This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
The article says in the Overview section, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources..." In the Scholarship section, the article says, "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." These seem to be saying two different things. Does this need to be clarified? 216.54.1.35 ( talk) 20:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Is information found in books from the "For Dummies" series considered reliable by Wikipedia standards? These books do provide accurate information. The question is, are they valid for citing materials? Xyz7890 ( talk) 22:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
They're ok, but are not going to be accepted at FA or GA, and are likely to make Wikipedia look wacky in any case YellowMonkey ( new photo poll) 05:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Is [1] a reliable source. I would like to cite subpages like [2] for List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: others). bamse ( talk) 23:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
1. The short answer is wholly in line with ProGen and Cindamuse. The information is derivative and collected from a range of secondary sources, mostly ones I have been able to get a hold of easily myself. A professional genealogist, as any researcher worth his salt, would however have to start somewhere, and it is at that stage the site is meant to be helpful. The main page of the website contains the following statement, which is intended to explain how to use the site, and that indeed, the whole thing is meant to provide what Cindamuse refers to as clues:
"The business of genealogy and especially of published genealogies, can be a mine-field of opinions. This site aims to show some of those opinions, and where possible, attempt to arrive at some form of truth. In the world of post-processualism every opinion is equally valid, and the "truth", such as it is, is the average of those opinions. I make no apologies for including the odd old or outdated genealogy on this site. The intent is to spark thought and whet the interest of individuals researching their own family histories, and to form an opinion of their own.
Sources will be referenced for each page of genealogies so that you may form your own view of the accuracy of the data..."
There is of course no intent to mislead the readers of either WP or the site itself. The site allows the readers to form their own opinion of what is true or not by providing information that may not always be appropriate to include in the actual articles on WP. In creating the site there is a process of selection which I admit has not been indicated on the site itself (now updated) - the more recent sources are always favoured above older ones. E.g. if a source published in 1940 repeats information originally published in 1801, but a source published in 1928 diverges from this, then the 1928 source would be favoured as based on more recent research than the 1940 source. If you wish to verify any of the information, the sources are included at the bottom of each page rather than against each record because this is more expedient for the format of publication. As a similar example, the most recent edition of Europäische Stammtafeln gives the sources used for the entire volume in one place without specific reference by each record, and Burke's, as far as I can recall off the top of my head, does the same. This does not provide support for NOT including the sources against each person's record - I agree this would be desirable.
The long answer, therefore, is that the reliability of the site is dependant on the sources which it presents. It must be up to the reader to decide if these are 'true' or 'false'. Furthermore, I cannot answer the concern for knowing "...what errors, omissions, or misinterpretations crept in when the website was being created" raised by ProGene. That is also for the reader to judge, I suppose, but I do try to make sure I type as accurately as I can. Of course, I am just as likely as any professional researcher to make a misinterpretation of information (no offense meant - I have an academic background and 12 years worth of genealogical research experience, albeit not on a professional level, but enough to be aware of the most common pitfalls). I have now addressed this by including the site e-mail address on the front page in case of questions and corrections submitted by readers. I've also included the same note I wrote here on my selection of data, which I hope may go some way towards improving your opinion of the same. I originally intended for the site to have a message board option on each family page, but this proved impossible to manage for abusive language and vast quantities of spamming.
I also attempt to apply enough critical thinking to what I post to exclude mythological or impossible connections wherever I'm aware of them - you won't ever find Adam, Eve, Rameses II, Caesar or Arnoald
[3].
2. As to the question on whether I should keep posting links to Fivegateways on Wikipedia or not, I would have to argue that the information given is absolutely valid as an external link. Please note the difference here - I am advocating the inclusion as an external link, not for it to be cited as an absolute authoritative source, which seems to have been somewhat confusing to some commentators, above. It is my understanding that an external link should provide additional information to the topic, which I believe FG does. It is further my understanding that such information should be referenced, which it is. The materials presented can therefore be researched backwards to the original sources if so desired. Without entering into the discussion about the accuracy of TSP, the references therein, as an example only, are quite detailed for its time and can easily be looked up.
I also believe, although I might be sorely mistaken here, that the site meets at least two of WP's criterias for inclusion as an external link.
What should be linked §3 states: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." and
Links to be considered states, under §4: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". You will be interested to note that I took note of the former prior to posting my first link on WP. The latter paragraph I am including here as a counter-argument to the opinion of inclusion of possibly unreliable information, although I still hasten to add that I am interested only in publishing sensible data based on the sources referenced.
With this in mind, I would like to draw your attention to the notes on this page:
[4] which show that the article is written entirely based on information culled from the website www.thepeerage.com, which cites Burkes as the (only) source of its information for the above named figure. This site, although it provides source references for individuals rather than groups, is consequently the foundation for an article on WP as a source, not as a linked external page. I should say that this would certainly merit further investigation, and I would agree strongly with anyone who has the same opinion of FG. It has never been the intention to include the site as a source on WP, merely as a place to find out more. Alas, I cannot stop others from using it as a reference, but I have no objections to it being removed from citations, per se, if someone has included it as such. I would still maintain, however, that FG is a potentially valuable resource for those beginning their research or those that want to know more about possible familial connections.
I'm more than happy to make improvements to the site based on your feedback, so by all means do not be afraid to provide me with further opinions or viewpoints (the appropriate medium for that might be the e-mail address on the website, rather than further comments here, though). I will, however, not compromise the basic premise of the site which is to provide the reader with an opportunity to make their own mind up about what is true and what is not.
Sincerely, Fivegateways ( talk) 02:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I just came across an article on Mustafa Kamil Usmani which was deleted on Feb 28, 2008. I was aghast to read a particular comment which was cited as the reason for supporting the deletion....that just because the gentleman in question taught the present Agha Khan he has no claims to greatness...further , amazingly , a learned man has been compared to a 'dog trainer' and the groomer of Prince Harry's horses!!!!!! I wonder what the reactions of the Agha Khan would be upon being likened to the above animals......
