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 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
Proposed new bullet in the News organizations section:
* News organizations may report content that is unfavorable to a subject, or that a subject may wish to remain hidden, such as the results of investigative journalism. When a legitimate news organization targets a subject in a report, it does not in and of itself establish that the news organization is biased with regard to the subject, for purposes such as establishing bias sufficient to exclude the source or otherwise limit content drawn from the source, nor does it establish that the news organization is partisan, for purposes of excluding or limiting appropriate direct quotation or other relevant content drawn from the source
This minor clarification is an explicit statement of a widely understood editorial guideline. While our guideline currently clearly states that news organizations may have opinions, some tend to see unfavorable news reports as demonstrating bias sufficient to prohibit including in our project content which furthers balance and neutrality. In talk page discussion it is not uncommon that content, considered by some editors as unflattering to the subject of the article, will be opposed for inclusion on the basis that the news organization publishing unflattering material demonstrates the bias of the news organization. Or a weakened paraphrase of a news report is suggested on the basis that the news organization report demonstrates the news organization is a partisan opponent of the subject. It is hoped these two sentences will clarify some not uncommon misreads of WP:IRS and so will promote collegiality at article talk pages. Thank you your support of this reasonable measured and helpful clarification of our project's guidelines for identifying reliable sources from news organizations. Hugh ( talk) 04:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Revised proposed new bullet point for the News organizations section:
* News organizations may report content that is unfavorable to a subject, or that a subject may wish to remain hidden, such as for example the results of investigative journalism. When a well-established news organization targets a subject in a report, regardless of whether the report is favorable or unfavorable, it does not in and of itself establish that the news organization is biased with regard to the subject, for purposes such as establishing bias sufficient to exclude the source or otherwise limit content drawn from the source, nor does it in and of itself establish that the news organization is partisan, for purposes of excluding or limiting appropriate direct quotation or other relevant content drawn from the source.
Comments? Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 19:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I've run into this issue before with articles on archaeology. In this case it's articles on List of Chinese inventions (and another one on Chinese discoveries) using some sources that are very old and at least one that a review says that some material made obsolete by later sources. It's the nature of fields like this that new research refutes older material at times. WP:RSMED says:
Keeping an article up-to-date, while maintaining the more-important goal of reliability is important. These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published.
There are exceptions to these rules of thumb:
What do people think? Doug Weller talk 16:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Since denialism comes up pretty often when dealing with scientific consensus (and a recurring problem when dealing with the two on Wikipedia), what do folks think about adding some clarification to the section? I'm considering adding the highlighted material:
The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material.
Editors should also avoid fringe theories that unduly cast doubt on statements of scientific consensus.Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must bereliablysourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.
It seems like people sometimes aren't aware of examples of tactics like in climate change denial where people try to claim there isn't a consensus even when sources directly say there is as mentioned in the current policy. In those cases, sources try to say there isn't a consensus because they can cite a paper or two that claims there isn't (often in an unreliable journal at best, groups sticking to claims not accepted by the wider scientific community, etc.), which is a misunderstanding that a scientific consensus does not imply unanimity. I'm hoping this addition acts as a good first step to head off some of these problems instead of needing a longer block of text describing how academic consensus works and is misinterpreted. We already deal with the weight aspect to a degree at the policy WP:PSCI, but since this section is usually the go-to policy for describing when we use this term, it seems prudent to briefly mention wariness on fringe ideas and how they are used in relation to consensus statements. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 03:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The place to ask about individual sources is the
reliable sources noticeboard; this talk page is only for the purpose of discussing how to improve this guideline. —
TransporterMan (
TALK)
22:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
| |||
---|---|---|---|
I am curious what other users, especially administrators, feel about the following sources. I have been trying to establish notability for the Austin Petersen presidential campaign, 2016 and I believe the sources I have provided are reliable independent sources, most especially on the topic of Petersen or the Libertarian Party in general. I believe the sources show more than enough notability to qualify for WP:GNG but some users are claiming the sources are not enough as they are not reliable. This is only a small list but I believe they are also disqualifying WP:NEXIST as there is a lot of local coverage (although often in the larger context of the Libertarian primary).
I was told by User:MelanieN -
I believe she may be asking for an overreaching amount of sources to show notability. As well she seems to be indicating that all the sources I listed should never be considered unreliable, something that this very talk page says is an incorrect statement. I appreciate any feedback. Acidskater ( talk) 21:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC) |
When a source is clearly unreliable in large part... to what extent should it still be usable?
Talk:Cary_Grant#Higham.2FMoseley_Reviews has a discussion which appears to show a source has some major problems (NYT review in one of its milder statements says " The book's obsession with Grant's sexuality is more a reflection of the authors' keen perception of what sells books than of any allegiance to the dictates of ethical journalism." which appears to imply that the book does not comport with "ethical journalism." People magazine said " In this lurid book, the authors cruelly defame a man who can't defend himself and show disdain for his admirers' ability to distinguish honest biography from innuendo.")
I removed some material (some of which has been re-added using the same source, alas) and the editor Dr. Blofeld made a claim "The material mostly wasn't bad material though."
