![]() |
Essays Low‑impact ![]() | |||||||||
|
I have tried to make this stick as closely as possible to policy and to common practice, but I'm not perfect. This essay could do with checking over by other experienced editors to make sure that it accurately reflects community practices. This is especially the case in the notability section, as I think there is a grey area there with respect to the notability guidelines. If you see any errors, or any better ways to word things, then please edit it! Of course, you are welcome to expand it too. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the basic premiss of this section, "the golden rule is that any statements made by the interviewee are primary-source material" is often wrong. Some interviews are like that; David Frost interviewed Richard Nixon mainly to get Richard Nixon's position on the record; most of those interviews would be primary sources. But in interviews to gather information about some story, where the story is not about the interviewee, we can expect a capable journalist or publication to have a substantial number of sources they could interview, and only interview the most knowledgeable or well-positioned sources. After the interviews, we can expect the reliable publication to only include the most useful and plausible sources. So if the reliable source is a secondary source, the points made in it come from a secondary source, whether the point is made in the words of the author, or in the words of an interviewee. But any segments that are qualified, such as "this video was supplied by the Turquoise Militia and XYZ News cannot verify its contents" would be primary sources. Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I just saw this policy being referenced and realized that it had just been written. I read it over and I see it being discussed here. I wanted to comment that I feel it is good enough and that it should work in most cases as it is. Thanks for this Mr. Stradivarius. I look forward to watching this be developed over time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Mr. Stradivarius: - I actually was going to start a discussion on WP:RS about this very subject, though I had another thought on this which isn't really addressed: interviews which are not clearly presented as such in the source material.
This is a big problem in many cases, where an article is fundamentally interviewing someone, but it isn't written like an ask-and-response thing, but written in a different format. These are still primary sources, because the material is all being sourced from the person in question, but the article does not present it in the usual interviewing format, and it is very easy for people to think that they are reporting on something when all the material is coming from the interview.
Where do we draw the line? Titanium Dragon ( talk) 00:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious about the Notability section. I don't necessarily think it's wrong, I'm just not sure how much it reflects opinions across the project. In video game-related deletion discussions—the AfDs I'm most familiar with—it seems like more of a 50/50 or even 60/40 split, with the (slight) majority believing that interviews don't count towards notability, or at least they don't count very much. Of course, perhaps that's just my own confirmation bias, or maybe just a trend within video games. Woodroar ( talk) 09:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I noticed this particular essay references who the interviewer is, ie are they a respected journalist? What if a Wikipedian manages to wrangle an interview with a celebrity or a notable expert in the field himself? Do interviews conducted by individual editors count as credible sources, as opposed to original research? If credibility is an issue, rather than taking the editor's word for it, Wikipedia can request transcripts or a digital recording of the interview in question to complete the cite and prove what was said.
This would particularly helpful when referencing articles on relatively obscure or technical fields with interviews we conduct via notable persons - particularly if there isn't much in the way of published material about the topic.
Thanks, -- Katangais ( talk) 14:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The decision by a reliable, independent newspaper or magazine to feature a substantial interview with an individual does carry weight for the notability of that individual. If many reliable sources feature interviews with them, that is an unassailable argument for notability, even if none of those reliable sources printed a single word of analysis or criticism. The fact that these reliable sources have made the decision to run those interview means that they consider the topic to be notable, and their decision creates an assumption of notability here too.
Uncritical interview sections should indeed be treated as primary sources for verifiability purposes, but for notability, a reliable independent source is still a reliable independent source unless some very exceptional circumstances apply (for example, the New York Times interviewing Arthur Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times).
I see that this argument is dismissed above as being "commonly offered by editors who are new to Wikipedia." However, it is also the current project-wide consensus on this topic, and it is supported by the general notability guideline.
