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 50 | ← | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 |
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.
Hi all, I'm new here and writing with background of journalistic studies. Mass media is commonly used as a reliable source in several Wikipedia article and referred as "a reliable source". I'd like to suggest adding the following into the definition of reliable sources:
When citing a medium as a reliable source, there should be an independent study or poll supporting the reliability of that medium. For example a poll showing more than 50% trust among the readers would support the reliability, and in the opposite less than 50% would support unreliability. This should not be taken as a requirement, as such information is not available for all the mediums, but for those who have it's a good rule of thumb when defining the reliability. This rule of thumb should not be used for defining a reliability of a single article published in any medium as any article might be reliable despite the trust on the medium in general. However, reliability of a medium shouldn't be founded solely on trust among readers as there are areas, times and circumstances where/when mediums are used for propaganda or for other purposes. Please also refer to other methods identifying reliable sources. The reliability of a single article should always be handled separately considering the concept, but more focus on reliability should be addressed especially when using articles in mediums having low public trust among their readers. When a reliability on a medium(s) plays important role in a Wikipedia article, and especially when using article(s) of medium(s) carrying low public trust, it's a good practice to reason the use of such medium and when possible, link readers to a recent study or poll on the reliability of the medium.
EDITS IN THE ABOVE SUGGESTION:
1. After comment by Hob Gadling, edited adding However, reliability of a medium shouldn't be founded solely on trust among readers as there are areas, times and circumstances where/when mediums are used for propaganda or for other purposes. Please also refer to other methods identifying reliable sources. Edit by 81.197.179.232 ( talk) 11:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
DISCUSSION:
I think the above suggestion requires a discussion in advance both on it's usefulness, topic and the content itself. My goal here is to ensure good practices when referring to mediums as a source. Thanks for any opinions. 81.197.179.232 ( talk) 13:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
English can be a confusing language... It took me a moment to realize that we were (once again) discussing news media, and not discussing the reliability of mediums. For a moment there, I thought the OP was asking us to search for polls to determine whether (for example) Theresa Caputo was more trusted than John Edward... or something like that. Blueboar ( talk) 12:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
How long time should we give for the discussion here before considering editing the page? (assuming the suggestion would benefit Wikipedia) 81.197.179.232 ( talk) 12:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Challenges to the closure should be taken to WP:AN (after contacting the closer, which has taken place), not WP:TO, per WP:CLOSE#Challenging other closures – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
For a case where a primary source x says “We conclude with y degree of certainty that z” where the primary source defines ‘y degree’ as being less than 100%, is a secondary source’ considered reliable when it specifically cites the primary source a statement of the form “<primary source x> concluded y” rather than qualifying that statement as the source did? Related: Are there degrees of reliability that pertain here? Humanengr ( talk) 00:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Is that what you are recommending? Humanengr ( talk) 12:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)"<Name of 1ary source> concluded that y did z.[cite to 2ary source] <Name of 1ary source> "concluded with high confidence that y did z.[cite to 1ary source]"
I should also add that in my experience on Wikipedia I've really only seen a few instances where a secondary, reliable, source really "got it wrong". 90 times out of a 100 it was the user who wanted to use primary rather than secondary, who either did not understand the primary source or was pretending not to understand it in order to push their POV. Out of the remaining 10% a good chunk just involved sources which used some ambiguous phrasing which could be easily misconstrued. The couple times where the source "got it wrong" it actually wasn't that hard to get consensus on talk not to use that particular source, or to write it in the way which makes it clear that something fishy is going on (for example, do it the way Zero0000 suggests).
Basically, if you think "source got it wrong" and others don't see it that way on the talk page, there's a pretty good chance that you're the one getting it wrong. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
"We conclude with y degree of certainty that z" is a typical way to state a conclusion in a scientific journal. "Jones concluded z" or even just "z" may be a typical way to state a conclusion in a source aimed at a popular audience, or when addressing a technical audience in a briefer format. So it comes down to whether the author of the secondary source has the qualifications to make the jump from "Jones concluded with y degree of certainty that z" to "Jones concluded z". If the secondary author is a scholar in the field, I'd consider it reliable unless there are other reliable sources contradicting the statement. If it's a general-interest reporter writing a newspaper article about a technical subject, I wouldn't be so sure the secondary source is reliable for the statement about z. Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Might be of interest: https://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/vast-literatures-as-mud-moats.html Nemo 19:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Discussion at: Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Encouraging_accessibility
Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange).
Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange).
That said, all else being equal, a source freely available to read online is preferable because more readers will be able to verify its claims. If two sources are equally suitable to verify a claim, accessibility is a reason to prefer one over the other.