Is "the material is mostly not bad" or the like a sufficient reason to allow use of what might be a questionable (at best) source? This is not a personal issue I have with any editor, but a general question - when a source has such problematic reviews from sources most would consider reliable and authoritative, does the source still meet WP:RS for claims an editor thinks are not "bad material"? Collect ( talk) 15:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Will you please just drop it? The information was largely verifiable elsewhere and I mostly restored material and verified by different sources. Plus I removed any possibly contentious claims. I've said I'll try to replace the source as much as possible, what more do you want?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Well you know what the answer is going to be, technically no, we probably shouldn't use any source which is known to contain a mistruth or gross exaggeration. The High and Moseley book contains a lot of info though and I strongly doubt it's all made up. It's clearly very well researched when you read it, particularly early life. But they did what they did emphasizing the homosexuality and Flynn and Nazism etc for the sake of $$. And it was the dubious claims which were widely reported and criticized by a lot of critics. The entire book is not like that otherwise I'd not have used it. It is unfortunate that I began with that book as when it was ordered of course I wasn't aware of its reputation. Too late to go back now, I will try to replace what I can but the details particularly about his early stage career are highly valuable and undoubtedly not made up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, a lot of the information is verifiable from other sources, I've already replaced a good number, so it can't be all false! I just looked at the September 2015 article version before I edited it, do you think that superior?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Whilst fully agreeing that forums are almost always not reliable sources, they can be a great source of reliable sources. Should a note to this effect be added to this effect? Mjroots ( talk) 11:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Off topic; this page is only for discussing improvements to this guideline. Go to
RA to request an article. -
TransporterMan (
TALK)
17:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
Anandmurti Gurumaa is one such rare paragon of virtue and purity, an enlightened master. Moved by the pervasive plight of the masses, she has been bestowing upon people the greatest gift ever viz eradicating the root cause of all suffering. And she has been doing this relentlessly for over thirty years through innumerable discourses and meditation camps held in India and abroad. She is emphatically secular, declaring herself to be religion-less and bears no allegiance to any one particular religion. Everyone irrespective of their cultural and religious background and belief systems is welcomed. And yes, atheists are welcome too, for Gurumaa is a sound rationalist and never advocates unquestioning faith in anything or anyone. Her exhaustive know how of various paths of spirituality is indeed unparalleled. She has a comprehensive mastery and in-depth knowledge of ancient scriptures including the Upanishads, Bhagawad Gita and the Gurbani, to name but a few! She effortlessly expounds on the teachings of a myriad of sages from different parts of India and oversees. Essentially Gurumaa can adeptly guide any seeker, any aspirant, no matter which path he or she wants to follow. And herein lays the uniqueness of this splendid master. What’s more, the compassionate Philanthropist that she is, she spearheads a noble mission called Mission Shakti which is aimed at empowering girls and women. An awakened being, a rationalist, a visionary, that is Gurumaa, may mistakenly invoke an image of a person with an austere disposition. She must be categorized under- /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Biography/By_profession#Hinduism 1. (Times of India) Speaking tree [1] 2. The Hindu Newspaper [2] 3. The Hindu [3] 4. Amar Ujala Newspaper [4] 5. Wikiquote [5] 6. India Today Newspaper [6] 7. Times of India Newspaper posted articles of anandmurti gurumaa to their blog ’Speaking tree’ [7] 8. Times of India Newspaper posted articles of anandmurti gurumaa to their blog ’Speaking tree’ [8] 9. Tedx talk [9] 10. Karmapa [10] 11. Article in DNA Newspaper [11] 12. Article in DNA Newspaper [12] 13. Article in DNA Newspaper [13] 14. Article in DNA Newspaper [14] 15. Article in DNA Newspaper [15] 16. Karmapa [16] 17. Karmapa [17] 18. Karmapa [18] 19. Life positive [19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.243.253.202 ( talk) 13:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC) References
|
What do we do about the fact that for many technical topics, online forums populated by experts are frequently useful (sometimes exclusive) sources of information, and may even be the means by which various bits of "official" information are disseminated? UGC is heavily relied on, both in the form of user support forums, and community documentation wikis, at articles like Ubuntu (operating system). This should probably be accounted for in some way here. All it takes is one over-literal interpreter of what is presently written in this guideline go on an inline tagging rampage, or even do massive deletion damage in a large number of OS, application software, video game, and computing hardware articles.
Another related circumstance to cover is when something like a formal press release is reposted in an online forum; sometimes the only immediately accessible copy of something is from such a posting. Per the
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT policy, it is necessary to properly identify such a source, e.g. with the |via=name of forum here
parameter of the citation templates, while crediting it to the original author (if specified) and original publisher/issuer, not the forum poster, and using original date of publication/release identified in the content, not the forum-posting date. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
01:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I would question, in the former paragraph, whether the right WP:WEIGHT is being assigned to those topics, if the only sources which can be found are online forums and wikis.
Regards the latter, such sources are usually marked as official, and I would treat them as WP:SPS. But you should still be able to identify a better source either commenting on the press release or at least carrying the press release itself. -- Izno ( talk) 11:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on sourcing examples in "in popular culture" articles and sections. BrightRoundCircle ( talk) 13:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Can instagram be considered a reliable source? For example, a dancer is on tour with Rihanna. Could I add the dancer's name and use the instagram of the dancer as reference. The instagram page would have this information on their page along with pics of them dancing with Rihanna? Thanks for your response. 174.88.109.154 ( talk) 04:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Off topic here, but editor has also posted to appropriate article talk page. —
TransporterMan (
TALK)
17:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
"Theri" Tamil Movie crossed 175crores in Box office collection. Referencehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theri_(film) Kasim999 ( talk) 13:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC) |
This issue stemmed from this reply of mine on this discussion. I can find several sources that generally qualify as reliable sources, all of which indirectly contradict other, better reliable sources. Since the contradiction is indirect, disqualifying these sources is WP:SYNTH. A solution has been suggested through WP:ONUS, but the article in question is a list article, which means there are dozens of potential list items, and each of them will have to be discussed, and the discussion will just be an indirect way to use synthesis and original research.
What I'm asking is, is there a way to contest the use of reliable sources that only indirectly contradict better reliable sources? BrightRoundCircle ( talk) 21:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The template {{ Better source}} exists (it has a reason field: {{Better source|reason=|date=July 2016}}). I've occasionally use it for cites of refs which:
Is this OK? The template documentation does not give an entirely clear answer. My opinion is that it's almost always better to have something than just a {{ citation needed}} tag, because the {{ Better source}} template (which generates the legend [better source needed] after the cite) alerts the reader that it's a poor source, and also alerts editors to the need to look for ref upgrade if they're so inclined.
