist (who would invest the funding and time on unpatentable herbs or quackery?) or mainly have negative conclusions; Cochrane example here for lavender aromatherapy to treat dementia. Drugs.com is used in Wikipedia medical articles as a trusted encyclopedic synopsis of prescription drug facts, and is a reliable source for herbal topics that don't have reliable sources. The literature under dispute about anxiety therapy at the lavender oil article falls into this unreliable herbalism category, as discussed on the talk page. A meta-analysis of junk studies reported in the Journal of Junk remains junk. Zefr (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed that drugs.com can be used as a reliable source for general information since it uses information from (what seem like) reliable databases such as multum/micromedex while also utilizing expert opinion from ASHP. I'm also assuming that older medications like aspirin, which have been around for awhile, wouldn't have new research that show what their general side effects are etc. and drugs.com can be used as a reliable source for such info. I was also curious to see if WP:PHARM or WP:MED listed anything about this and looks like WP:PHARM lists it as a reliable source [21], wondering if there's already been a previous consensus on this or similar sites? Eucalyptusmint (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- That resources page does not show a consensus that drugs.com is a MEDRS-compliant source. It just says it contains material from reliable sources. Wikipedia also contains material from reliable sources, but we aren't supposed to cite Wikipedia or drugs.com for biomedical claims because they are self-published, self-reviewed tertiary sources.
- Additionally, Doc James was the one who added drugs.com to that resources page. If you look at the discussion above, you'll see that he was also the one who first asked about it as a source and got a very weak response from only a handful of people, he is also the one who added an external link to it (a privately-owned site filled with ads) to the top of almost every drug page on Wikipedia. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
>[drugs.com] is a reliable source for herbal topics that don't have reliable sources.
Well... glad we agree it's not a reliable source then.- If a topic doesn't have reliable sources, then it doesn't have reliable sources. We can't cite Dr. Quack's blog on his miracle pill just because there are no other sources talking about the pill. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed that drugs.com can be used as a reliable source for general information since it uses information from (what seem like) reliable databases such as multum/micromedex while also utilizing expert opinion from ASHP. I'm also assuming that older medications like aspirin, which have been around for awhile, wouldn't have new research that show what their general side effects are etc. and drugs.com can be used as a reliable source for such info. I was also curious to see if WP:PHARM or WP:MED listed anything about this and looks like WP:PHARM lists it as a reliable source [21], wondering if there's already been a previous consensus on this or similar sites? Eucalyptusmint (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Voetbalprimeur
Source: https://www.voetbalprimeur.be/ (Note: English translation is "Football scoop")
This source is extensively used (80 links as of this moment) in the following article List of Belgian football transfers summer 2022, as a reference for specific football transfers. IMHO this website falls under WP:Questionable sources, because it often publishes article on transfers based on rumours, before these transfers have been officially realized/published. Often they do become reality, but sometimes the website is mistaken and the transfer doesn't come through.
I feel it would make more sense to use the official website of the in/out-going club once the transfer is final, rather than to rely on this website. Pelotastalk|contribs 10:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
heise.de (heise online / Heinz Heise) / c't (c't 3003)
Is heise online / c't (heise.de
) a reliable source for technology-related topics, or should it be considered a self-published group blog?
- Source
- "c't 3003: Ent-googletes Android dank Calyx, /e/, Graphene, Lineage & Volla" [c't 3003: Un-googled Android thanks to Calyx, /e/, Graphene, Lineage & Volla]. heise online (in German). 15 April 2022. Archived from the original on 15 April 2022. Retrieved 28 June 2022.
- Article
- GrapheneOS
- Content
- In April 2022, Jan-Keno Janssen of heise online for c't stated GrapheneOS' approach of running Google Play services differently without system level access "works quite well",[a] and said the operating system's focus on security is "uncompromising".[b][c]
The cited source (including a transcript of a c't 3003 YouTube video) includes a disclaimer at the bottom: c't 3003 is the YouTube channel of c't. The videos on c't 3003 are stand-alone content and independent of the articles in c't magazine. Editor Jan-Keno Janssen and video producers Johannes Börnsen and Şahin Erengil publish a video every week.[d]
- ^
GrapheneOS hat einen anderen Ansatz: Hier laufen die originalen Play-Dienste – aber in einer abgesicherten Umgebung ohne Zugriff auf die Systemebene. Das funktioniert ziemlich gut.
- ^
Insgesamt ist GrapheneOS das Custom-ROM, was am kompromisslosesten auf Sicherheit setzt.
- ^
Diese drei OSse wären auch meine Empfehlungen: Graphene oder CalyxOS, wenn ihr kompromisslose Sicherheit wollt und ein Pixel-Smartphone habt, /e/OS für alle anderen.
- ^
c't 3003 ist der YouTube-Channel von c't. Die Videos auf c’t 3003 sind eigenständige Inhalte und unabhängig von den Artikeln im c’t magazin. Redakteur Jan-Keno Janssen und die Video-Producer Johannes Börnsen und Şahin Erengil veröffentlichen jede Woche ein Video.
84.250.14.116 (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Do not use the particular source (without comment on heise.de reliability in general), as it is contrary to WP:RSPYT.
- Correction Re: "The cited source (including a transcript of a c't 3003 YouTube video)"
- The cited heise.de source does not include a transcript. It, in essence, is entirely a transcript.