Thoughts welcome. Ocaasi t | c 11:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
MilHist project is hosting a discussion on GA / FA articles that have been tagged as possibly having unreliable sources. The discussion can be found here:
Interested editors are invited to participate. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
We need some opinions on the following matter: Template talk:Refimprove#Or better. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Are there guidelines for when/how to characterize known partisan sources on politically-related articles? I have seen run into this circumstance several times and am usually met with hostility and lengthy unproductive debates when trying to add information and put sources into context. Here's an example that stands out to me, from James Comey: "His decisions have been regarded by a number of analysts, including Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, to have likely cost Clinton the election.[7][8][9]" The "number of analysts" is actually three avowed liberal blogs previously loyal to Hillary Clinton: 538 (mentioned), Vox (which cites 538), and Vanity Fair. As has been established, it's acceptable to use biased sources, but not to sway the tone of the article with these biased sources. So using this case as an example, what would be the preferred re-wording of this sentence? SInce I see no reason to single out Nate Silver, I removed his specific reference. Here a few options I came up with:
Without getting too deep into the weeds of what the best option is here (that discussion can be saved for that article's talk page), what would be the best M.O. for adding a frame of reference to sources to ensure that the reader isn't misled into believing that the source is independent and disinterested? Can we possibly create an article with a list of common sources and acceptable descriptors for political articles? I realize that such an article would create debate within itself, but this seems like a common enough problem that it would be worth the trouble. Hidden Tempo ( talk) 21:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
The Breaking news section lacks a good definition of "breaking news" and contains a problematic absolutist statement: "All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS."
I would change that sentence to: "Breaking news stories are sometimes primary sources and should be treated with caution per WP:PSTS."
And I suggest adding this sentence to the beginning of the section:
Breaking news is unedited or real-time reporting about an event as it is happening. Some examples are live video reports, online time-stamped short items that are continually updated, or social media posts. Completed news stories, while they may be updated or corrected later, are not automatically breaking news that should not be used in an article.
- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 21:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
When Nation A and A's media accuse Nation B of doing x but those accusations have not been proven in an international court, should WP, in citing A's media, report those accusations as 'fact' or as 'allegations'? E.g., should WP say "B did x" or "A alleges that B did x"? Humanengr ( talk) 03:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
What is it that you think editors are here to do? Evaluate evidence? No offense, but what you seem to be suggesting reads like WP:SYNTH. I could be reading into it a bit too much myself, but case in point, you see what I mean, I hope. DN ( talk) 05:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Just to provide another example (of which I'm currently indifferent on either way) is 2017 cyberattacks on Ukraine. Ukraine officials blame Russia, but while independent security experts do this some state-level agency may have been behind it, have not named Russia (though clearly would be at the top of the list). There we have not factually said Russia did it, but assigned whom has made that assertion. -- MASEM ( t) 12:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven, re 'Nations are generally not taken to court': agree, and until they are taken to court, allegations remain allegations, whatever the media says. Humanengr ( talk) 12:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't really understand why a YouTube video can't be reliable source. What would the difference be if someone made a video about something, then proceeded to write down all the things said in the video and published them as an article? Its the exact same content made by the original creator.
2601:18D:680:2B2C:ADA5:83C5:9437:95A5 ( talk) 00:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I've been periodically checking on this, looked through some archives, but no mods have explained why RT's news network is called "propaganda" while privately owned mass media with admitted biases are not referred to as such in their intro, i.e. Fox News. Propaganda as defined on Wikipedia: "biased info that promotes a political view." In its page intro, Fox News is referred to as "biased reporting" that promotes the "Republican view" and links to a Controversies section. I suggested changing the loaded term 'propaganda' on RT's page to a "biased reporting" link like Fox currently has, or more accurately, changing Fox News's page to the word 'propaganda' if going by definition. Climate change debate alone is justification enough to call Fox political propaganda; constant denialism is pushing a Big Oil agenda contrary to scientific consensus because Republicans get most of the petroleum lobbying money. Yet, different wording is used for RT. Fox News Broadcasting doesn't even including a mention of bias, neither does the NBC News page. All news sources are biased; I'm wondering why corporate-owned mainstream media is given the illusion of objectivity.