I ask because another editor removed some tagged unreliable sources from an article, and maybe he's right. So how far does {{ Better source}} allow us to turn to the dark side? Newspapers not known to have rigorous fact-checking operations? The National Enquirer? Blogs? Wikis? Forum posts? Unpublished letters? Underwear labels? WP:GUYINBAR? Or none of these? Herostratus ( talk) 15:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Is Wikia a reliable source? 142.160.89.57 ( talk) 04:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion now taking pace at the village pump that may be related to the subject of this policy/guideline page. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't find any mention of source code or documentation as reliable sources in the archives. They're clearly both self-published sources, and given that former is quite literally the subject and the latter is an explanation of the subject, my initial thought is to consider them as acceptable for use. But I thought I'd double check by asking here.
For context, I'm working on User:Σ/Testing facility/Protoss and I've cited a specific revision of the Mercurial repository for Python (ref 13), because it lists the out-of-the-box commands for distutils. I plan to send it over to DYK (I'm quite rusty in my article-writing at this point!) soon, so could anyone offer any tips? → Σ σ ς. ( Sigma) 10:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, as a general question, source code isn't necessarily self-published; the O'Reilly books being the most common cases. But in this case, it is.
I think what I'll do is, when I submit it to DYK I'll make a note for the reviewers to see if it meets their standards there. Thank you for your time, → Σ σ ς. ( Sigma) 03:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Not unexpectedly, my edit to state that internet forums can be a useful source of reliable sources was reverted by Sławomir Biały with the comment that it was "obvious". This might be well-known by experienced editors, but I don't think it is "obvious". Is there a better way to phrase this and include it, or should it stay off the page? Mjroots ( talk) 19:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Reliable Sources Noticeboard is
thataway and Dispute Resolution is
thataway. This page is for improving this guideline. —
TransporterMan (
TALK)
20:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
I would appreciate input on a discussion at Talk:Blink of an Eye (Tori Kelly song). One editor says PopCrush is not reliable. The other says it's the author, not the website, to whom reliability applies. Thanks in advance. — ATS 🖖 Talk 18:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC) |
Is Wordpress.com a relaible source? 206.45.9.182 ( talk) 23:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
One of the things that came out of a recent deletion discussion was the fact that the RS guidelines are unclear as to when things that appear in well established news organizations are not reliable, specifically Lifestyle Section reporting. In this case, the subject had been on almost a half dozen morning news shows like Good Morning America (on three continents) and had features with ABC News and Inside Edition, in addition to print features in Vogue Magazine, Marie Claire, and many others. And consensus was that the article should be deleted. One of the editors that voted to delete agreed that the guidelines were unclear, and I myself believe that there should never be "unwritten rules" or guidelines, as that also promotes confusion. So I'd like to open a discussion as it how WP:RS can be improved so that it is clear that it doesn't matter if it is the NYT, the WSJ, or Forbes, if it is a Lifestyle feature, reliability is a) nonexistent, b) questionable, or c) not assumed just because of the news organization (and a, b, or c is precisely what we should discuss. I'm leaning towards c). There should also be a set of concrete criteria to determine whether or not a source is reliable. The current guideline (a particular paragraph of WP:NEWSORG that comes closest to dealing with this) reads:
Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news).
So at this point I'd like to open the floor to others to get their take on how we should go about improving WP:RS so that guidelines are crystal clear and match established practice. I'm Tony Ahn ( talk) 07:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I realize that I can't cite a Wikipedia article directly as a source in some other Wikipedia article. Also, it's a bad idea to cite some document as a source in a Wikipedia article, when the person who wrote that document based it entirely on a Wikipedia article (see Wikipedia:Citogenesis).
Is it forbidden to cite some document as a source in a Wikipedia article if that document lists a Wikipedia article as one of its sources, no matter how many other sources that document may have or how reliable that source may otherwise be? Should I unconditionally delete on sight any references in a Wikipedia article that refer to some document that itself uses Wikipedia even once as a reference? -- DavidCary ( talk) 21:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I thought I'd open a discussion about Heat Street since there's been quite a lengthy debate about it here. The site is basically a news, opinion and commentary website belonging to the Murdoch stable and founded in April 2016 by former British Conservative MP Louise Mensch. A user wishes to reference an opinion piece from the site as part of Traingate, but has been advised this would not be appropriate. My own thoughts on Heat Street are that it hasn't been around long enough to establish a reputation. As I understand it, a website such as this one would build up a reputation as en encyclopedic source by being referenced by other reliable sources, which does not seem to be the case so far. I believe a similar stance was once taken with the Huffington Post, although that seems to have changed over time as it has entered the mainstream media. Given the tone of the discussion at Talk:Traingate about this source, I thought it would be sensible to mention it here. Any thoughts on this topic? This is Paul ( talk) 13:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I would like to ask, if Video Documentation such as [copyvio link of a C-Span video redacted] is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia ? & if it is not considered reliable, then why ? -- Ne0 ( talk) 20:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Is heritage-india.com (a commercial book site) a reliable source? I found a newly created page Ranadeep Bhattacharyya which cited a number of sources from this website so I want to check if we can accept it as reliable or not before going for a cleanup also the article says Ranadeep also regularly writes on heritage and culture for Heritage India Magazine, isn't it pointing to WP:RSSELF. Thank you – GSS ( talk) 10:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Some time ago there was an RFC about whether it was appropriate to import claims from Wikidata to Wikipedia articles. Does anyone remember where that RFC was? Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedia,
Just to correct what is stated inyour page of the current Mayor of the Municipality of Casiguran in Aurora Province, Philippines. Please change it from: REYNALDO T. BITONG to RICARDO A. BITONG.
I was just corrected by his office after getting this infor from your page.
Thank you and more power.