Thparkth ( talk) 13:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.If the source is the subject talking about himself, I don't know you how you argue that's independent. It could certainly be used to support notability of other independent subjects the interviewee talks about but not the interviewee himself or herself. If you still disagree, it would be helpful if you could cite not just GNG but the specific language in GNG you rely on and your reasoning. Msnicki ( talk) 15:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
A bit late to the party, but I do find the OP User:Thparkth's argument convincing, for what are my two cents worth few months later :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#We_really_need_a_sentence.2Fparagraph.2Fsection_on_interviews. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Some questions about interviews:
-- Prisencolin ( talk) 03:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
if independent sources have taken note of the subject, and more a measure of have sufficient independent sources sufficiently (& independently) documented the subject. Interviews add to the former, they do not necessarily add to the latter. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Looking at this essay, I don't think doesn't capture the intent of WP:N nor does it reach a point that has consensus. In general the point of WP:N is that we are looking for topics that have "...gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large... . And it notes "we consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention." I believe that if the NYT publishes an interview with a person, that person has clearly gained attention by the world at large. I think that the primary-source argument used for discounting those sources as not counting toward WP:N makes no sense. And, looking at the discussion above, I think that a number of people agree with me.
I'd like to see if we can't agree that interviews in independent reliable sources should, in general, count toward WP:N. Obviously the quality of publication etc. would matter, just as it does for non-interviews. Pinging everyone involved in discussions above (feel free to add someone if you find I missed anyone): @ Msnicki:, @ Prisencolin:, @ Piotrus:, @ 009o9:, @ Woodroar:, @ Thparkth:, @ Katangais: @ WhatamIdoing: @ Guy1890:, @ Hostgeeky:, @ Blueboar:, {{ping|Jc3s5h}, @ Mr. Stradivarius:,@ Titanium Dragon:, @ Blue Rasberry: Hobit ( talk) 22:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Isn't it broadly true that any time an interview in a WP:RS publication addresses the interview subject and their work, rather than Punditry, contributed to the Notability of the subject? It seems to me that if they are about the subject they are evidence of notability whether or not they are Reliable or admissible concerning the facts presented in the interview. I would even argue that interviews in reliable source publications are of equal standing for Notability (though not for anything else) to secondary coverage about the subject. (Just another data point.) Newimpartial ( talk) 15:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This request for comment on the Wikipedia:Interviews essay asks editors five questions:
— Newslinger talk 01:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Two now-banned paid editors,KDS4444 and 009o9, edited this essay to promote the view of interviews as independent and reliable. You can see that in the history. The reason for this is obvious. Jytdog ( talk) 17:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Essays Low‑impact ![]() | |||||||||
|
I have tried to make this stick as closely as possible to policy and to common practice, but I'm not perfect. This essay could do with checking over by other experienced editors to make sure that it accurately reflects community practices. This is especially the case in the notability section, as I think there is a grey area there with respect to the notability guidelines. If you see any errors, or any better ways to word things, then please edit it! Of course, you are welcome to expand it too. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the basic premiss of this section, "the golden rule is that any statements made by the interviewee are primary-source material" is often wrong. Some interviews are like that; David Frost interviewed Richard Nixon mainly to get Richard Nixon's position on the record; most of those interviews would be primary sources. But in interviews to gather information about some story, where the story is not about the interviewee, we can expect a capable journalist or publication to have a substantial number of sources they could interview, and only interview the most knowledgeable or well-positioned sources. After the interviews, we can expect the reliable publication to only include the most useful and plausible sources. So if the reliable source is a secondary source, the points made in it come from a secondary source, whether the point is made in the words of the author, or in the words of an interviewee. But any segments that are qualified, such as "this video was supplied by the Turquoise Militia and XYZ News cannot verify its contents" would be primary sources. Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I just saw this policy being referenced and realized that it had just been written. I read it over and I see it being discussed here. I wanted to comment that I feel it is good enough and that it should work in most cases as it is. Thanks for this Mr. Stradivarius. I look forward to watching this be developed over time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Mr. Stradivarius: - I actually was going to start a discussion on WP:RS about this very subject, though I had another thought on this which isn't really addressed: interviews which are not clearly presented as such in the source material.
This is a big problem in many cases, where an article is fundamentally interviewing someone, but it isn't written like an ask-and-response thing, but written in a different format. These are still primary sources, because the material is all being sourced from the person in question, but the article does not present it in the usual interviewing format, and it is very easy for people to think that they are reporting on something when all the material is coming from the interview.