My main contention is that a person who was a rising star and was chosen after a global hunt for a prestigious job must actually have had some devine spark in him and to assign such frivolous reasons for deleting an article related to him seems suspicious. The said gentleman's nephew Dr syed Khaild Rizvi also resides in the U.S.-having recently shifted residence -and is in possession of many documents which can conclusively proove his great achievements as an academician.Probably the said mementos are now in possession of Dr Tarik Bill Kamil...Mustafa Kamil Usmani's son and a man of high credentials himself
Whether the article is deleted or not ..is not the question. I only object to the reasons cited.
Mrs Safia Faruqi (niece)
Lucknow
India —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.220.96 ( talk) 14:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
All of the following, until the end, is about Discussion pages for books, or in which papers/articles are proposed as sources for inclusion in actual articles.
Suppose a book (src1) has a Wikipedia article, or some external paper/article (src1)is proposed as something credible to be discussed as a Wikipedia article. Suppose another source (src2) is found. Regardless of whether or not each is a WP:RS for the topic it discusses, or whether it is a primary, secondary, or tertiary source relative to something else, one would think each is a primary and WP:RS for its own words.
Suppose src1 is found to contain plagiarized material from src2. The simplest case is big chunks of text lifted word-for-word from src1, maybe with light edits. Proving plagiarism in effect requires direct comparison of 2 primary sources, which seems disallowed by WP:OR. Of course, since likely authors are living, the very proof of plagiarism needed for accuracy thus relies on primary sources, so runs afoul of WP:BLP.
Very rarely do WP:RS articles publish multiple pages of the src1-vs-src2 comparisons truly needed to clearly identify the plagiarism. It may well be that any sensible person would take one look at src1 and src2 and say "plagiarism." Suppose a detailed comparison exists, but is in a self-published source, i.e., not WP:RS. That certainly cannot be used for the Wikipedia article itself. Can it legitimately be cited in a Discussion page, i.e., given that it may not be WP:RS, but in essence consists of quotes from src1 and src2, which are at least WP:RS about themselves? If not, must that text be replicated into the discussion, to avoid the self-published source? Or is that disallowed also, as WP:OR?
There are of course, more complex flavors of plagiarism, and at some point, arguments over lifting of ideas gets arguable. Substantial obvious plagiarism in academe is The End, and it also tends to diminish the credibility of src1, especially if combined with injected errors that show the author(s) clueless.
However, am I wrong to believe that no matter how obvious plagiarism is, the combination of Wikipedia rules in effect forbids even discussing it, and hence a source non-credible for this reason cannot be challenged as such? Or am I missing something?
Suppose src1 cites src3. In the simplest case, src1 says that src3 says X, but simple inspection of src3 shows that it does not (simple fabrication). If src1 has drawn too heavily on (uncited) src2, then it might be plagiarism as well. This happens when someone's real source src2 is not credible, so they cite src3 to cover it.
So, is that subject to the same issues as above? May such things be discussed within discussion pages?
Suppose that src1 cites src2 and src3, stating (correctly) that src1 does not make claim X,. Then, src1 states that src3 confirmed that claim X was true.
By simple inspection of src2, it is found that src2 (incorrectly) claimed that src2 claimed X. Hence, src3 has fabricated a claim about src2, then src1 has fabricated a claim about src2's fabrication. All that may be trivially decidable by inspection of src1, src2, src3 ... but may be claimed to be WP:OR and disallowable, so that src1 is argued to be credible.
(This can happen when the author of src1 reads src2, but either reads src3 carelessly, or actually read what src4 said about src3. Other explanations are possible, especially if the author really, really wants X to be true.)
So, is such discussion considered acceptable on discussion pages, or not even there? In some cases, this is a factual issue easily decidable merely by examining src1, src2, src3 in a few minutes.
In summary, are plagiarism/fabrication even discussable, and if so, how should they be handled?
Finally, to get this into an actual article, perhaps some WP:RS says "plagiarism," but it is unlikely that the full proof thereof will be found in that WP:RS, but somewhere else, which may thus not be enough under WP:BLP rules.
All these describe real examples. JohnMashey ( talk) 05:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Dear friend, this issue is actual and few of persons who want to avoid this issue. The user User:Ramya20 only contribute to Wikipedia delete this issue . I have a doubt on this user sock puppet of Hudson samarasinhe . This issue is promoting by Wife of premakeerthi who Nirmala De alwis on her book ‘’Premakeethini’’ which publish on 2010. Author is User:Bigger digger is mention that this book cannot find out in Google searching . It is correct because it takes few more month on appear ISBN web sites . But no one can refuse this issue. There is already published on a blog translation [6] Wikipedia we have a possibility to translate context of articles. I request to assist solve this problem to administrator in Wikipedia .-- Wipeouting ( talk) 18:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
When sources are evaluated here, do they not go on a list for reference? ~ R. T. G 08:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I am having a hard time understanding the rules here regarding opinion columns in newspapers. The material under newspapers appears vague, and the material under opinion appears contradictory.
If a reporter reports a fact in an opinion column, and the column is rather overheated and contains a "fact" that appears to be contradictory on its face, do the other "facts" in the column have any validity at all? (Obviously, I am arguing that they do not, but I am new here and biased on the issue.) I would refer directly to the article, but I don't know how many of you know Hebrew. Also, do the same standards apply to foreign newspapers, where the same (adtmittedly low) standards that apply to American newspapers may not be followed, even by major, "respected" newspapers in Western-style countries?
In the same vein, I would like to point out the importance of distinguishing between print newspapers in the original language, and English language internet sites of the same newspapers. For example, two of our major newspapers here in Iarael publish internet sites in English (Ynet and Ha'aretz, by papers 1 and 4 respectively), that do not always mark opinion pieces as such. I would argue that a medium that does not distinguish between news and opinion pieces cannot be called a modern newspaper, although it still may have its uses. Mzk1 ( talk) 21:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, again! We now appear to disagree about what is meant by opinion. American-type major newspapers such as the NYT split their content into two parts: news and opinion. Into the former part go news articles. Into the latter part go editorials (especially!), letters, ALL "columns", responses, op-eds, "news analysis" pieces, etc.; this is what I am asking about. These are clearly labeled. (In theory, news articles are not opinion; actually they are, but this page assumes they are not, so we will go with that for most purposes.) So perhaps you gentlemen (generic gender) could explain why you feel this division is not there.
