This isn't a new anything. It's just a central reference for this one specific type of RS. rootology ( C)( T) 03:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
This page literally only reprints what a guideline and a policy already say. Hence, it's a guideline. rootology ( C)( T) 03:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems sort of rules lawyery. Blogs are RS in and of themselves, per another guideline and policy. But I'll leave the essay tag, if everyone disagrees. My primary point of making this was so that the next time someone says, "BLOGS ARE NOT RS!" there would be a convenient central location to point out they're flat wrong. Let's get consensus, then, for the tag in name to go with the reality of it. :) rootology ( C)( T) 03:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Good idea to create this page. I think it would be best to have the texts transcluded, otherwise there would be inconsistencies when the content of the original sources changes. If transclusion doesn't work, then links to the respective chapters are probably the second best solution.-- Cs32en ( talk) 03:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The guideline should also say something about how editors should refer to blogs. Because the sources are often not important with regard to the content of the article, and often generally unknown, an attribution in the main text such as "According to X ..." looks odd with regard to the style and may convey the impression that X would be somehow important or that people should know this person or institution. -- Cs32en ( talk) 03:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Since this doesn't create new policy and is only a synthesis of existing policy, making it a guideline in and of itself is irrelevant: it should state why existing policies support it.
That said, I'm a little concerned about the "inclusive" tone of this, especially the nutshell. Blogs are almost never reliable sources, and are always primary sources when used. They are sources of last resort, only to be used when traditional sources are exhausted. There are times when they are good sources, or even the best sources, but those cases extremely rare and are why we have things like WP:IAR. SDY ( talk) 04:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's another slightly prominent news site in a pure blog format: http://news.aol.com/ Here's another: http://www.nola.com/news/ The Times-Picayne, the major New Orleans news source. And another: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/ -- look closely at that one, it's all blog-formatted once you get past the landing page. And another, in San Diego: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/this_just_in/ You look at the main page, it's fancy. But behind that? All blog. That's all blogs are--publishing tools. The point of this page is to basically stop the silliness. If the three gaming sites I linked, for example, had a fancy landing page, but used interactive blog-publishing tools on the back-end and per page, no one would blink twice. Are these RS? Or are they not because they're blogs? rootology ( C)( T) 05:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I say this as someone who helped to form this policy in the first place, that the whole concept that Usenet, blogs & other transient media are presumed unreliable unless proven otherwise is a bad idea. What we should focus on, instead, is the reliability of the author. Recognized experts should always & unhesitatingly be used no matter which medium they select -- Usenet, blogs, Twitter or Facebook in this case all would be acceptable if the writer is obviously acceptable.
But what about individuals who are not clearly reliable? We should follow the same steps as used with any other source: the more that the information has been subjected to serious review & discussion, the more likely it is reliable -- as well as the appropriateness of the medium. In other words, put yourself in the writer's place: if they wanted to be taken seriously, how likely would it be that they would publish it on an obscure blog instead of seeking a peer-reviewed journal? (Maybe there is no equivalent of a "peer-reviewed journal" in that given subject area.) There are a lot of possibilities in every non-obvious case, so using one binary case to make our decisions against is a bad idea. -- llywrch ( talk) 17:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Like other pages that summarize what is already said in various policies and guidelines, I think this is a useful thing to have... as an essay. However, since there are already policies and guidelines that discuss this topic (including WP:V), I really don't think we should have yet another to cover the same ground. Having too many policy pages all discussing the same thing inevitably leads to conflicts between the various policy statements. Heck, we have enough trouble keeping WP:RS conformed to WP:V... promoting this to guideline status would simply create another level of complication. Blueboar ( talk) 18:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Just trying to clean up Category:Wikipedia proposals so wondering if this is still an active proposal or if it can be tagged otherwise? Hiding T 09:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
i see only 5 people edited this article. RS was edited by hundreds. this can hardly be called supplemental to RS. 93.86.205.97 ( talk) 17:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a clear case in which one should really consider a blog as a reliable source: /info/en/?search=Talk:William_Lane_Craig#There_is_absolutly_NO_critisism_of_William_Lane_Craig.2C_for_example_debate_style_and_opinions_of_other_philosophers I can't think of a better example.-- Lexikon-Duff ( talk) 22:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
If anyone wants to actually resurrect this "Blogs as sources" page, it probably needs to be significantly changed to reflect the current rules on WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP.
Within the years since the last major edits to this page in 2009, Wikipedia:V#Newspaper and magazine blogs has been added to clarify "blogs" published by reliable newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations. Wikipedia:V#Self-published sources has also been modified to clarify personal or group blogs. In addition, the relevant sections on WP:RS#Questionable and self-published sources are also different now, and have links referencing back to those sections on WP:V. Furthermore, WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB have also changed since 2009.
One suggestion we could do is a summary style of all those relevant sections on WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP. As of now, this page's "What is a blog?" section probably needs to make the distinction between the "blogs" posted by news organizations and the blogs from self-published sources. The "Things to consider" section also seems a bit outdated and redundant compared to the current WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB.