- As stated in the Talk[22], the more concise issue is: a transcription of a Youtube video is just as contrary to WP:RSPYT as the video itself. This is trying to use a Youtube videos as a source, by "laundering" it through an (maybe) otherwise usually reliable source, for articles within editorial oversight, if any. This particular source is outside any editorial oversight, as stated in the disclaimer at the bottom of the transcript of the youtube video. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is? As I understand RS if a source reports something and it is an RS it does not matter if the origin is "some bloke down the pub" as we would source it to the rs. And to accuse an RS (assuming of course it is) of "laundering" smacks of wp:or.
- As to the question, a publisher is not an RS, it is only a publisher. What they publish maybe. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don´t think this disclaimer is meant in that way (no editorial oversight), my understanding is the channel provides content not available in the magazine. Author of said video/transcription is an editor of the ct magazine, the channel is sanctioned by the magazine ("c't 3003 ist der YouTube-Channel von c't") and the transcription is on the magazine website (well, heise.de is the site of several tech related media of the Heinz Heise publishing house). From my humble POV, this source is reliable (as a source for the above paragraph), certainly not "a self-published group blog". Pavlor (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- If the videos were "endorsed" by, and given editorial oversight by heise.de (or c't subsidiary or whatever), then the disclaimer would say something like that. Instead, they use words like "standalone content" and "independent of the articles". If they were given oversight, they might avoid obvious errors. An example of obvious (to me) erroneous content in this particular YouTube video: They say, at about 3:38 in the video, which includes English subtitles, ""The five custom ROMs that I tested together with my colleagues from c't are all based on Google's AOSP, but of course do not have Google's closed-source software integrated. Instead of Google Maps, for example, Magic Earth is preinstalled on /e/, Organic Maps on Calyx, and OSMAnd on Volla." This is an obvious error to me, because I am familiar with Magic Earth being not open source; rather, being a closed source, proprietary app, included with /e/.[23] A suggestion: They say the video is based on previous testing done for the c't magazine. That may be a better source. I could not get beyond the paywall to see that article, but if available at least a written article, clearly endorsed, would not be contrary to WP:RSPYT. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Google's closed-source software
. It's not to be taken out of context or interpreted to mean something it doesn't say (WP:OR / WP:SYNTHESIS); the statement also does not say the other software is all open-source (rightfully so). There's no Google in Magic Earth (publisher General Magic), at least according to the external link you've posted. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)- Your edit summary "Yae4 taking things out of context for his benefit (again))" is a personal attack, and false. I don't think they meant to say instead of Google's closed source software, you get someone else's closed source software. In context of all they say about "open source" throughout the transcript, I think they made a mistake. The other two Maps apps they listed - Organic Maps and OsmAnd - are indeed open source. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Even reliable sources can be sometimes wrong (don't know if this is the case). However, we have here regular magazine staff, posting video on a regular channel of the same magazine with a transcription on the magazine website. I really don't see any reason, why this transcription shouldn't be useable as a reliable source for the above paragraph. Pavlor (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment: heise online is referenced by other (at least marginal) publications. Some examples (English translations of foreign source titles have been machine translated):
- Sattelberg, Will (5 September 2021). "Germany wants to extend your smartphone's lifespan with seven years of security patches". Android Police. Valnet Inc. Retrieved 30 June 2022.
- Mehrotra, Pranob (6 September 2021). "Germany wants smartphone makers to offer 7 years of software updates". XDA Developers. Retrieved 30 June 2022.
- Hardwick, Tim (6 September 2021). "Germany Urges EU to Require 7 Years of Updates and Repairs for iOS Devices". MacRumors. Retrieved 30 June 2022.
- Stich, Simon (27 June 2022). "Microsoft fliegt raus: Erstes Bundesland zieht die Reißleine" [Microsoft flies out: First state pulls the ripcord]. GIGA (in German). Retrieved 30 June 2022.
- Geuß, Martin (28 June 2022). "Microsoft Teams soll auch in Rheinland-Pfalz von den Schulen verbannt werden" [Microsoft Teams to be banned from schools in Rhineland-Palatinate as well]. MSN (in German). Retrieved 30 June 2022.
- Carnevale, Robert (13 January 2022). "Linux replaces Windows in one German state's bid for software independence". Windows Central. Future plc. Retrieved 30 June 2022.
- Sen, Sayan (23 November 2021). "25,000 German state computers will bid goodbye to Windows and say Hello to Linux". Neowin. Retrieved 30 June 2022.
- Farivar, Cyrus (16 December 2006). "BMW getting supercomputer; iDrive still sucks, though". Engadget. Retrieved 30 June 2022.
- "Apple arbeitet wohl an Mac Mini mit M2-Chip". Swiss IT Magazine . 12 April 2022. Retrieved 30 June 2022.