Regarding American, theere are many wikipedias with many standards, as was pointed out to me when I asked about translating without reschecking the sources. When the English Wikipedia refers to newspapers, etc., the authors, being english-speaking humans mostly located in the United States, are presumably referring to what they know, which is mostly American and British material. Presumably materials that are from places with different standards for newspapers, peer-reviewed articles, etc., need to be judged before they are the considered the same. As an extreme example, government-controlled newspapers are probably questionable sources, particularly in semi-free or not-free countries. Mzk1 ( talk) 20:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
At any rate, to get back to the original question. Is a column, editorial, news analysis, etc. on the rarified RS level of a news article of a major newspaper, or it is on a lower level? If a lower level, what level is it? This should be clearly defined in the article. We are talking about a basic policy here, after all; we only have three of these. Mzk1 ( talk) 20:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Newspaper columns are not good sources for facts. While newspaper articles are, the opinions in them should not be considered to be facts. But when it comes to reporting opinions expressed in newspapers, notability becomes important. Since we have no way to knowing how notable these opinions are we should usually ignore them. This is particularly true it the material is old, and better sources of opinion can be found. TFD ( talk) 19:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I hope I am putting this right, but I think I have accompished my task. I see that in the meantime, others have modified the article to clarify this issue. To me, I think the reuslt is almost a 180 (degree turn) from the implications of the orginal article, which I think led people to just pull things out of columns as if they were facts. I hope this is not an inappropriate statement here.
Mzk1 (
talk)
Seth Finkelstein - presumably it is he, although without outside proof we cannot assume it - made the interesting point that his newpaper did check facts in opinion pieces. I asked for something concrete I could use to avoid OR, and he referred me (above) to their editorial policy - online. Unfortunately, while the policy has some fascinating features that would probably destroy what passses for American Journalism (such as an anti-harrassment rule), the description of fact-checking rules appeared to me to be too vague for it to be useful here.
So, we do have a fascinating suggestion; that if the the published rules of the newspaper modify our assumptions of how newspapers work, it might also alter how we view the various parts of thge paper. However, we would need to see a clearer example. (Also, there is the possiblity that the rules are not followed.) Mzk1 ( talk) 22:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
New generation of green roof
A Belgium based company has introduced what can be called the XXIst green roof solution.
It is composed of three modular industrialized layers:
1. the pedestals, directly on waterproof surface of any kind;
2. a floating floor: either metallic of plastic made, depending of loads applied;
3. last but not least: the Greenskin Box, made of autoconnected precultivated modules.
The advantages are numerous, among others a universal adaptation to all roof types, a ventilated and technical space underneath, a perfect compatibility with all techniques such as solar panels, automatic sprinkler systems, cables for lighting, etc..
A world patent covers the main features.
Web site: www.greenskindvmh.com
Hermans620117 (
talk)
16:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This one appears to be a blog, http://www.drfunkenberry.com/
This one is a wiki, but not an open wiki, http://www.princevault.com/index.php/Main_Page
They are used in quite a few articles, and are both accurate (as far as the information they are citing goes), but I don't think they meet WP:RS. Markfury3000 ( talk) 16:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
WT:CITE#Linking to Google Books pages. RfC on whether WP:CITE should say Google Books page links are not required but are allowed in footnotes, and that editors should not go around removing them. All input welcome. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that large sections of this document are word-for-word copies from wp:V. That's a potential problem in the making: If the language in one place changes it will become inconsistent with the language in the other, which will produce ambiguities. I suggest we either delete the duplicate material and replace it with links to wp:V, or else set up transclusions so that the two pages stay in sync (though that may require extensive restructuring). -- Ludwigs2 15:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
How important is it for sources to be labeled reliable? If a source is good in every other way with evidence to support its statement, but is labeled unreliable, should it still be used? 173.183.69.134 ( talk) 14:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any mention of government websites. How would a site like this be for an article on cefn gola? Quadzilla99 ( talk) 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Can the policy page include material on sources with user generated content? On the WP:V policy page, the section on Questionable sources and Self-published sources already mention sources with poor editorial control, and sources whose content is indeed user-generated, like open wikis, blogs, forums, etc. I asked on the WP:V talk page if those two sections could be combined into one, and was told I should take that discussion here. Nightscream ( talk) 19:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I just tried to edit this, but I'm not sure what it means:
Quotations should be cited to the original source if possible; when secondary sources are used, those that cite the original source should be preferred over those that don't.
SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I think Blueboar's reading matches mine. It relates to the usual best practices in source-based research. If you see that source A gives a direct quote from source B, and you want to include that quote, the usual best practice is to actually get a copy of source B, read it, and then cite it directly. In the cases when this isn't possible, it's certainly better if source A actually gives a full citation for source B, compared to some source C that just attributes the remarks to B without giving any indication where B might have said them. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Blueboar's recent edit. If a secondary source quotes a primary source, we should cite the primary source for the quote, and the secondary source for any analysis and context. We must rely on secondary sources for additional context and analysis, but playing a game of hearsay telephone is not required when we have access to a primary source. Gigs ( talk) 00:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see here for an RfC at WP:VERIFY on what to do when apparently reliable sources are objectively wrong? [7].
Thank you. -- LevenBoy ( talk) 15:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, this is now about the more general question. Concerning the more general question then, please consider that there are sometimes more complex cases. I was involved in a debate with someone who found mathematical errors in the data table of a peer reviewed article, and then argued that the whole article should be erased from mention on Wikipedia, although the article was being cited by other mainstream sources and was apparently part of what the field knew. Context was that he started out from a position opposed to one of the conclusions of the article, and then read the article and found the problem in the data table. He cited WP:UCS. (And because he was deleting a source, not adding, and deleting a source gets benefit of the doubt these days, I found very little community interest in getting involved. Try citing WP:UCS as an argument for keeping a source!) Does your advice still apply in such a case or would you adjust your wording a bit?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 11:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
A couple months ago, an edit was made that fundamentally changed the standards for scientific consensus: [8]
Prior to this, a claim of scientific consensus needed to be sourced to a reliable secondary source that actually declared that a scientific consensus existed. Now editors are free to "demonstrate" a scientific consensus by citing a bunch of disparate sources. This kind of meta-analysis is a violation of WP:NOR. We shouldn't claim that a scientific consensus exists unless someone else says it exists.