Lorena S. Lindo
utp@ezmaps.ph — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
111.125.99.42 (
talk)
02:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm working on improving the bio pages on current Cabinet members of Pakistan. But at times I cannot able to find third party reliable sources which can backup the material that I want to add to article. I found that some information available about each ministers on their relevant ministry's official website. I wonder if we can use the ministry source to support the material added into WP pages? For instance, here is bio of Ishaq Dar. -- Saqib ( talk) 23:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
As there is no separate article about identifying reliable sources in (ta.wikipedia) Tamil, I thought of raising this question here. There is an article about a University professor ( https://ta.wikipedia.org/s/3nvx) who is also a radio enthusiast. He created a DXers club and is publishing a newsletter in Tamil and in English for more than 10 years. He publishes them electronically. 1. http://dxersguide.blogspot.in/ - updated regularly since 2005 2. http://sarvadesavaanoli.blogspot.in/ - - updated regularly since 2005 All the entries are there for anyone to see. However, an editor has placed a dubious tag for the citations. The publication is published electronically only. Please clarify why the electronic publication cannot be shown as a citation. - Uksharma3 ( talk) 13:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
You can see in the article that he did his M.A., M.Phil and Ph.D all in radio/communication related subjects. His research paper for M.A. was on 'Foreign Tamil language Radio Broadcasts'. For M.Phil he did research on Community Radio. Finally for his Doctorate he did research on Green FM Community Radio in Dindigul.
He worked in the B.B.C. World Service. Then he worked in the Dept. of Visual Communication at Manonmaniam Sundaranar University in Tirunelvely, TN. Now he is Asst. Professor in the Dept. of Journalism and Communication at Madras University.
I edit primarily in historical articles and have from time to time come across examples of citations from sources that incidentally provide historical information more in the sense of background than as well-documented facts. Sometimes these can be from otherwise well-regarded sources. What I have in mind would be a passage in a scientific treatise giving the historical background to a modern discovery or a comment about a historical site that a travel writer for a respected newspaper mentioned in describing a particular tourist attraction. It seems that such incidental mentions should be treated with caution, even though they appear in otherwise reliable sources. Here are a few comments on this issue in discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard (there are more but a sampling should suffice):
This article does not directly address this issue, although the section that context matters seems an appropriate place to discuss it. I propose adding something to the effect that:
be added to the section on context. I'd like comments from editors working on this page before making the change. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 22:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
With no further comment, I've added the above version to the context section. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 19:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the edit in question is probably just a restating of
WP:WEIGHT, and especially Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
as well as Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
If, say, only one source says something specific about a topic, is it appropriate weight to include that factoid in an article about that topic? Probably not. --
Izno (
talk)
16:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Some key text on this page has bothered me for years.
Page starts: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources..." (OK, we all agree that's the policy.)
Definition of "reliable source": "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both."
Reading the latter sentence very carefully, a source can be reliable by having a reliable publication process. Having an expert author is an option but not a requirement. Therefore, if an academic publishing house publishes Mein Kampf (as one is doing right now), that edition of Mein Kampf is a reliable source!!
I'm sure that whoever wrote that section was just intending to explain that in Wikipedia talk the word "reliable" has various meanings. That is true, but this page should be about the meaning required by "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". Being "reliably published" is definitely not enough. Zero talk 03:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@
SteveMcCluskey: That's a good start, but I'd like to reveal a little secret: actually there is quite little fact-checking in academic publication (which I have decades of experience with, including as editor). Let's take the example of a research monograph published by a university press, which wikipedia will for sure judge to be "reliable". What usually happens is that the manuscript is sent to several subject experts who are asked whether the book should be published. I myself examined a manuscript quite recently in my area of expertise from a famous academic press and I was specifically told that I was not expected to check it, but only to advise the publisher whether it was well-written, satisfied a need in the literature, and would be well-received by the community (i.e. enough people would buy it, though those words were not used). Instead of the several months it would have taken to check all the facts in the book (which all reviewers would refuse), I was given two weeks. In addition to this, the publisher will assign an editorial assistant to go through the book and fix the grammar, advise on structure, etc, but that person is not an expert on the subject of the book. All of this means that the publication process by itself does not guarantee the reliability of the content. The reliability comes almost entirely from the expertise and care of the author, and that of the author's colleagues who have commented on drafts of the book at the author's (not publisher's) request.
Considering instead academic journals, there will be a bit more fact-checking going on, but, depending on the field, most facts are not checked. The peer-review process of a history journal does not involve anyone visiting an archive to check whether the documents cited by the author actually say what the author claims, nor does any reviewer for a chemistry journal repeat the experiment to see if the results are as claimed. The reviewer will just check if the description of the experiment suggests that it was carried out competently. Moreover, even if the reviewer does assert that a claimed fact is wrong, the author can refuse to accept it and the editor has the discretion to allow the author's version (commonplace). Of course, sometimes reviewers will notice clear errors that can be corrected, but mostly the peer-review system enhances reliability because the pooled brains of the authors, reviewers and editors is more likely to result in a good product than the author's brain alone. In summary, I don't have a good working suggestion in my mind yet but think it is more about expert oversight than about fact-checking.