84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Android Police. Valnet Inc. rang a bell. Previous comments on Valnet et all at RSN have not been favorable.[24][25][26] This suggests I should not have added Android Police sources, and we should remove them. Stopping here, assuming you listed the strongest first. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- In no order of preference. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Heise Online is an umbrella website for several Heinz Heise magazines/publications - content quality may vary (there may be even "sponsored content"). The transcription in question is under ct magazine heading, so reliability of the ct magazine (and its web content) should be judged here. Pavlor (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- WP:RSP#Engadget has referenced the c't magazine on several occasions. I've added more references are below. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment: c't magazine is used as a source by other independent publications. Some examples:
- Fingas, Jon (4 September 2021). "Germany wants phone makers to offer 7 years of security updates". Engadget. Yahoo. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
- Shah, Saqib (20 December 2018). "Amazon sent private Alexa audio recordings to a random person". Engadget. Yahoo. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
- Brown, Jennings (20 December 2018). "The Amazon Alexa Eavesdropping Nightmare Came True". Gizmodo. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
- Brien, Jörn (29 May 2022). "Apple-Übersetzer: KI wandelt harmlose Sätze in Pornotitel um" [Apple translator: AI converts harmless sentences into porn titles]. t3n (in German). yeebase media GmbH. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
- Bauer, Manuel (30 May 2022). "Pikant: Apples Übersetzungs-Tool hat ein Porno-Problem" [Spicy: Apple's translation tool has a porn problem]. Computer Bild (in German). Axel Springer SE. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
- "'Next generation' flaws found on computer processors: magazine". Reuters. 3 May 2018. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
84.250.14.116 (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- "The videos on c't 3003 are stand-alone content and independent of the articles in c't magazine."
- You continue sidestepping and giving distractions from the main issue and the disclaimer, regarding the stand-alone, independent YouTube video (transcript) you wish to cite. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment: The editor of c't 3003 web videos also appears as an editor or co-editor for the paper c't magazine in their work (several examples):
- Janssen, Jan-Keno (August 2018). "Deep/Fakes". c't (in German). No. 8/2018. Heinz Heise. p. 100. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
- Janssen, Jan-Keno; Wirtgen, Jörg (January 2022). "Desktop-Handy". c't (in German). No. 1/2022. Heinz Heise. p. 148. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
- Janssen, Jan-Keno (January 2019). "Wolkig mit Aussicht auf Gaming" [Cloudy with a view of gaming]. c't (in German). No. 1/2019. Heinz Heise. p. 46. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
His opinionated personal experience news report has been published in heise online (not c't):
- Janssen, Jan-Keno (22 January 2014). "Uneasy Rider: Radfahren in Las Vegas" [Uneasy Rider: Cycling in Las Vegas]. heise online (in German). Heinz Heise. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
84.250.14.116 (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment:
- "Impressum" [Imprint]. c't (in German). No. 8/2018. Heinz Heise. August 2018. p. 201. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
- "Impressum" [Imprint]. c't (in German). No. 15/2022. Heinz Heise. 2022. p. 193. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
See managing directors. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC); edited 15:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC); edited 19:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Jan-Keno Janssen was listed for "Cover story coordination in this issue" (Titelthemenkoordination in dieser Ausgabe) and "Managing Editors" in "Mobile, Entertainment & Gadgets Department" (Ressort Mobiles, Entertainment & Gadgets, Leitende Redakteure) in an issue in 2018. Today, I cannot find their name on the current Impressum. I'll grant you the videos are entertaining, but I could only watch the one you want to cite for less than 4 minutes before seeing misleading info' and feeling they were careless with details. Their written articles are more likely to receive independent oversight by other editors (and not be tagged with a disclaimer), but that is not what you are citing. You are citing a YouTube video (transcript) which is "stand-alone content and independent of the articles in c't magazine." -- Yae4 (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Alle Redakteure. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Direct link: [27]. Independent of the articles in the magazine (in sense of new content), but certainly not independent of ct (their staff member, their channel, their webpage...). Pavlor (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The blurb "Jan-Keno Janssen lives in virtual reality, but sometimes still likes to go into the uncomfortable real world. The full-blooded nerd only learned to distinguish oaks from beeches as an adult, but was able to use Emacs as an 8-year-old. Since 2007 at c't." does not make a case for expertise, if that's your point? -- Yae4 (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I must admit I really don't understand your point. The text you quoted highlights his IT experience (in a humorous way). I fear we are runing in circles and wasting our time. This source is reliable (for the stated purpose). Too bad I'm the only one yet writing my opinion here - beside you two (heise.de is no FOX news...). May I ask, is there some other reason I'm not aware of why we should so carefully examinate this source (eg. something like AmigaOS4/MorphOS rivalry and associated fanboyism/canvassing)? Pavlor (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd like this to be turned into an RfC with options 1-4 for the reliability in general. I do have an opinion on the reliability of stated source and why this rehearsing happens, but I'm not going to express it now. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I must admit I really don't understand your point. The text you quoted highlights his IT experience (in a humorous way). I fear we are runing in circles and wasting our time. This source is reliable (for the stated purpose). Too bad I'm the only one yet writing my opinion here - beside you two (heise.de is no FOX news...). May I ask, is there some other reason I'm not aware of why we should so carefully examinate this source (eg. something like AmigaOS4/MorphOS rivalry and associated fanboyism/canvassing)? Pavlor (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- The blurb "Jan-Keno Janssen lives in virtual reality, but sometimes still likes to go into the uncomfortable real world. The full-blooded nerd only learned to distinguish oaks from beeches as an adult, but was able to use Emacs as an 8-year-old. Since 2007 at c't." does not make a case for expertise, if that's your point? -- Yae4 (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@Jann ruhe's first edit claims the statement (actually, a modified version of the statement) is "dubious", "editorialized" and the source is "based on a self-published source" in edit summary.[a] 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- ^ Special:Diff/1096321430
Are any of these sources reliable?
While looking for a good source on the fact that about-to-be-Prime-Minister of Israel, Yair Lapid, is color blind (at that time I ended up using a Hebrew source, today I upgraded to an English-language one), I found a more interesting claim - that Bill Clinton is. Can any of the following sources be used for this? And can the same source also be used for the other listed people?