The edit was reverted, in part, but the "demonstrated" verbiage remains. I think we should revert to the left side of the above diff, and again require sourcing for claims of scientific consensus. Gigs ( talk) 21:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Though I am not sure whether this is the right place to post my query/proposal, I decided to give it a try. While planning to put the external link from fxwords.com, I came to know about this page. I feel that the link can be considered amongst reliable sources and this applies to the entire site as well. I find the site blacklisted instead and the same cannot be posted even on this page. Please suggest. Diptanshu Talk 15:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
You are:
an effective communicator with a sound grasp of policy;
able to see all aspects of a problem and find solutions;
courteous, disciplined and open-minded;
able to deal calmly with trolls, bigots and editors with issues;
able to make up your own mind under stress.
If you can answer "yes" to most of the above, you are probably arbitrator material. Learn more about standing in the upcoming election. But don't delay, nomination close very soon!
Tony (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC), for the election coordinators
i have come across a diary hand written dated 28,11,59 detailing the outward voyage of the ss kenya by to lady passengers,you can read the diary ,buy if you turn the diary over there is lots of old croosswords stuck to the back of each page ,the one lady was a midwife and i also have her records of chil birhts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.100.248 ( talk) 22:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Just when I thought we managed to make a distinction between newspaper news and opinion, a recent revert called my attention to the following paragraph:
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author.
This appears contradictory, and does not seem to fit in with the changes made to the earlier section on newspapers. The first sentence, to at least the casual reader, contradicts the second. Are they reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, or are they reliable sources, depending on context? The second appears to confer a lot more reliability than the first. Furthermore, my experience is that American op-eds often are meant to give a platform to a viewpoint that the newspaper considers newsworthy, while the content may be extremely POV and often factually questionable. I think the second sentence needs to be replaced. All American op-eds confer is notability, and then the content is as reliable as the author giving a public lecture, reported as such in a news source.
Just to clarify, I have never edited the article itself. Mzk1 ( talk) 17:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you all have discussed this, but I'm not finding magazine articles in the guidelines. They seem to be problematic, because most of them are "creative nonfiction", and they are not even intended to provide an NPOV (if they did, they'd be too lacking in drama to sell). Also, MastCell recently recommended to me a book that documents magazine articles (and news, but there's not much anyone can do about that) being commissioned or "planted" as a public relations tactic. Of course the whole subject of "public relations", or PR, is relevant to the reliable sourcing debate, but again, not much we can do about it - one person's despicable "obvious PR plant" is another person's admirable "reliable secondary source", and a shouting match isn't going to change that. So, let's just focus on the status of articles, that give the impression of facts, in reasonably respected magazines. Thanks, Postpostmod ( talk) 14:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I think any magazine can be successfully targeted by a skillful public relations agent, for whom such activities are his bread and butter. Ideally, it would be a magazine of high prestige among the intended audience members. Obviously, some money would have to change hands, as well-connected PR agents aren't cheap, and probably the writer(s) of the article aren't either. The article couldn't be blatantly offensive to the audience, or dangerous to the magazine in terms of libel or advertising revenues. Other than that, any magazine that publishes free-lance general interest articles and reaches the intended target audience would be a suitable candidate. Presumably the more prestigious the publication, the higher the fees of the agent and writer, as in some forms of medical ghostwriting. [Note: non-chronological date on this post is due to invitation to reinsert it, after it was politely reverted due to my wikiformatting error - I put it after the comment to which I was responding] Postpostmod ( talk) 17:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking my concern seriously and explaining. I agree, it's tricky and there's no absolute rule that can be used to judge whether an article has been unduly influenced, so any kind of guideline is problematic. What if an article in an otherwise reputable magazine specifically mentions that the author of the article has been in contact with a PR agent hired by the subject? Of course, this doesn't mean the article is "untrue", just that if it's on a controversial subject it might be slanted toward one side, perhaps the wealthier side ;-) , by hired guns.
Maybe this could be helped by attribution - if there's a question as to the objective nature of the source, it could be prefaced by, say, "A 2005 article published in The Economist said that....". If the author of the article is a known partisan on the particular issue being addressed, the author could also be identified (e.g. "A 2005 article by John Doe published in ....)", otherwise that's probably unnecessary, and could be viewed as PR on behalf of the article's author ;-). It might get a little clunky as a consistent writing style, but it would ensure that editors are not, knowingly or unknowingly, repeating "PR" as "fact", and it would ensure that even if the source isn't objective, "we are". Or at least trying to be. Probably worth it in contentious articles where editors on each side don't trust the other's objectivity. Thanks, Postpostmod ( talk) 15:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
THe section says: Although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia contains no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. This phrase is highly misleading and does much dissevice to wikipedia. IMO it has several problems.
I vaguely understand what this phrase is supposed to convey, but IMO currently it does its job quite poorly. Unfortunately I cannot suggest a better phrasing yet. Lovok Sovok ( talk) 00:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
( 69.255.160.227 ( talk) 13:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC))
I have noticed various Wikipedia articles using religious texts(eg the Torah or Bible) as their source. If the article is about some figure in the text, then this is the case, but for instance, the article of Jerusalem uses the Book of Joshua as one of its reliable sources. Is this Standard Wikipedia Policy? 41.133.47.252 ( talk) 09:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Aren't these texts primary sources and shouldn't we seek secondaries before blindly posting that "The Bible gives 3 as the value of Pi", when of course there is no such explicit statement of mathematical formulas there. Hcobb ( talk) 21:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
There's a new essay and proposed guideline on the contents of "Further reading" sections at WP:Further reading. It is still only a couple of days old, so constructive comments are more useful than !votes at this point. Tijfo098 ( talk) 04:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Can the policy page include material on sources with user generated content? On the WP:V policy page, the section on Questionable sources and Self-published sources already mention sources with poor editorial control, and sources whose content is indeed user-generated, like open wikis, blogs, forums, etc. I asked on the WP:V talk page if those two sections could be combined into one, and was told I should take that discussion here. Nightscream ( talk) 16:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Is it just me or has this policy page evolved over time until the lead no longer contains any summary of the policy? The basic "headline" summary now appears to be in the "Overview" section. The intro itself is now all about where the policy sits in context etc. That does not seem a great style to me. Obviously the policies are intended to be easily read and understood by all Wikipedia editors?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
The article says in the Overview section, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources..." In the Scholarship section, the article says, "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." These seem to be saying two different things. Does this need to be clarified? 216.54.1.35 ( talk) 20:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Is information found in books from the "For Dummies" series considered reliable by Wikipedia standards? These books do provide accurate information. The question is, are they valid for citing materials? Xyz7890 ( talk) 22:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
They're ok, but are not going to be accepted at FA or GA, and are likely to make Wikipedia look wacky in any case YellowMonkey ( new photo poll) 05:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Is [1] a reliable source. I would like to cite subpages like [2] for List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: others). bamse ( talk) 23:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
1. The short answer is wholly in line with ProGen and Cindamuse. The information is derivative and collected from a range of secondary sources, mostly ones I have been able to get a hold of easily myself. A professional genealogist, as any researcher worth his salt, would however have to start somewhere, and it is at that stage the site is meant to be helpful. The main page of the website contains the following statement, which is intended to explain how to use the site, and that indeed, the whole thing is meant to provide what Cindamuse refers to as clues:
"The business of genealogy and especially of published genealogies, can be a mine-field of opinions. This site aims to show some of those opinions, and where possible, attempt to arrive at some form of truth. In the world of post-processualism every opinion is equally valid, and the "truth", such as it is, is the average of those opinions. I make no apologies for including the odd old or outdated genealogy on this site. The intent is to spark thought and whet the interest of individuals researching their own family histories, and to form an opinion of their own.