For now, I have added a for hatnote to this page, should anyone stumble here (like I just did), to the WP:V policy. [1] Cheers. Zzyzx11 ( talk) 21:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
This isn't a new anything. It's just a central reference for this one specific type of RS. rootology ( C)( T) 03:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
This page literally only reprints what a guideline and a policy already say. Hence, it's a guideline. rootology ( C)( T) 03:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems sort of rules lawyery. Blogs are RS in and of themselves, per another guideline and policy. But I'll leave the essay tag, if everyone disagrees. My primary point of making this was so that the next time someone says, "BLOGS ARE NOT RS!" there would be a convenient central location to point out they're flat wrong. Let's get consensus, then, for the tag in name to go with the reality of it. :) rootology ( C)( T) 03:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Good idea to create this page. I think it would be best to have the texts transcluded, otherwise there would be inconsistencies when the content of the original sources changes. If transclusion doesn't work, then links to the respective chapters are probably the second best solution.-- Cs32en ( talk) 03:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The guideline should also say something about how editors should refer to blogs. Because the sources are often not important with regard to the content of the article, and often generally unknown, an attribution in the main text such as "According to X ..." looks odd with regard to the style and may convey the impression that X would be somehow important or that people should know this person or institution. -- Cs32en ( talk) 03:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Since this doesn't create new policy and is only a synthesis of existing policy, making it a guideline in and of itself is irrelevant: it should state why existing policies support it.
That said, I'm a little concerned about the "inclusive" tone of this, especially the nutshell. Blogs are almost never reliable sources, and are always primary sources when used. They are sources of last resort, only to be used when traditional sources are exhausted. There are times when they are good sources, or even the best sources, but those cases extremely rare and are why we have things like WP:IAR. SDY ( talk) 04:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's another slightly prominent news site in a pure blog format: http://news.aol.com/ Here's another: http://www.nola.com/news/ The Times-Picayne, the major New Orleans news source. And another: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/ -- look closely at that one, it's all blog-formatted once you get past the landing page. And another, in San Diego: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/this_just_in/ You look at the main page, it's fancy. But behind that? All blog. That's all blogs are--publishing tools. The point of this page is to basically stop the silliness. If the three gaming sites I linked, for example, had a fancy landing page, but used interactive blog-publishing tools on the back-end and per page, no one would blink twice. Are these RS? Or are they not because they're blogs? rootology ( C)( T) 05:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I say this as someone who helped to form this policy in the first place, that the whole concept that Usenet, blogs & other transient media are presumed unreliable unless proven otherwise is a bad idea. What we should focus on, instead, is the reliability of the author. Recognized experts should always & unhesitatingly be used no matter which medium they select -- Usenet, blogs, Twitter or Facebook in this case all would be acceptable if the writer is obviously acceptable.
But what about individuals who are not clearly reliable? We should follow the same steps as used with any other source: the more that the information has been subjected to serious review & discussion, the more likely it is reliable -- as well as the appropriateness of the medium. In other words, put yourself in the writer's place: if they wanted to be taken seriously, how likely would it be that they would publish it on an obscure blog instead of seeking a peer-reviewed journal? (Maybe there is no equivalent of a "peer-reviewed journal" in that given subject area.) There are a lot of possibilities in every non-obvious case, so using one binary case to make our decisions against is a bad idea. -- llywrch ( talk) 17:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Like other pages that summarize what is already said in various policies and guidelines, I think this is a useful thing to have... as an essay. However, since there are already policies and guidelines that discuss this topic (including WP:V), I really don't think we should have yet another to cover the same ground. Having too many policy pages all discussing the same thing inevitably leads to conflicts between the various policy statements. Heck, we have enough trouble keeping WP:RS conformed to WP:V... promoting this to guideline status would simply create another level of complication. Blueboar ( talk) 18:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Just trying to clean up Category:Wikipedia proposals so wondering if this is still an active proposal or if it can be tagged otherwise? Hiding T 09:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
i see only 5 people edited this article. RS was edited by hundreds. this can hardly be called supplemental to RS. 93.86.205.97 ( talk) 17:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a clear case in which one should really consider a blog as a reliable source: /info/en/?search=Talk:William_Lane_Craig#There_is_absolutly_NO_critisism_of_William_Lane_Craig.2C_for_example_debate_style_and_opinions_of_other_philosophers I can't think of a better example.-- Lexikon-Duff ( talk) 22:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
If anyone wants to actually resurrect this "Blogs as sources" page, it probably needs to be significantly changed to reflect the current rules on WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP.
Within the years since the last major edits to this page in 2009, Wikipedia:V#Newspaper and magazine blogs has been added to clarify "blogs" published by reliable newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations. Wikipedia:V#Self-published sources has also been modified to clarify personal or group blogs. In addition, the relevant sections on WP:RS#Questionable and self-published sources are also different now, and have links referencing back to those sections on WP:V. Furthermore, WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB have also changed since 2009.
One suggestion we could do is a summary style of all those relevant sections on WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP. As of now, this page's "What is a blog?" section probably needs to make the distinction between the "blogs" posted by news organizations and the blogs from self-published sources. The "Things to consider" section also seems a bit outdated and redundant compared to the current WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB.
For now, I have added a for hatnote to this page, should anyone stumble here (like I just did), to the WP:V policy. [1] Cheers. Zzyzx11 ( talk) 21:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)