- https://www.ranker.com/list/color-blind-celebrities/celebrity-lists
- https://www.improveeyesighthq.com/famous-color-blind-people.html
- https://healthresearchfunding.org/famous-people-color-blindness
- https://embracebio.wixsite.com/education/single-post/2017/09/06/colour-blindness-awareness-day
Animal lover |666| 15:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ranker is a low quality content farm (e.g. the blurb for each entry is scraped from Wikipedia). Improveeyesighthq is a self-published blog (see their about page). There is no information about healthresearchfunding whatsoever, but the nature of their articles suggests that they are also a content farm. Anybody can create a personal page on wixsite and there is no information on who is behind the content on embracebio.wixsite.com. In summary: None of these sources can be used for anything, let alone BLPs. 87.115.237.229 (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- For Clinton and others, you could use: Sun-Sentinel & San Diego Union Tribune. WikiVirusC(talk) 19:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- @WikiVirusC:Unfortunately, I was told on this noticeboard (the thread is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 378#Can a by-the-way quote from an article be used as a source on people who are not its subject) that any off-topic claim made by an article can't be used. This means that a proper source for such a claim must come either from a list of people with color blindness, an article about the person in question, or an article about a specific event/action/product/situation where this specific person's color blindness is relevant. Animal lover |666| 09:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- https://books.google.com/books?id=v0oL8xDJ0VEC&pg=PA43 Selfstudier (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- While I understand the basis of that, the guideline says should find sources that focus on it where possible. Either way the section from the book above should work. WikiVirusC(talk) 10:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily think this source is any better. It's also aggregating without citing a source. It seems likely to me that someone misinterpreted a joke about his poor fashion sense or his racial outlook at some point, because if he really was it'd be in an RS. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- This seems better (pg. 95) https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Encyclopedia_of_Genetic_Disorders_an.html?id=kXaMjwItP0oC GordonGlottal (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Contemporary source with similar language: https://books.google.com/books?id=ZolYAAAAYAAJ Unfortunately I don't have access to the full book to see if they cite anything. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- This seems better (pg. 95) https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Encyclopedia_of_Genetic_Disorders_an.html?id=kXaMjwItP0oC GordonGlottal (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily think this source is any better. It's also aggregating without citing a source. It seems likely to me that someone misinterpreted a joke about his poor fashion sense or his racial outlook at some point, because if he really was it'd be in an RS. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @WikiVirusC:Unfortunately, I was told on this noticeboard (the thread is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 378#Can a by-the-way quote from an article be used as a source on people who are not its subject) that any off-topic claim made by an article can't be used. This means that a proper source for such a claim must come either from a list of people with color blindness, an article about the person in question, or an article about a specific event/action/product/situation where this specific person's color blindness is relevant. Animal lover |666| 09:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Lavender oil has an RFC
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220704225641im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Lavender oil has an RFC for adding proposed sources to the article. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Is Worn and Wound watch blog reliable?
- wornandwound.com: Linksearch en (https) (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
This describes itself as a "blog" [28]. It's not clear whether they publish corrections and so forth as we usually require for a RS. The site is used in about a dozen articles; here is a sample where it is used to establish the first electric watch. Not sure a blog is great for historical firsts. Other examples seem more squidgy and fan-like, such as a list of "special edition" watches from a "lifestyle brand". ☆ Bri (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
RfC: Business Insider news reporting
Insider won the 2022 Pulitzer Prize for Illustrated Reporting and Commentary for its reporting on the story of an woman's escape from an internment camp (see: Uyghur genocide); the story was filed under its news section. Currently, WP:RSP describes Insider — with the exception of its culture section, which is considered RS — as being unclear in terms of reliability (option 2).
Is Insider's news (section) coverage, at least since December 2021 (when the Pulitzer winning story published), considered generally reliable for factual reporting?
- 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
-- TheSandDoctor Talk 00:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Survey (BI)
Bad RfC and procedural close. WP:RFCNEUTRAL commands that the prompt should be— Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC) (struck as moot 00:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC))neutrally worded
, but this prompt expresses a specific call-to-action (Based on this Pulitzer development, I believe that we should reconsider its news coverage's classification
). If you believe that the reporting should be reconsidered, then that should only appear in a comment or !vote, not in the RfC prompt.- @Mhawk10: Good catch. I didn't intend that. I have moved it to the discussion section. Does that address the concern? TheSandDoctor Talk 00:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @TheSandDoctor: Yes, that addresses my concern. As such, I've struck my !vote above as moot. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Mhawk10: I am glad that I was able to address that and correct it soon enough. Thank you for raising that and for striking now that it is resolved. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @TheSandDoctor: Yes, that addresses my concern. As such, I've struck my !vote above as moot. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Mhawk10: Good catch. I didn't intend that. I have moved it to the discussion section. Does that address the concern? TheSandDoctor Talk 00:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2: Additional considerations apply. That Pulitzer-winning piece is an excellent piece and drives home a woman's story about the abuses she endured in such a direct and powerful way that can only be conveyed in that illustrated medium. And by driving home the sheer scope of the inhumanity in that region through the one woman's lens there is little doubt that Insider deserves that prize. But there just far too many issues with Insider for me to consider it generally reliable for news over its entire lifetime.