Sources will be referenced for each page of genealogies so that you may form your own view of the accuracy of the data..."
There is of course no intent to mislead the readers of either WP or the site itself. The site allows the readers to form their own opinion of what is true or not by providing information that may not always be appropriate to include in the actual articles on WP. In creating the site there is a process of selection which I admit has not been indicated on the site itself (now updated) - the more recent sources are always favoured above older ones. E.g. if a source published in 1940 repeats information originally published in 1801, but a source published in 1928 diverges from this, then the 1928 source would be favoured as based on more recent research than the 1940 source. If you wish to verify any of the information, the sources are included at the bottom of each page rather than against each record because this is more expedient for the format of publication. As a similar example, the most recent edition of Europäische Stammtafeln gives the sources used for the entire volume in one place without specific reference by each record, and Burke's, as far as I can recall off the top of my head, does the same. This does not provide support for NOT including the sources against each person's record - I agree this would be desirable.
The long answer, therefore, is that the reliability of the site is dependant on the sources which it presents. It must be up to the reader to decide if these are 'true' or 'false'. Furthermore, I cannot answer the concern for knowing "...what errors, omissions, or misinterpretations crept in when the website was being created" raised by ProGene. That is also for the reader to judge, I suppose, but I do try to make sure I type as accurately as I can. Of course, I am just as likely as any professional researcher to make a misinterpretation of information (no offense meant - I have an academic background and 12 years worth of genealogical research experience, albeit not on a professional level, but enough to be aware of the most common pitfalls). I have now addressed this by including the site e-mail address on the front page in case of questions and corrections submitted by readers. I've also included the same note I wrote here on my selection of data, which I hope may go some way towards improving your opinion of the same. I originally intended for the site to have a message board option on each family page, but this proved impossible to manage for abusive language and vast quantities of spamming.
I also attempt to apply enough critical thinking to what I post to exclude mythological or impossible connections wherever I'm aware of them - you won't ever find Adam, Eve, Rameses II, Caesar or Arnoald
[3].
2. As to the question on whether I should keep posting links to Fivegateways on Wikipedia or not, I would have to argue that the information given is absolutely valid as an external link. Please note the difference here - I am advocating the inclusion as an external link, not for it to be cited as an absolute authoritative source, which seems to have been somewhat confusing to some commentators, above. It is my understanding that an external link should provide additional information to the topic, which I believe FG does. It is further my understanding that such information should be referenced, which it is. The materials presented can therefore be researched backwards to the original sources if so desired. Without entering into the discussion about the accuracy of TSP, the references therein, as an example only, are quite detailed for its time and can easily be looked up.
I also believe, although I might be sorely mistaken here, that the site meets at least two of WP's criterias for inclusion as an external link.
What should be linked §3 states: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." and
Links to be considered states, under §4: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". You will be interested to note that I took note of the former prior to posting my first link on WP. The latter paragraph I am including here as a counter-argument to the opinion of inclusion of possibly unreliable information, although I still hasten to add that I am interested only in publishing sensible data based on the sources referenced.
With this in mind, I would like to draw your attention to the notes on this page:
[4] which show that the article is written entirely based on information culled from the website www.thepeerage.com, which cites Burkes as the (only) source of its information for the above named figure. This site, although it provides source references for individuals rather than groups, is consequently the foundation for an article on WP as a source, not as a linked external page. I should say that this would certainly merit further investigation, and I would agree strongly with anyone who has the same opinion of FG. It has never been the intention to include the site as a source on WP, merely as a place to find out more. Alas, I cannot stop others from using it as a reference, but I have no objections to it being removed from citations, per se, if someone has included it as such. I would still maintain, however, that FG is a potentially valuable resource for those beginning their research or those that want to know more about possible familial connections.
I'm more than happy to make improvements to the site based on your feedback, so by all means do not be afraid to provide me with further opinions or viewpoints (the appropriate medium for that might be the e-mail address on the website, rather than further comments here, though). I will, however, not compromise the basic premise of the site which is to provide the reader with an opportunity to make their own mind up about what is true and what is not.
Sincerely, Fivegateways ( talk) 02:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I just came across an article on Mustafa Kamil Usmani which was deleted on Feb 28, 2008. I was aghast to read a particular comment which was cited as the reason for supporting the deletion....that just because the gentleman in question taught the present Agha Khan he has no claims to greatness...further , amazingly , a learned man has been compared to a 'dog trainer' and the groomer of Prince Harry's horses!!!!!! I wonder what the reactions of the Agha Khan would be upon being likened to the above animals......
My main contention is that a person who was a rising star and was chosen after a global hunt for a prestigious job must actually have had some devine spark in him and to assign such frivolous reasons for deleting an article related to him seems suspicious. The said gentleman's nephew Dr syed Khaild Rizvi also resides in the U.S.-having recently shifted residence -and is in possession of many documents which can conclusively proove his great achievements as an academician.Probably the said mementos are now in possession of Dr Tarik Bill Kamil...Mustafa Kamil Usmani's son and a man of high credentials himself
Whether the article is deleted or not ..is not the question. I only object to the reasons cited.