Zero
talk
12:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
In occurs to me that the issue at hand with reliable sources is stated kinda upside down. Debates arise when someone declares a source to be non-reliable and hence must be disqualified as a reference. From this perspective the decision process is more straightforward:
a source is unreliable if any of the items below are true:
Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I understand that published "reliable" sources are required. However, what if the original publishers / companies have gone out-of-business? Knight-Ridder newspaper articles might be a large example of this. Reprints of articles from magazines or technical journals may be another example on smaller scale. What if the only web-available reprints of original articles are maintained and hosted by a company whose products those articles concern? I'm requesting public clarification of what Wikipedia officially considers to be 'reliable availability of published sources'. TubeGod ( talk) 16:23, 3 November 2016 (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 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
Proposed new bullet in the News organizations section:
* News organizations may report content that is unfavorable to a subject, or that a subject may wish to remain hidden, such as the results of investigative journalism. When a legitimate news organization targets a subject in a report, it does not in and of itself establish that the news organization is biased with regard to the subject, for purposes such as establishing bias sufficient to exclude the source or otherwise limit content drawn from the source, nor does it establish that the news organization is partisan, for purposes of excluding or limiting appropriate direct quotation or other relevant content drawn from the source
This minor clarification is an explicit statement of a widely understood editorial guideline. While our guideline currently clearly states that news organizations may have opinions, some tend to see unfavorable news reports as demonstrating bias sufficient to prohibit including in our project content which furthers balance and neutrality. In talk page discussion it is not uncommon that content, considered by some editors as unflattering to the subject of the article, will be opposed for inclusion on the basis that the news organization publishing unflattering material demonstrates the bias of the news organization. Or a weakened paraphrase of a news report is suggested on the basis that the news organization report demonstrates the news organization is a partisan opponent of the subject. It is hoped these two sentences will clarify some not uncommon misreads of WP:IRS and so will promote collegiality at article talk pages. Thank you your support of this reasonable measured and helpful clarification of our project's guidelines for identifying reliable sources from news organizations. Hugh ( talk) 04:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Revised proposed new bullet point for the News organizations section:
* News organizations may report content that is unfavorable to a subject, or that a subject may wish to remain hidden, such as for example the results of investigative journalism. When a well-established news organization targets a subject in a report, regardless of whether the report is favorable or unfavorable, it does not in and of itself establish that the news organization is biased with regard to the subject, for purposes such as establishing bias sufficient to exclude the source or otherwise limit content drawn from the source, nor does it in and of itself establish that the news organization is partisan, for purposes of excluding or limiting appropriate direct quotation or other relevant content drawn from the source.
Comments? Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 19:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I've run into this issue before with articles on archaeology. In this case it's articles on List of Chinese inventions (and another one on Chinese discoveries) using some sources that are very old and at least one that a review says that some material made obsolete by later sources. It's the nature of fields like this that new research refutes older material at times. WP:RSMED says:
Keeping an article up-to-date, while maintaining the more-important goal of reliability is important. These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published.
There are exceptions to these rules of thumb:
What do people think? Doug Weller talk 16:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Since denialism comes up pretty often when dealing with scientific consensus (and a recurring problem when dealing with the two on Wikipedia), what do folks think about adding some clarification to the section? I'm considering adding the highlighted material:
The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material.
Editors should also avoid fringe theories that unduly cast doubt on statements of scientific consensus.Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must bereliablysourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.
It seems like people sometimes aren't aware of examples of tactics like in climate change denial where people try to claim there isn't a consensus even when sources directly say there is as mentioned in the current policy. In those cases, sources try to say there isn't a consensus because they can cite a paper or two that claims there isn't (often in an unreliable journal at best, groups sticking to claims not accepted by the wider scientific community, etc.), which is a misunderstanding that a scientific consensus does not imply unanimity. I'm hoping this addition acts as a good first step to head off some of these problems instead of needing a longer block of text describing how academic consensus works and is misinterpreted. We already deal with the weight aspect to a degree at the policy WP:PSCI, but since this section is usually the go-to policy for describing when we use this term, it seems prudent to briefly mention wariness on fringe ideas and how they are used in relation to consensus statements. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 03:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The place to ask about individual sources is the
reliable sources noticeboard; this talk page is only for the purpose of discussing how to improve this guideline. —
TransporterMan (
TALK)
22:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
| |||
---|---|---|---|
I am curious what other users, especially administrators, feel about the following sources. I have been trying to establish notability for the Austin Petersen presidential campaign, 2016 and I believe the sources I have provided are reliable independent sources, most especially on the topic of Petersen or the Libertarian Party in general. I believe the sources show more than enough notability to qualify for WP:GNG but some users are claiming the sources are not enough as they are not reliable. This is only a small list but I believe they are also disqualifying WP:NEXIST as there is a lot of local coverage (although often in the larger context of the Libertarian primary).
I was told by User:MelanieN -
I believe she may be asking for an overreaching amount of sources to show notability. As well she seems to be indicating that all the sources I listed should never be considered unreliable, something that this very talk page says is an incorrect statement. I appreciate any feedback. Acidskater ( talk) 21:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC) |
When a source is clearly unreliable in large part... to what extent should it still be usable?
Talk:Cary_Grant#Higham.2FMoseley_Reviews has a discussion which appears to show a source has some major problems (NYT review in one of its milder statements says " The book's obsession with Grant's sexuality is more a reflection of the authors' keen perception of what sells books than of any allegiance to the dictates of ethical journalism." which appears to imply that the book does not comport with "ethical journalism." People magazine said " In this lurid book, the authors cruelly defame a man who can't defend himself and show disdain for his admirers' ability to distinguish honest biography from innuendo.")
I removed some material (some of which has been re-added using the same source, alas) and the editor Dr. Blofeld made a claim "The material mostly wasn't bad material though."