- Reading through the previous RfC, almost nobody there considered Insider to be WP:GREL at that time. There may have been substantial improvements in the editorial control and fact-checking processes at BI in the intermittent two years (perhaps that culminated with the sort of detailed reporting necessary for a Pulitzer), but winning a Pulitzer in 2022 isn't good evidence that BI was reliable in 2013 (or really early in its history, when it was basically a collection of self-published blogs).
- The issues present at the time the source was evaluated in 2020 are still real issues that were present through much of the source's history (and may still be present today). Their editorial staffing decisions before acquisition by Axel Springer were... questionable. Prior to its acquisition by Axel Springer, the publication lacked editorial independence from advertisers, accepted (disclosed) quid-pro-quo payments from sources and article subjects, and repeatedly published false stories without doing basic fact-checking. And, while editorial staff kinda sorta purged themselves in 2016 shortly after they got acquired by Axel Springer, the mass exodus of staff didn't actually lead to swiftly improved editorial quality.
- I don't mind Axel Springer as an owner; it does publish Bild, but it also publishes Die Welt and Politico (although the acquisition of Politico is recent). Media companies often hold a variety of different publications, the quality of which can vary significantly (for example, News Corporation concurrently owned The Times of London, The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, News of the World, and The Sun). But the longstanding issues with the reliability of the website didn't go away overnight; in 2016 an analysis in Columbia Journalism Review called it the
poster child
for churnalism and that it often published clickbait that turned out to be false. The non-disparagement clauses in its contracts are... not great for journalistic accountability.
- In short, even though Business Insider was acquired by Axel Springer in 2015, and there very well may have been an improvement in its more recent quality of coverage, I really can't point to 2016 as the date where journalistic practices improved; I'm not really able to set a firm date where I can say that these chronic issues with Business Insider came to a halt. Feel free to propose one and make an argument for it, but I'm just not sure I can support a time-based split on reliability without a good reason. The only reason I'm WP:MREL here as opposed to WP:GUNREL is (1) a Pulitzer means something and (2) I expect it to be fine for ordinary sorts of business reporting. But I can't in good faith look past all of the publication's issues and say it's been WP:GREL since it started. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I don't think that being run by a convicted felon is per se disqualifying (the New Jersey Globe is run by David Wildstein but is well-regarded even by its competitors and by people who are not sympathetic to Wildstein). But that the guy was chosen to lead a business publication after being more or less legally barred from the securities industry by the SEC for alleged fraud, combined with the publication's lack of editorial independence from advertisers, is a bit of a red flag regarding pre-Axel Springer BI. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Mhawk10: The question was "Is Insider's news (section) coverage, at least since December 2021 (when the Pulitzer winning story published), considered generally reliable for factual reporting" (emphasis added). This is also about the section, not the the publication as a whole. This would seemingly address all of the points that you raised? The question wasn't really about whether it was reliable for all of its history, but the Pulitzer is a very good sign that its recent (news) coverage has probably vastly improved and is more reliable, no? Publications can change over time (see WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS). TheSandDoctor Talk 01:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @TheSandDoctor: I need to read more carefully before writing. That being said, there is still recognition that Business Insider is nowhere near the same journalistic league as Politico, and the continued use of traffic quotas leads to stories being a bit more clickbaity than news-y. Pulitzer or not, I'm not really confident that BI has flushed this stuff out yet, and I don't think that one excellent piece is enough to make the whole operation WP:GREL in light of its longstanding problems that seem to still to have been recognized as recently as this year. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Mhawk10: The problem is that the term "clickbait" is extremely subjective and arguably can be found at the NYT or elsewhere easily. Have you run into serious clickbait or (verifiably) false stories in their news section coverage in recent history? The concerns I have seen in past RfCs don't involve this section, were corrected as you'd expect from a site with editorial control, or are often years old (publications can change over time, see WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS); we have also proven previously with other publications (and even Insider) that sections can be individually assessed.
- As an interesting aside, I just realized and double-checked (CTRL + F searched through the winners of years) and Politico and Insider are now tied in Pulitzer wins at once a piece. TheSandDoctor Talk 03:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was just reviewing the last RfC and wanted to add that Pyrrho the Skipper addressed this well previously, as did Bilorv's supplement. "We should stay neutral regarding the issue of "clickbait", as it's subjective and not all that helpful in determining fact-checking standards. The New York Times publishes headlines that could be considered clickbait. And I see that coming up frequently as a bit of an emotional, knee-jerk reason to discredit this publication." and the supplement (by Bilorv) "I'd add to this that headlines are not reliable, the body of articles is what we're talking about, so if "clickbait" is just in the headline then it doesn't matter much (though it would be strange to encounter, say, a publication with exceptional fact checking in its articles but lies in its headlines)." (emphasis in original) TheSandDoctor Talk 03:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- If my only objection were that the headlines are inaccurate and sensationalist, (which BI statistically engages in quite often, I would agree that this is no issue in light of WP:HEADLINE. But the long-standing concern here is not merely that the headlines are at times akin to those published by content farms—it is the churnalism that this news organization’s editorial structure actively has encouraged both before and after acquisition by Axel Springer. That the reputation of the firm remained that way—even in January 2022—cannot be reduced to merely its decision to frequently use sensationalist headlines. It reflects something much more substantial about the quality of its article content, which is ultimately what we care about when evaluating this publication’s reliability for news. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was just reviewing the last RfC and wanted to add that Pyrrho the Skipper addressed this well previously, as did Bilorv's supplement. "We should stay neutral regarding the issue of "clickbait", as it's subjective and not all that helpful in determining fact-checking standards. The New York Times publishes headlines that could be considered clickbait. And I see that coming up frequently as a bit of an emotional, knee-jerk reason to discredit this publication." and the supplement (by Bilorv) "I'd add to this that headlines are not reliable, the body of articles is what we're talking about, so if "clickbait" is just in the headline then it doesn't matter much (though it would be strange to encounter, say, a publication with exceptional fact checking in its articles but lies in its headlines)." (emphasis in original) TheSandDoctor Talk 03:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @TheSandDoctor: I need to read more carefully before writing. That being said, there is still recognition that Business Insider is nowhere near the same journalistic league as Politico, and the continued use of traffic quotas leads to stories being a bit more clickbaity than news-y. Pulitzer or not, I'm not really confident that BI has flushed this stuff out yet, and I don't think that one excellent piece is enough to make the whole operation WP:GREL in light of its longstanding problems that seem to still to have been recognized as recently as this year. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Mhawk10: The question was "Is Insider's news (section) coverage, at least since December 2021 (when the Pulitzer winning story published), considered generally reliable for factual reporting" (emphasis added). This is also about the section, not the the publication as a whole. This would seemingly address all of the points that you raised? The question wasn't really about whether it was reliable for all of its history, but the Pulitzer is a very good sign that its recent (news) coverage has probably vastly improved and is more reliable, no? Publications can change over time (see WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS). TheSandDoctor Talk 01:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I don't think that being run by a convicted felon is per se disqualifying (the New Jersey Globe is run by David Wildstein but is well-regarded even by its competitors and by people who are not sympathetic to Wildstein). But that the guy was chosen to lead a business publication after being more or less legally barred from the securities industry by the SEC for alleged fraud, combined with the publication's lack of editorial independence from advertisers, is a bit of a red flag regarding pre-Axel Springer BI. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2, as per excellent summary by MHawk10. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1
No numerical vote yet per withinNo point being a jerk, even though I was a jerk before it got all commercialized.: The previous RfC has a great list of BI's failings and questionable practices by Chetsford. However, a few issues with the list: one is the acknowledged difference between pre-2016 practices and now. Another is the bottom CJR review mentions BI only in a paragraph referencing the CNN article directly beneath it. Minor nitpicks on a list of serious shortcomings, sure. There is also an important mitigating factor in these shortcomings: that BI publishes on its stories corrections, retractions, and financial COIs (which is why CJR is making a point about ethics in the latter). I am generally skeptical of "bias/reliability check" sites for news outlets, for both methodology and first principles, but they generally give BI a high rating (The Factual's review details some of the objections raised). And of course headlines should always be disregarded in these analyses for too many reasons. I will likely not vote for any option until the wording on the rating system is changed, but BI should be considered generally acceptable, with each article subject to editor scrutiny (just almost any other source should be). SamuelRiv (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)- @SamuelRiv: Just to clarify, that was the second previous RfC. The actual "previous" one before this was this one where the culture section/coverage was found to be RS. What did you mean by "working on the rating system is changed"? We stop saying "generally reliable"? If so, that appears to be the standard question set asked and the two (reliable/acceptable) would appear rather interchangeable in meaning? Not trying to pick a fight or anything, just clarifying for others which the latest RfC was and wanting to (personally) better understand your comment. TheSandDoctor Talk 03:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding the actual previous RfC then, I guess my understanding of journalism is far more limited than I imagined because I had no idea what was going on there. I don't remember the last time I've read a "culture" story and I didn't recognize who half the people in those linked articles were. Apparently the kids all want to watch "my tube" now? I don't see why they can't just watch their own. Regarding the color rating system, I posted a comment on RSP about contradictory criteria and seeming misuse of the term "opinion". And of course the green check mark is portrayed by some users as if the veracity of a source is now intrinsic with the fabric of the universe. So I'm not really comfortable with the system as it stands. "Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting" would accurately summarize my opinion of BI from what I've assessed here, however. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SamuelRiv: Just to clarify, that was the second previous RfC. The actual "previous" one before this was this one where the culture section/coverage was found to be RS. What did you mean by "working on the rating system is changed"? We stop saying "generally reliable"? If so, that appears to be the standard question set asked and the two (reliable/acceptable) would appear rather interchangeable in meaning? Not trying to pick a fight or anything, just clarifying for others which the latest RfC was and wanting to (personally) better understand your comment. TheSandDoctor Talk 03:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 - There is some good content on the site, but it still has a lot of attention-grabbing headlines on less well-researched stories or mixed reporting/pov content. There are many more reliable sources for widely covered news and analysis, so case-by-case scrutiny for Insider is not too much of a burden. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Options 2 or 3 - Best not to fully trust any news media. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think this is where the phrase "generally reliable" comes in; all outlets make mistakes, what matters is whether they correct them and the frequency of issues. If I understand correctly, by the logic in your comment, we'd deem every RS source to not be RS and call everything unreliable. TheSandDoctor Talk 02:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1 Insider would probably get similar treatment here to HuffPost, Politico, etc. if it wasn't "business" Insider. Most of the objections here are old and could also be leveled at all media companies at some point. Insider is allowed to improve their standards over the year just like BuzzFeed (News). And look, they just won a Pulitzer. Editors need to look past their unwarranted icky feelings about this site. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Discussion (BI)
- Based on this Pulitzer development, I believe that we should reconsider its news coverage's classification. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Religious publishers
Are books published by religious publishing companies (see Category:Religious publishing companies and its subcategories) WP:RS for biblical scholarship? In the event of variation or conflict, how should religious-publisher sources be weighed as compared with non-religious academic publishers (see Category:Academic publishing companies and its subcategories)?