Mrs Safia Faruqi (niece)
Lucknow
India —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.220.96 ( talk) 14:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
All of the following, until the end, is about Discussion pages for books, or in which papers/articles are proposed as sources for inclusion in actual articles.
Suppose a book (src1) has a Wikipedia article, or some external paper/article (src1)is proposed as something credible to be discussed as a Wikipedia article. Suppose another source (src2) is found. Regardless of whether or not each is a WP:RS for the topic it discusses, or whether it is a primary, secondary, or tertiary source relative to something else, one would think each is a primary and WP:RS for its own words.
Suppose src1 is found to contain plagiarized material from src2. The simplest case is big chunks of text lifted word-for-word from src1, maybe with light edits. Proving plagiarism in effect requires direct comparison of 2 primary sources, which seems disallowed by WP:OR. Of course, since likely authors are living, the very proof of plagiarism needed for accuracy thus relies on primary sources, so runs afoul of WP:BLP.
Very rarely do WP:RS articles publish multiple pages of the src1-vs-src2 comparisons truly needed to clearly identify the plagiarism. It may well be that any sensible person would take one look at src1 and src2 and say "plagiarism." Suppose a detailed comparison exists, but is in a self-published source, i.e., not WP:RS. That certainly cannot be used for the Wikipedia article itself. Can it legitimately be cited in a Discussion page, i.e., given that it may not be WP:RS, but in essence consists of quotes from src1 and src2, which are at least WP:RS about themselves? If not, must that text be replicated into the discussion, to avoid the self-published source? Or is that disallowed also, as WP:OR?
There are of course, more complex flavors of plagiarism, and at some point, arguments over lifting of ideas gets arguable. Substantial obvious plagiarism in academe is The End, and it also tends to diminish the credibility of src1, especially if combined with injected errors that show the author(s) clueless.
However, am I wrong to believe that no matter how obvious plagiarism is, the combination of Wikipedia rules in effect forbids even discussing it, and hence a source non-credible for this reason cannot be challenged as such? Or am I missing something?
Suppose src1 cites src3. In the simplest case, src1 says that src3 says X, but simple inspection of src3 shows that it does not (simple fabrication). If src1 has drawn too heavily on (uncited) src2, then it might be plagiarism as well. This happens when someone's real source src2 is not credible, so they cite src3 to cover it.
So, is that subject to the same issues as above? May such things be discussed within discussion pages?
Suppose that src1 cites src2 and src3, stating (correctly) that src1 does not make claim X,. Then, src1 states that src3 confirmed that claim X was true.
By simple inspection of src2, it is found that src2 (incorrectly) claimed that src2 claimed X. Hence, src3 has fabricated a claim about src2, then src1 has fabricated a claim about src2's fabrication. All that may be trivially decidable by inspection of src1, src2, src3 ... but may be claimed to be WP:OR and disallowable, so that src1 is argued to be credible.
(This can happen when the author of src1 reads src2, but either reads src3 carelessly, or actually read what src4 said about src3. Other explanations are possible, especially if the author really, really wants X to be true.)
So, is such discussion considered acceptable on discussion pages, or not even there? In some cases, this is a factual issue easily decidable merely by examining src1, src2, src3 in a few minutes.
In summary, are plagiarism/fabrication even discussable, and if so, how should they be handled?
Finally, to get this into an actual article, perhaps some WP:RS says "plagiarism," but it is unlikely that the full proof thereof will be found in that WP:RS, but somewhere else, which may thus not be enough under WP:BLP rules.
All these describe real examples. JohnMashey ( talk) 05:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Dear friend, this issue is actual and few of persons who want to avoid this issue. The user User:Ramya20 only contribute to Wikipedia delete this issue . I have a doubt on this user sock puppet of Hudson samarasinhe . This issue is promoting by Wife of premakeerthi who Nirmala De alwis on her book ‘’Premakeethini’’ which publish on 2010. Author is User:Bigger digger is mention that this book cannot find out in Google searching . It is correct because it takes few more month on appear ISBN web sites . But no one can refuse this issue. There is already published on a blog translation [6] Wikipedia we have a possibility to translate context of articles. I request to assist solve this problem to administrator in Wikipedia .-- Wipeouting ( talk) 18:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
When sources are evaluated here, do they not go on a list for reference? ~ R. T. G 08:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I am having a hard time understanding the rules here regarding opinion columns in newspapers. The material under newspapers appears vague, and the material under opinion appears contradictory.
If a reporter reports a fact in an opinion column, and the column is rather overheated and contains a "fact" that appears to be contradictory on its face, do the other "facts" in the column have any validity at all? (Obviously, I am arguing that they do not, but I am new here and biased on the issue.) I would refer directly to the article, but I don't know how many of you know Hebrew. Also, do the same standards apply to foreign newspapers, where the same (adtmittedly low) standards that apply to American newspapers may not be followed, even by major, "respected" newspapers in Western-style countries?
In the same vein, I would like to point out the importance of distinguishing between print newspapers in the original language, and English language internet sites of the same newspapers. For example, two of our major newspapers here in Iarael publish internet sites in English (Ynet and Ha'aretz, by papers 1 and 4 respectively), that do not always mark opinion pieces as such. I would argue that a medium that does not distinguish between news and opinion pieces cannot be called a modern newspaper, although it still may have its uses. Mzk1 ( talk) 21:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, again! We now appear to disagree about what is meant by opinion. American-type major newspapers such as the NYT split their content into two parts: news and opinion. Into the former part go news articles. Into the latter part go editorials (especially!), letters, ALL "columns", responses, op-eds, "news analysis" pieces, etc.; this is what I am asking about. These are clearly labeled. (In theory, news articles are not opinion; actually they are, but this page assumes they are not, so we will go with that for most purposes.) So perhaps you gentlemen (generic gender) could explain why you feel this division is not there.