Is "the material is mostly not bad" or the like a sufficient reason to allow use of what might be a questionable (at best) source? This is not a personal issue I have with any editor, but a general question - when a source has such problematic reviews from sources most would consider reliable and authoritative, does the source still meet WP:RS for claims an editor thinks are not "bad material"? Collect ( talk) 15:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Will you please just drop it? The information was largely verifiable elsewhere and I mostly restored material and verified by different sources. Plus I removed any possibly contentious claims. I've said I'll try to replace the source as much as possible, what more do you want?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Well you know what the answer is going to be, technically no, we probably shouldn't use any source which is known to contain a mistruth or gross exaggeration. The High and Moseley book contains a lot of info though and I strongly doubt it's all made up. It's clearly very well researched when you read it, particularly early life. But they did what they did emphasizing the homosexuality and Flynn and Nazism etc for the sake of $$. And it was the dubious claims which were widely reported and criticized by a lot of critics. The entire book is not like that otherwise I'd not have used it. It is unfortunate that I began with that book as when it was ordered of course I wasn't aware of its reputation. Too late to go back now, I will try to replace what I can but the details particularly about his early stage career are highly valuable and undoubtedly not made up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, a lot of the information is verifiable from other sources, I've already replaced a good number, so it can't be all false! I just looked at the September 2015 article version before I edited it, do you think that superior?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Whilst fully agreeing that forums are almost always not reliable sources, they can be a great source of reliable sources. Should a note to this effect be added to this effect? Mjroots ( talk) 11:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Off topic; this page is only for discussing improvements to this guideline. Go to
RA to request an article. -
TransporterMan (
TALK)
17:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
Anandmurti Gurumaa is one such rare paragon of virtue and purity, an enlightened master. Moved by the pervasive plight of the masses, she has been bestowing upon people the greatest gift ever viz eradicating the root cause of all suffering. And she has been doing this relentlessly for over thirty years through innumerable discourses and meditation camps held in India and abroad. She is emphatically secular, declaring herself to be religion-less and bears no allegiance to any one particular religion. Everyone irrespective of their cultural and religious background and belief systems is welcomed. And yes, atheists are welcome too, for Gurumaa is a sound rationalist and never advocates unquestioning faith in anything or anyone. Her exhaustive know how of various paths of spirituality is indeed unparalleled. She has a comprehensive mastery and in-depth knowledge of ancient scriptures including the Upanishads, Bhagawad Gita and the Gurbani, to name but a few! She effortlessly expounds on the teachings of a myriad of sages from different parts of India and oversees. Essentially Gurumaa can adeptly guide any seeker, any aspirant, no matter which path he or she wants to follow. And herein lays the uniqueness of this splendid master. What’s more, the compassionate Philanthropist that she is, she spearheads a noble mission called Mission Shakti which is aimed at empowering girls and women. An awakened being, a rationalist, a visionary, that is Gurumaa, may mistakenly invoke an image of a person with an austere disposition. She must be categorized under- /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Biography/By_profession#Hinduism 1. (Times of India) Speaking tree [1] 2. The Hindu Newspaper [2] 3. The Hindu [3] 4. Amar Ujala Newspaper [4] 5. Wikiquote [5] 6. India Today Newspaper [6] 7. Times of India Newspaper posted articles of anandmurti gurumaa to their blog ’Speaking tree’ [7] 8. Times of India Newspaper posted articles of anandmurti gurumaa to their blog ’Speaking tree’ [8] 9. Tedx talk [9] 10. Karmapa [10] 11. Article in DNA Newspaper [11] 12. Article in DNA Newspaper [12] 13. Article in DNA Newspaper [13] 14. Article in DNA Newspaper [14] 15. Article in DNA Newspaper [15] 16. Karmapa [16] 17. Karmapa [17] 18. Karmapa [18] 19. Life positive [19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.243.253.202 ( talk) 13:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC) References
|
What do we do about the fact that for many technical topics, online forums populated by experts are frequently useful (sometimes exclusive) sources of information, and may even be the means by which various bits of "official" information are disseminated? UGC is heavily relied on, both in the form of user support forums, and community documentation wikis, at articles like Ubuntu (operating system). This should probably be accounted for in some way here. All it takes is one over-literal interpreter of what is presently written in this guideline go on an inline tagging rampage, or even do massive deletion damage in a large number of OS, application software, video game, and computing hardware articles.
Another related circumstance to cover is when something like a formal press release is reposted in an online forum; sometimes the only immediately accessible copy of something is from such a posting. Per the
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT policy, it is necessary to properly identify such a source, e.g. with the |via=name of forum here
parameter of the citation templates, while crediting it to the original author (if specified) and original publisher/issuer, not the forum poster, and using original date of publication/release identified in the content, not the forum-posting date. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
01:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I would question, in the former paragraph, whether the right WP:WEIGHT is being assigned to those topics, if the only sources which can be found are online forums and wikis.
Regards the latter, such sources are usually marked as official, and I would treat them as WP:SPS. But you should still be able to identify a better source either commenting on the press release or at least carrying the press release itself. -- Izno ( talk) 11:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on sourcing examples in "in popular culture" articles and sections. BrightRoundCircle ( talk) 13:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Can instagram be considered a reliable source? For example, a dancer is on tour with Rihanna. Could I add the dancer's name and use the instagram of the dancer as reference. The instagram page would have this information on their page along with pics of them dancing with Rihanna? Thanks for your response. 174.88.109.154 ( talk) 04:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Off topic here, but editor has also posted to appropriate article talk page. —
TransporterMan (
TALK)
17:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
"Theri" Tamil Movie crossed 175crores in Box office collection. Referencehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theri_(film) Kasim999 ( talk) 13:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC) |
This issue stemmed from this reply of mine on this discussion. I can find several sources that generally qualify as reliable sources, all of which indirectly contradict other, better reliable sources. Since the contradiction is indirect, disqualifying these sources is WP:SYNTH. A solution has been suggested through WP:ONUS, but the article in question is a list article, which means there are dozens of potential list items, and each of them will have to be discussed, and the discussion will just be an indirect way to use synthesis and original research.
What I'm asking is, is there a way to contest the use of reliable sources that only indirectly contradict better reliable sources? BrightRoundCircle ( talk) 21:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The template {{ Better source}} exists (it has a reason field: {{Better source|reason=|date=July 2016}}). I've occasionally use it for cites of refs which:
Is this OK? The template documentation does not give an entirely clear answer. My opinion is that it's almost always better to have something than just a {{ citation needed}} tag, because the {{ Better source}} template (which generates the legend [better source needed] after the cite) alerts the reader that it's a poor source, and also alerts editors to the need to look for ref upgrade if they're so inclined.