Prior RSN discussions in Jun 2010, Sep 2010, Nov 2010, Jan 2011, Jul 2011, Apr 2015, Nov 2018, and Feb 2021 were inconclusive (I'd sum them up in the words of the last comment in the most-recent discussion: "depends on the topic").
This is a broad question that would affect many articles, but here are some examples of articles and some of the religious publishers they cite (in addition to non-religious academic publishers):
- Bible#Development and history, in its discussion of "variants" (how much do various copies of the books of the Bible vary from one another, and do those variations matter), cites sources published by Baker Publishing Group and InterVarsity Press
- Biblical criticism#Textual criticism: Westminster John Knox Press
- Textual criticism#New Testament: Kregel Publications
- Textual criticism of the New Testament: Far Eastern Bible College
- Textual variants in the New Testament (which actually lists the textual variants themselves): Tyndale House Publishers (which was discussed in the Feb 2021 RSN thread linked above, and should not be confused with the Oxford University house of the same name, this is an American evangelical publisher)
Does it matter that a publisher is religious or not, for "stuff about the Bible" (for lack of a better way to phrase it)? If it does matter, how does it matter--how should editors treat such sources? Thanks in advance, Levivich[block] 02:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Way too broad. There are stellar sources within that category and its subcategory (Ave Maria Press is an imprint that University of Notre Dame Press at times will use for religious studies texts), and some non-reputable ones (BJU Press is historically affiliated with Bob Jones University and doesn't really publish the sort of stuff we should be citing). Merely because a press is religious does not disqualify it as a publisher; as such, the particular publisher should be examined for its general reputation within the field.
- The thing that you will encounter a lot of these religious presses is that there will be academic-level books, but also some that are written for a lower level or more popular audience. Within Ave Maria Press, for example, there are undergraduate textbook-level books written by world-class Notre Dame faculty but there are also high school textbooks and popular press books. It's similar to MacMillan in this respect, where the publisher is reputable and undergraduate-targeted works published by them are generally tertiary pieces of scholarship, but their high school textbooks and popular press books shouldn't be treated as if they were academic sources. WP:SOURCEDEF provides guidance here inasmuch as the piece of work itself (i.e. things particular to the specific book) and the author of the work are going to affect reliability; examining a book's target audience (undergrad/grad students vs high schoolers or the general public) and its author's credentials (i.e. are they a rando or are they a well-respected professor in the field) is going to be necessary, as reliable nonfiction publishers might well treat books with different target audiences with different editorial review rigor. But that goes for all non-fiction publishers that publish both popular press books and academic works, not just religious ones. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- How do you tell the difference between a reputable religious publisher and an unreputable one? For example, the publishers I listed above, how would I determine if they are good/bad? Assume for the sake of this thread the author is bona fide and writing for an academic audience, and the book is well-footnoted, etc. The only "variable" is the publisher. Levivich[block] 04:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's much in the same way that you'd determine a reputable secular publisher vs an unreputable secular publisher. Does the publisher have a reputation for a strong editorial review process and do they have strong editorial controls? Are they affiliated with a reputable academic or scholarly institution (such as the relationship between Ave Maria Press and the University of Notre Dame)? Do well-respected authors in the relevant field frequently choose to publish scholarly works with them? And do their scholarly publications tend to get cited in other scholarship as a source for facts?
- If the answer to these is all of the above is "yes", then it's likely that you have a reputable publisher within the relevant field. If the answer to all of them is "no", then it's rather unlikely that you have a reputable publisher in that field. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. So basically evaluate it like any other source, it doesn't matter if it's religious or not? Levivich[block] 05:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Correct. Merely having (or not having) a religious affiliation doesn't move the needle towards being more reliable or less reliable, ceteris paribus. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. So basically evaluate it like any other source, it doesn't matter if it's religious or not? Levivich[block] 05:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- How do you tell the difference between a reputable religious publisher and an unreputable one? For example, the publishers I listed above, how would I determine if they are good/bad? Assume for the sake of this thread the author is bona fide and writing for an academic audience, and the book is well-footnoted, etc. The only "variable" is the publisher. Levivich[block] 04:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Levivich: a good test for any of these publishers attached to Bible colleges or schools is to check their accreditation. Generally, if they're not accredited (such as Hyles-Anderson College), or accredited only through a Christian accreditation agency (such as Pensecola Christian College), I wouldn't consider them reliable, and I doubt others would, either.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 13:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Whether a source is reliable always depends on what you're writing in the article. You might need to write something like "Most scholars say X, but this group says Y", in which case someone from 'this group', published by a school that is part of 'this group' is a good source. I agree with Mhawk10: it's basically the same as any other subject: There is no such thing as a source that is "always reliable" or "never reliable"; you can only determine whether a source is reliable by comparing it to the material that the source is meant to support. There are multiple factors that you evaluate for any source, and it's not necessary for every source to be perfect on every score.