Regarding American, theere are many wikipedias with many standards, as was pointed out to me when I asked about translating without reschecking the sources. When the English Wikipedia refers to newspapers, etc., the authors, being english-speaking humans mostly located in the United States, are presumably referring to what they know, which is mostly American and British material. Presumably materials that are from places with different standards for newspapers, peer-reviewed articles, etc., need to be judged before they are the considered the same. As an extreme example, government-controlled newspapers are probably questionable sources, particularly in semi-free or not-free countries. Mzk1 ( talk) 20:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
At any rate, to get back to the original question. Is a column, editorial, news analysis, etc. on the rarified RS level of a news article of a major newspaper, or it is on a lower level? If a lower level, what level is it? This should be clearly defined in the article. We are talking about a basic policy here, after all; we only have three of these. Mzk1 ( talk) 20:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Newspaper columns are not good sources for facts. While newspaper articles are, the opinions in them should not be considered to be facts. But when it comes to reporting opinions expressed in newspapers, notability becomes important. Since we have no way to knowing how notable these opinions are we should usually ignore them. This is particularly true it the material is old, and better sources of opinion can be found. TFD ( talk) 19:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I hope I am putting this right, but I think I have accompished my task. I see that in the meantime, others have modified the article to clarify this issue. To me, I think the reuslt is almost a 180 (degree turn) from the implications of the orginal article, which I think led people to just pull things out of columns as if they were facts. I hope this is not an inappropriate statement here.
Mzk1 (
talk)
Seth Finkelstein - presumably it is he, although without outside proof we cannot assume it - made the interesting point that his newpaper did check facts in opinion pieces. I asked for something concrete I could use to avoid OR, and he referred me (above) to their editorial policy - online. Unfortunately, while the policy has some fascinating features that would probably destroy what passses for American Journalism (such as an anti-harrassment rule), the description of fact-checking rules appeared to me to be too vague for it to be useful here.
So, we do have a fascinating suggestion; that if the the published rules of the newspaper modify our assumptions of how newspapers work, it might also alter how we view the various parts of thge paper. However, we would need to see a clearer example. (Also, there is the possiblity that the rules are not followed.) Mzk1 ( talk) 22:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
New generation of green roof
A Belgium based company has introduced what can be called the XXIst green roof solution.
It is composed of three modular industrialized layers:
1. the pedestals, directly on waterproof surface of any kind;
2. a floating floor: either metallic of plastic made, depending of loads applied;
3. last but not least: the Greenskin Box, made of autoconnected precultivated modules.
The advantages are numerous, among others a universal adaptation to all roof types, a ventilated and technical space underneath, a perfect compatibility with all techniques such as solar panels, automatic sprinkler systems, cables for lighting, etc..
A world patent covers the main features.
Web site: www.greenskindvmh.com
Hermans620117 (
talk)
16:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This one appears to be a blog, http://www.drfunkenberry.com/
This one is a wiki, but not an open wiki, http://www.princevault.com/index.php/Main_Page
They are used in quite a few articles, and are both accurate (as far as the information they are citing goes), but I don't think they meet WP:RS. Markfury3000 ( talk) 16:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
WT:CITE#Linking to Google Books pages. RfC on whether WP:CITE should say Google Books page links are not required but are allowed in footnotes, and that editors should not go around removing them. All input welcome. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that large sections of this document are word-for-word copies from wp:V. That's a potential problem in the making: If the language in one place changes it will become inconsistent with the language in the other, which will produce ambiguities. I suggest we either delete the duplicate material and replace it with links to wp:V, or else set up transclusions so that the two pages stay in sync (though that may require extensive restructuring). -- Ludwigs2 15:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
How important is it for sources to be labeled reliable? If a source is good in every other way with evidence to support its statement, but is labeled unreliable, should it still be used? 173.183.69.134 ( talk) 14:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any mention of government websites. How would a site like this be for an article on cefn gola? Quadzilla99 ( talk) 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Can the policy page include material on sources with user generated content? On the WP:V policy page, the section on Questionable sources and Self-published sources already mention sources with poor editorial control, and sources whose content is indeed user-generated, like open wikis, blogs, forums, etc. I asked on the WP:V talk page if those two sections could be combined into one, and was told I should take that discussion here. Nightscream ( talk) 19:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I just tried to edit this, but I'm not sure what it means:
Quotations should be cited to the original source if possible; when secondary sources are used, those that cite the original source should be preferred over those that don't.
SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I think Blueboar's reading matches mine. It relates to the usual best practices in source-based research. If you see that source A gives a direct quote from source B, and you want to include that quote, the usual best practice is to actually get a copy of source B, read it, and then cite it directly. In the cases when this isn't possible, it's certainly better if source A actually gives a full citation for source B, compared to some source C that just attributes the remarks to B without giving any indication where B might have said them. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Blueboar's recent edit. If a secondary source quotes a primary source, we should cite the primary source for the quote, and the secondary source for any analysis and context. We must rely on secondary sources for additional context and analysis, but playing a game of hearsay telephone is not required when we have access to a primary source. Gigs ( talk) 00:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see here for an RfC at WP:VERIFY on what to do when apparently reliable sources are objectively wrong? [7].
Thank you. -- LevenBoy ( talk) 15:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, this is now about the more general question. Concerning the more general question then, please consider that there are sometimes more complex cases. I was involved in a debate with someone who found mathematical errors in the data table of a peer reviewed article, and then argued that the whole article should be erased from mention on Wikipedia, although the article was being cited by other mainstream sources and was apparently part of what the field knew. Context was that he started out from a position opposed to one of the conclusions of the article, and then read the article and found the problem in the data table. He cited WP:UCS. (And because he was deleting a source, not adding, and deleting a source gets benefit of the doubt these days, I found very little community interest in getting involved. Try citing WP:UCS as an argument for keeping a source!) Does your advice still apply in such a case or would you adjust your wording a bit?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 11:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
A couple months ago, an edit was made that fundamentally changed the standards for scientific consensus: [8]
Prior to this, a claim of scientific consensus needed to be sourced to a reliable secondary source that actually declared that a scientific consensus existed. Now editors are free to "demonstrate" a scientific consensus by citing a bunch of disparate sources. This kind of meta-analysis is a violation of WP:NOR. We shouldn't claim that a scientific consensus exists unless someone else says it exists.