I ask because another editor removed some tagged unreliable sources from an article, and maybe he's right. So how far does {{ Better source}} allow us to turn to the dark side? Newspapers not known to have rigorous fact-checking operations? The National Enquirer? Blogs? Wikis? Forum posts? Unpublished letters? Underwear labels? WP:GUYINBAR? Or none of these? Herostratus ( talk) 15:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Is Wikia a reliable source? 142.160.89.57 ( talk) 04:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion now taking pace at the village pump that may be related to the subject of this policy/guideline page. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't find any mention of source code or documentation as reliable sources in the archives. They're clearly both self-published sources, and given that former is quite literally the subject and the latter is an explanation of the subject, my initial thought is to consider them as acceptable for use. But I thought I'd double check by asking here.
For context, I'm working on User:Σ/Testing facility/Protoss and I've cited a specific revision of the Mercurial repository for Python (ref 13), because it lists the out-of-the-box commands for distutils. I plan to send it over to DYK (I'm quite rusty in my article-writing at this point!) soon, so could anyone offer any tips? → Σ σ ς. ( Sigma) 10:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, as a general question, source code isn't necessarily self-published; the O'Reilly books being the most common cases. But in this case, it is.
I think what I'll do is, when I submit it to DYK I'll make a note for the reviewers to see if it meets their standards there. Thank you for your time, → Σ σ ς. ( Sigma) 03:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Not unexpectedly, my edit to state that internet forums can be a useful source of reliable sources was reverted by Sławomir Biały with the comment that it was "obvious". This might be well-known by experienced editors, but I don't think it is "obvious". Is there a better way to phrase this and include it, or should it stay off the page? Mjroots ( talk) 19:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Reliable Sources Noticeboard is
thataway and Dispute Resolution is
thataway. This page is for improving this guideline. —
TransporterMan (
TALK)
20:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
I would appreciate input on a discussion at Talk:Blink of an Eye (Tori Kelly song). One editor says PopCrush is not reliable. The other says it's the author, not the website, to whom reliability applies. Thanks in advance. — ATS 🖖 Talk 18:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC) |
Is Wordpress.com a relaible source? 206.45.9.182 ( talk) 23:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
One of the things that came out of a recent deletion discussion was the fact that the RS guidelines are unclear as to when things that appear in well established news organizations are not reliable, specifically Lifestyle Section reporting. In this case, the subject had been on almost a half dozen morning news shows like Good Morning America (on three continents) and had features with ABC News and Inside Edition, in addition to print features in Vogue Magazine, Marie Claire, and many others. And consensus was that the article should be deleted. One of the editors that voted to delete agreed that the guidelines were unclear, and I myself believe that there should never be "unwritten rules" or guidelines, as that also promotes confusion. So I'd like to open a discussion as it how WP:RS can be improved so that it is clear that it doesn't matter if it is the NYT, the WSJ, or Forbes, if it is a Lifestyle feature, reliability is a) nonexistent, b) questionable, or c) not assumed just because of the news organization (and a, b, or c is precisely what we should discuss. I'm leaning towards c). There should also be a set of concrete criteria to determine whether or not a source is reliable. The current guideline (a particular paragraph of WP:NEWSORG that comes closest to dealing with this) reads:
Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news).
So at this point I'd like to open the floor to others to get their take on how we should go about improving WP:RS so that guidelines are crystal clear and match established practice. I'm Tony Ahn ( talk) 07:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I realize that I can't cite a Wikipedia article directly as a source in some other Wikipedia article. Also, it's a bad idea to cite some document as a source in a Wikipedia article, when the person who wrote that document based it entirely on a Wikipedia article (see Wikipedia:Citogenesis).
Is it forbidden to cite some document as a source in a Wikipedia article if that document lists a Wikipedia article as one of its sources, no matter how many other sources that document may have or how reliable that source may otherwise be? Should I unconditionally delete on sight any references in a Wikipedia article that refer to some document that itself uses Wikipedia even once as a reference? -- DavidCary ( talk) 21:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I thought I'd open a discussion about Heat Street since there's been quite a lengthy debate about it here. The site is basically a news, opinion and commentary website belonging to the Murdoch stable and founded in April 2016 by former British Conservative MP Louise Mensch. A user wishes to reference an opinion piece from the site as part of Traingate, but has been advised this would not be appropriate. My own thoughts on Heat Street are that it hasn't been around long enough to establish a reputation. As I understand it, a website such as this one would build up a reputation as en encyclopedic source by being referenced by other reliable sources, which does not seem to be the case so far. I believe a similar stance was once taken with the Huffington Post, although that seems to have changed over time as it has entered the mainstream media. Given the tone of the discussion at Talk:Traingate about this source, I thought it would be sensible to mention it here. Any thoughts on this topic? This is Paul ( talk) 13:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I would like to ask, if Video Documentation such as [copyvio link of a C-Span video redacted] is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia ? & if it is not considered reliable, then why ? -- Ne0 ( talk) 20:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Is heritage-india.com (a commercial book site) a reliable source? I found a newly created page Ranadeep Bhattacharyya which cited a number of sources from this website so I want to check if we can accept it as reliable or not before going for a cleanup also the article says Ranadeep also regularly writes on heritage and culture for Heritage India Magazine, isn't it pointing to WP:RSSELF. Thank you – GSS ( talk) 10:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Some time ago there was an RFC about whether it was appropriate to import claims from Wikidata to Wikipedia articles. Does anyone remember where that RFC was? Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedia,
Just to correct what is stated inyour page of the current Mayor of the Municipality of Casiguran in Aurora Province, Philippines. Please change it from: REYNALDO T. BITONG to RICARDO A. BITONG.
I was just corrected by his office after getting this infor from your page.
Thank you and more power.