Where do we draw the line? Titanium Dragon ( talk) 00:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious about the Notability section. I don't necessarily think it's wrong, I'm just not sure how much it reflects opinions across the project. In video game-related deletion discussions—the AfDs I'm most familiar with—it seems like more of a 50/50 or even 60/40 split, with the (slight) majority believing that interviews don't count towards notability, or at least they don't count very much. Of course, perhaps that's just my own confirmation bias, or maybe just a trend within video games. Woodroar ( talk) 09:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I noticed this particular essay references who the interviewer is, ie are they a respected journalist? What if a Wikipedian manages to wrangle an interview with a celebrity or a notable expert in the field himself? Do interviews conducted by individual editors count as credible sources, as opposed to original research? If credibility is an issue, rather than taking the editor's word for it, Wikipedia can request transcripts or a digital recording of the interview in question to complete the cite and prove what was said.
This would particularly helpful when referencing articles on relatively obscure or technical fields with interviews we conduct via notable persons - particularly if there isn't much in the way of published material about the topic.
Thanks, -- Katangais ( talk) 14:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The decision by a reliable, independent newspaper or magazine to feature a substantial interview with an individual does carry weight for the notability of that individual. If many reliable sources feature interviews with them, that is an unassailable argument for notability, even if none of those reliable sources printed a single word of analysis or criticism. The fact that these reliable sources have made the decision to run those interview means that they consider the topic to be notable, and their decision creates an assumption of notability here too.
Uncritical interview sections should indeed be treated as primary sources for verifiability purposes, but for notability, a reliable independent source is still a reliable independent source unless some very exceptional circumstances apply (for example, the New York Times interviewing Arthur Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times).
I see that this argument is dismissed above as being "commonly offered by editors who are new to Wikipedia." However, it is also the current project-wide consensus on this topic, and it is supported by the general notability guideline.
Thparkth ( talk) 13:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.If the source is the subject talking about himself, I don't know you how you argue that's independent. It could certainly be used to support notability of other independent subjects the interviewee talks about but not the interviewee himself or herself. If you still disagree, it would be helpful if you could cite not just GNG but the specific language in GNG you rely on and your reasoning. Msnicki ( talk) 15:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
A bit late to the party, but I do find the OP User:Thparkth's argument convincing, for what are my two cents worth few months later :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#We_really_need_a_sentence.2Fparagraph.2Fsection_on_interviews. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Some questions about interviews:
-- Prisencolin ( talk) 03:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
if independent sources have taken note of the subject, and more a measure of have sufficient independent sources sufficiently (& independently) documented the subject. Interviews add to the former, they do not necessarily add to the latter. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Looking at this essay, I don't think doesn't capture the intent of WP:N nor does it reach a point that has consensus. In general the point of WP:N is that we are looking for topics that have "...gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large... . And it notes "we consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention." I believe that if the NYT publishes an interview with a person, that person has clearly gained attention by the world at large. I think that the primary-source argument used for discounting those sources as not counting toward WP:N makes no sense. And, looking at the discussion above, I think that a number of people agree with me.
I'd like to see if we can't agree that interviews in independent reliable sources should, in general, count toward WP:N. Obviously the quality of publication etc. would matter, just as it does for non-interviews. Pinging everyone involved in discussions above (feel free to add someone if you find I missed anyone): @ Msnicki:, @ Prisencolin:, @ Piotrus:, @ 009o9:, @ Woodroar:, @ Thparkth:, @ Katangais: @ WhatamIdoing: @ Guy1890:, @ Hostgeeky:, @ Blueboar:, {{ping|Jc3s5h}, @ Mr. Stradivarius:,@ Titanium Dragon:, @ Blue Rasberry: Hobit ( talk) 22:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Isn't it broadly true that any time an interview in a WP:RS publication addresses the interview subject and their work, rather than Punditry, contributed to the Notability of the subject? It seems to me that if they are about the subject they are evidence of notability whether or not they are Reliable or admissible concerning the facts presented in the interview. I would even argue that interviews in reliable source publications are of equal standing for Notability (though not for anything else) to secondary coverage about the subject. (Just another data point.) Newimpartial ( talk) 15:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This request for comment on the Wikipedia:Interviews essay asks editors five questions:
— Newslinger talk 01:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Two now-banned paid editors,KDS4444 and 009o9, edited this essay to promote the view of interviews as independent and reliable. You can see that in the history. The reason for this is obvious. Jytdog ( talk) 17:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)