The edit was reverted, in part, but the "demonstrated" verbiage remains. I think we should revert to the left side of the above diff, and again require sourcing for claims of scientific consensus. Gigs ( talk) 21:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Though I am not sure whether this is the right place to post my query/proposal, I decided to give it a try. While planning to put the external link from fxwords.com, I came to know about this page. I feel that the link can be considered amongst reliable sources and this applies to the entire site as well. I find the site blacklisted instead and the same cannot be posted even on this page. Please suggest. Diptanshu Talk 15:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
You are:
an effective communicator with a sound grasp of policy;
able to see all aspects of a problem and find solutions;
courteous, disciplined and open-minded;
able to deal calmly with trolls, bigots and editors with issues;
able to make up your own mind under stress.
If you can answer "yes" to most of the above, you are probably arbitrator material. Learn more about standing in the upcoming election. But don't delay, nomination close very soon!
Tony (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC), for the election coordinators
i have come across a diary hand written dated 28,11,59 detailing the outward voyage of the ss kenya by to lady passengers,you can read the diary ,buy if you turn the diary over there is lots of old croosswords stuck to the back of each page ,the one lady was a midwife and i also have her records of chil birhts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.100.248 ( talk) 22:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Just when I thought we managed to make a distinction between newspaper news and opinion, a recent revert called my attention to the following paragraph:
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author.
This appears contradictory, and does not seem to fit in with the changes made to the earlier section on newspapers. The first sentence, to at least the casual reader, contradicts the second. Are they reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, or are they reliable sources, depending on context? The second appears to confer a lot more reliability than the first. Furthermore, my experience is that American op-eds often are meant to give a platform to a viewpoint that the newspaper considers newsworthy, while the content may be extremely POV and often factually questionable. I think the second sentence needs to be replaced. All American op-eds confer is notability, and then the content is as reliable as the author giving a public lecture, reported as such in a news source.
Just to clarify, I have never edited the article itself. Mzk1 ( talk) 17:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you all have discussed this, but I'm not finding magazine articles in the guidelines. They seem to be problematic, because most of them are "creative nonfiction", and they are not even intended to provide an NPOV (if they did, they'd be too lacking in drama to sell). Also, MastCell recently recommended to me a book that documents magazine articles (and news, but there's not much anyone can do about that) being commissioned or "planted" as a public relations tactic. Of course the whole subject of "public relations", or PR, is relevant to the reliable sourcing debate, but again, not much we can do about it - one person's despicable "obvious PR plant" is another person's admirable "reliable secondary source", and a shouting match isn't going to change that. So, let's just focus on the status of articles, that give the impression of facts, in reasonably respected magazines. Thanks, Postpostmod ( talk) 14:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I think any magazine can be successfully targeted by a skillful public relations agent, for whom such activities are his bread and butter. Ideally, it would be a magazine of high prestige among the intended audience members. Obviously, some money would have to change hands, as well-connected PR agents aren't cheap, and probably the writer(s) of the article aren't either. The article couldn't be blatantly offensive to the audience, or dangerous to the magazine in terms of libel or advertising revenues. Other than that, any magazine that publishes free-lance general interest articles and reaches the intended target audience would be a suitable candidate. Presumably the more prestigious the publication, the higher the fees of the agent and writer, as in some forms of medical ghostwriting. [Note: non-chronological date on this post is due to invitation to reinsert it, after it was politely reverted due to my wikiformatting error - I put it after the comment to which I was responding] Postpostmod ( talk) 17:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking my concern seriously and explaining. I agree, it's tricky and there's no absolute rule that can be used to judge whether an article has been unduly influenced, so any kind of guideline is problematic. What if an article in an otherwise reputable magazine specifically mentions that the author of the article has been in contact with a PR agent hired by the subject? Of course, this doesn't mean the article is "untrue", just that if it's on a controversial subject it might be slanted toward one side, perhaps the wealthier side ;-) , by hired guns.
Maybe this could be helped by attribution - if there's a question as to the objective nature of the source, it could be prefaced by, say, "A 2005 article published in The Economist said that....". If the author of the article is a known partisan on the particular issue being addressed, the author could also be identified (e.g. "A 2005 article by John Doe published in ....)", otherwise that's probably unnecessary, and could be viewed as PR on behalf of the article's author ;-). It might get a little clunky as a consistent writing style, but it would ensure that editors are not, knowingly or unknowingly, repeating "PR" as "fact", and it would ensure that even if the source isn't objective, "we are". Or at least trying to be. Probably worth it in contentious articles where editors on each side don't trust the other's objectivity. Thanks, Postpostmod ( talk) 15:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
THe section says: Although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia contains no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. This phrase is highly misleading and does much dissevice to wikipedia. IMO it has several problems.
I vaguely understand what this phrase is supposed to convey, but IMO currently it does its job quite poorly. Unfortunately I cannot suggest a better phrasing yet. Lovok Sovok ( talk) 00:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
( 69.255.160.227 ( talk) 13:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC))
I have noticed various Wikipedia articles using religious texts(eg the Torah or Bible) as their source. If the article is about some figure in the text, then this is the case, but for instance, the article of Jerusalem uses the Book of Joshua as one of its reliable sources. Is this Standard Wikipedia Policy? 41.133.47.252 ( talk) 09:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Aren't these texts primary sources and shouldn't we seek secondaries before blindly posting that "The Bible gives 3 as the value of Pi", when of course there is no such explicit statement of mathematical formulas there. Hcobb ( talk) 21:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
There's a new essay and proposed guideline on the contents of "Further reading" sections at WP:Further reading. It is still only a couple of days old, so constructive comments are more useful than !votes at this point. Tijfo098 ( talk) 04:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Can the policy page include material on sources with user generated content? On the WP:V policy page, the section on Questionable sources and Self-published sources already mention sources with poor editorial control, and sources whose content is indeed user-generated, like open wikis, blogs, forums, etc. I asked on the WP:V talk page if those two sections could be combined into one, and was told I should take that discussion here. Nightscream ( talk) 16:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Is it just me or has this policy page evolved over time until the lead no longer contains any summary of the policy? The basic "headline" summary now appears to be in the "Overview" section. The intro itself is now all about where the policy sits in context etc. That does not seem a great style to me. Obviously the policies are intended to be easily read and understood by all Wikipedia editors?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)