Lorena S. Lindo
utp@ezmaps.ph — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
111.125.99.42 (
talk)
02:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm working on improving the bio pages on current Cabinet members of Pakistan. But at times I cannot able to find third party reliable sources which can backup the material that I want to add to article. I found that some information available about each ministers on their relevant ministry's official website. I wonder if we can use the ministry source to support the material added into WP pages? For instance, here is bio of Ishaq Dar. -- Saqib ( talk) 23:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
As there is no separate article about identifying reliable sources in (ta.wikipedia) Tamil, I thought of raising this question here. There is an article about a University professor ( https://ta.wikipedia.org/s/3nvx) who is also a radio enthusiast. He created a DXers club and is publishing a newsletter in Tamil and in English for more than 10 years. He publishes them electronically. 1. http://dxersguide.blogspot.in/ - updated regularly since 2005 2. http://sarvadesavaanoli.blogspot.in/ - - updated regularly since 2005 All the entries are there for anyone to see. However, an editor has placed a dubious tag for the citations. The publication is published electronically only. Please clarify why the electronic publication cannot be shown as a citation. - Uksharma3 ( talk) 13:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
You can see in the article that he did his M.A., M.Phil and Ph.D all in radio/communication related subjects. His research paper for M.A. was on 'Foreign Tamil language Radio Broadcasts'. For M.Phil he did research on Community Radio. Finally for his Doctorate he did research on Green FM Community Radio in Dindigul.
He worked in the B.B.C. World Service. Then he worked in the Dept. of Visual Communication at Manonmaniam Sundaranar University in Tirunelvely, TN. Now he is Asst. Professor in the Dept. of Journalism and Communication at Madras University.
I edit primarily in historical articles and have from time to time come across examples of citations from sources that incidentally provide historical information more in the sense of background than as well-documented facts. Sometimes these can be from otherwise well-regarded sources. What I have in mind would be a passage in a scientific treatise giving the historical background to a modern discovery or a comment about a historical site that a travel writer for a respected newspaper mentioned in describing a particular tourist attraction. It seems that such incidental mentions should be treated with caution, even though they appear in otherwise reliable sources. Here are a few comments on this issue in discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard (there are more but a sampling should suffice):
This article does not directly address this issue, although the section that context matters seems an appropriate place to discuss it. I propose adding something to the effect that:
be added to the section on context. I'd like comments from editors working on this page before making the change. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 22:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
With no further comment, I've added the above version to the context section. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 19:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the edit in question is probably just a restating of
WP:WEIGHT, and especially Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
as well as Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
If, say, only one source says something specific about a topic, is it appropriate weight to include that factoid in an article about that topic? Probably not. --
Izno (
talk)
16:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Some key text on this page has bothered me for years.
Page starts: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources..." (OK, we all agree that's the policy.)
Definition of "reliable source": "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both."
Reading the latter sentence very carefully, a source can be reliable by having a reliable publication process. Having an expert author is an option but not a requirement. Therefore, if an academic publishing house publishes Mein Kampf (as one is doing right now), that edition of Mein Kampf is a reliable source!!
I'm sure that whoever wrote that section was just intending to explain that in Wikipedia talk the word "reliable" has various meanings. That is true, but this page should be about the meaning required by "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". Being "reliably published" is definitely not enough. Zero talk 03:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@
SteveMcCluskey: That's a good start, but I'd like to reveal a little secret: actually there is quite little fact-checking in academic publication (which I have decades of experience with, including as editor). Let's take the example of a research monograph published by a university press, which wikipedia will for sure judge to be "reliable". What usually happens is that the manuscript is sent to several subject experts who are asked whether the book should be published. I myself examined a manuscript quite recently in my area of expertise from a famous academic press and I was specifically told that I was not expected to check it, but only to advise the publisher whether it was well-written, satisfied a need in the literature, and would be well-received by the community (i.e. enough people would buy it, though those words were not used). Instead of the several months it would have taken to check all the facts in the book (which all reviewers would refuse), I was given two weeks. In addition to this, the publisher will assign an editorial assistant to go through the book and fix the grammar, advise on structure, etc, but that person is not an expert on the subject of the book. All of this means that the publication process by itself does not guarantee the reliability of the content. The reliability comes almost entirely from the expertise and care of the author, and that of the author's colleagues who have commented on drafts of the book at the author's (not publisher's) request.
Considering instead academic journals, there will be a bit more fact-checking going on, but, depending on the field, most facts are not checked. The peer-review process of a history journal does not involve anyone visiting an archive to check whether the documents cited by the author actually say what the author claims, nor does any reviewer for a chemistry journal repeat the experiment to see if the results are as claimed. The reviewer will just check if the description of the experiment suggests that it was carried out competently. Moreover, even if the reviewer does assert that a claimed fact is wrong, the author can refuse to accept it and the editor has the discretion to allow the author's version (commonplace). Of course, sometimes reviewers will notice clear errors that can be corrected, but mostly the peer-review system enhances reliability because the pooled brains of the authors, reviewers and editors is more likely to result in a good product than the author's brain alone. In summary, I don't have a good working suggestion in my mind yet but think it is more about expert oversight than about fact-checking.
Zero
talk
12:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
In occurs to me that the issue at hand with reliable sources is stated kinda upside down. Debates arise when someone declares a source to be non-reliable and hence must be disqualified as a reference. From this perspective the decision process is more straightforward:
a source is unreliable if any of the items below are true:
Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I understand that published "reliable" sources are required. However, what if the original publishers / companies have gone out-of-business? Knight-Ridder newspaper articles might be a large example of this. Reprints of articles from magazines or technical journals may be another example on smaller scale. What if the only web-available reprints of original articles are maintained and hosted by a company whose products those articles concern? I'm requesting public clarification of what Wikipedia officially considers to be 'reliable availability of published sources'. TubeGod ( talk) 16:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)