- As usual, it helps to know something about the subject and what the high-quality sources say. It might be nice to have gold-plated scholarly sources for every word, but you don't really need perfect sources when the content is ordinary, expected, mainstream views. Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit[2] is not really an improvement over Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit[1]. Readers only click on the refs in 3 out of 1,000 page views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Belarusian Telegraph Agency
Belarus News | Belarusian news | Belarus today | news in Belarus | Minsk news | BELTA
This seems to be the main propaganda organ of the Belarusian state. A cursory look at the English site shows most articles are direct quotes of officials and especially Lukashenko w/o editorial commentary. In general, BELTA seems to stick closely to the concept of a wire service and the vast majority of its articles are long quotes. However, the opinion section and esp. articles relating to the invasion of Ukraine take a much more clearly misleading position that does not appear substantially different from Russian state media. Furthermore, in 2012 the EU imposed sanctions on Dmitry Zhuk, then director of BELTA for "relaying state propaganda in the media, which has supported and justified the repression of the democratic opposition and of civil society on 19 December 2010 using falsified information." [29] As far as I can tell, it seems like a great source for who is claiming what, but the claims themselves are nearly all worthless. Should BELTA be used for information beyond ascertaining that an individual made certain claims? Hussierhussier1 (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- treat it like any other propaganda outfit, it is useable to say "BELTA claimed". Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
japanese-wiki-corpus.org
In the past few days I've come across www.japanese-wiki-corpus.org used as a source in at least two articles related to traditional Japanese culture. A quick search shows that it pops up on English Wikipedia as a source about 22 times.
My concern is that, per the website's About page, "The National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT) has created this corpus by manually translating Japanese Wikipedia articles (related to Kyoto) into English", with the articles "formatted into human-readable text". The "more info" link on this page links here, where the project is described as "[aiming] mainly at supporting research and development relevant to high-performance multilingual machine translation, information extraction, and other language processing technologies".
This website seems like a mirror of Japanese Wikipedia, machine-translated into English with the sources removed. Its goal seems to be accurate translation rather than sourcing, and I'm concerned that it's being used as a source on Wikipedia. I think this falls under WP:MIRROR, but since it's mirroring a sister project, I just wanted to make sure it would count as a mirror, and therefore be unsuitable as a reliable source.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 13:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would say, yes it is a mirror. Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
What are the merits of https://metanumbers.com/ as an external link source for mathematics number articles?
I am curious to know whether https://metanumbers.com/ can be used as an external link for mathematics number articles? I use it fairly often on my own when looking for values such as total divisor count, aliquot sums, sums of divisors, arithmetic mean and geometric mean of n divisors, as well as euler totient values, for any given number up to 9223372036854775807 (that is the largest number stored/computed). Here is an example for the number 138: https://metanumbers.com/138. It also provides some extra base conversions (for bases 4, 5, 6, 10, 20 and 36, aside from the ones we provide on the info-box) for a given number, basic calculations (multiplications, divisions, exponentiation and nth roots), as well as basic geometric values (such as areas, surface areas, volumes, heights, diagonals, and circumferences) in elementary shapes like the circle, sphere, equilateral triangle, square, and cube. It also includes some cryptographic Hash functions for a number in question. I think it could be a nice addendum on some number page's external links, the only number that it provides that is not exact is the relative position of a number vis-a-vis its nearest prime number (even if the number inputted is prime). It has a very straightforward website layout that is well organized, and its color scheme is pleasant, in my opinion. It's a relatively new site, it went online in 2019. Thoughts? Radlrb (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Is Cryptome a reliable source for September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories?
How can we be sure the content is genuine? Doug Weller talk 11:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, the specific link is this. Doug Weller talk 11:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
DOB
Is this stat site usable for date of birth? Most stat sites I've encountered are user generated with no dedicated staff, no claims of fact checking and just a forum to report errors. This one lists their staff, claims to check a large variety of sources
for their data, and claims their staff reviews any reports of errors. I'm assuming it's a no, but just wanted to check with more experienced editors. Cheers. – 2.O.Boxing 13:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Per [30] I'd say this is WP:USERG, so no WP:DOB. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
johnmenadue.com
The website is a public affairs site with independent contributors ran by former Australian diplomat John Menadue, but User:Horse Eye's Back said it's unreliable and removed all mentions of it. But I cannot find anything here that suggests it's actually unreliable. The source in question is [31] by journalist Marcus Rubenstein, formerly of Seven and SBS News. Any takes? 49.180.197.4 (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note that they describe themselves (possibly in a tongue in cheek fashion) as an "influential public policy journal"[32] not a "public affairs site" which often leads to them being cited as a journal... It's Menadue's personal fiefdom and they are open and honest about what they publish which is blog content not journalism or scholarship "We publish informed analysis and commentary on issues that matter to Australians, with a focus on politics, public policy, foreign policy and world affairs, defence and security, the economy, media, the arts and religion."[33] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Guardian describes it as his blog, "Since 2013 he has published his blog ‘Pearls & Irritations’ at johnmenadue.com/blog."[34] Menadue himself refers to it as "my blog"[35] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- It is obviously a bit more than the average blog, but I did find that they accept user articles. I failed at finding information about editorial oversight or fact-checking. --SVTCobra 18:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Editorial oversight and fact-checking appear to consist of Mr Menadue reviewing the submission, although it should be noted that the most prolific contributors (among the hundreds of single submission authors)[36] are Mr Menadue's friends so there may be more of an informal social group oversight dynamic for those. They do accept notes but its through their general contact us page and is deeply burried on the About Pearls and Irritations page "To alert us to a factual error or make a complaint, please use the contact us form." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- It is obviously a bit more than the average blog, but I did find that they accept user articles. I failed at finding information about editorial oversight or fact-checking. --SVTCobra 18:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)