The RT intro says the network is "frequently referred to as propaganda" (clearly a negative term, alluding to Cold War-era communist rhetoric) to assert a narrative, quoting other (reliable) sources to feign neutrality. However, those same three sources - Columbia Journalism Review [1], CBS [2], and Der Spiegel [3] - have also referred to Fox News as propaganda, hence it appears Wikipedia is not being neutral by omitting that word from Fox's intro. Likewise, Al Jazeera is referred to as propaganda on its main page intro, yet Al Jazeera English (like RT America) is not referred to as such, even though it is owned and funded by the same network. Furthermore, Al Jazeera English and RT America are used as a source all over Wikipedia, so this seems inconsistent. Wikipedia RS guidelines states that bias and errors does not invalidate a RS, so why does RT and Al Jazeera's main pages cite the criticisms of them as propaganda from the get-go just because they are state run? CNN has no mention of bias in their intro, despite that they are known to have a neoliberal bias. [4] [5]
This looks bad on Wikipedia as a company. RT gives a platform to far-left and libertarian political figures silenced by American MSM, including dissident journalists with credibility such as Chris Hedges and Larry King. Wikipedia can't paint the network as a Putin mouthpiece when there are clearly independent reporters, at least on RT America; meanwhile, Phil Donahue has been open that he was fired for his anti-war stance on the so called left-leaning MSNBC. [6] [7] Yet, Wiki-guidelines specifically mentions that Russia's low press freedom is the reason to question their reliability - are Comcast employees any more free? Oligarchy-approved cable news rather than the state is not freedom - at least not for the political left and other liberal media critics like Glenn Greenwald and Cenk Uyger, who left MSNBC for that very reason - "establishment bias" [8].
So three things - why are the same 3 sources' use of the term 'propaganda' not applied to a corporate network with equally dubious credibility? Why are the English-speaking subsidiaries treated differently than their parent network? Finally, why is it legitimate to dismiss an entire source (RT, Al Jazeera) because of its ownership/funding by an oppressive state when there is a clear COI in all privately owned corporate media (who inherently have their own financial interests paramount as is required of corporations by law)? Talk pages tend to devolve into when the admins have cognitive dissonance about their trust in "reliable sources" (corporations whose reliability is based on age and brand recognition more than veracity) versus the reality of US media post 1996 Telecommunications Act. Verifiable evidence suggests that Time Warner, Comcast, etc. have a biased, pro-war agenda. Wikipedia itself details this extensively on isolated pages, but not in CNN's intro.
I think Wikipedia needs to address its idea of what is and isn't biased; and separately, what is and isn't a "reliable source." When I tried to cite Telesur in the horribly biased Jill Stein article during the election, a mod said it wasn't a RS, nor is RT. Yet, Telesur's Wikipage doesn't call it propaganda in the intro, despite the fact that it is funded by states as bad or worse than Russia/Qatar in the Press Freedom Index (Venezuela & Cuba). If Wikipedia feels the need to whitewash corporate media while demonizing state run media that presents opposing views like the Green Party, they are participating in propaganda themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.206.251 ( talk) 00:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Hi, can anyone please check whether this source be considered as a reliable source? Though the publisher is a reliable one but the author claims himself to be professional heritage photographer who is writing about a historical monument. RRD ( talk) 14:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Footnote 8, http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/11/fake-facebook-news-sites-to-avoid.html, goes to a single site, which gives a single source, a list of sites reviewed and classified by what seems to be a single person. Is it desirable to give a single repository of what one person thinks is a proper news source or not the power to decide such things? - HKEY LOCAL MACHINE\Security ( talk) 08:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
— Amakuru ( talk) 10:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
See WP:RSN#Potentially serious issue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I assume medical sources or MEDRS compliant reviews are reliable for non-medical claims. I could not find where WP:RS mentions using medical sources for non-medical claims. QuackGuru ( talk) 23:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
This is not about getting into specifics. See WP:MEDORG: "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources." Something simple like that will work. Getting into specifics is a case-by-case basis. To have any useful discussion we must not get into specifics because we are not going to add specifics to this page. Questions such as what article, what source or what claim are all irrelevant to improving this page. There is no blanket answer is also irrelevant. What is relevant? Adding a simple sentence that it is possible that they may be reliable for non-medical claims. The key part is that they "may" be reliable. We are not going to say they are always reliable or that they are never reliable for non-medical claims. We don't need specific details to improve this page. I added "Material that fails verification may also be replaced with content that passes verification." [2] But editors objected because they believe policy should not explicitly allow the possibility of replacing FV content with content that passes verification even when that should be the norm. If editors literally follow policy failed verification content should be tagged and/or deleted. See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Problem_with_wording. Before Identifying reliable sources did not address this issue. For now I added "Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself. This means a medical source may be reliable for non-medical claims." [3] QuackGuru ( talk) 14:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't see why we want a statement about support for non-medical claims in a subsection about medical claims. The section "Context matters" is a generalized section that deals with this in a broader sense. A MEDRS-compliant source may or may not be a good source for a medical claim. That's a more specific instance of the general statement "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."
Maybe all we need to do is give some examples under WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. TJRC ( talk) 16:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
A MEDRS compliant source may be useful for non-medical content. [4] One sentence should be enough. We don't need to get into specifics. QuackGuru ( talk) 15:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
A MEDRS-compliant source is not inherently unreliable for non-medical content.?
A MEDRS-compliant source is neither inherently reliable or unreliable for non-medical content.I'd still oppose it as unnecessary even in that form, but it would improve it further. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
156.215.228.72 (
talk)
19:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello English Wikipedians! In the content of the article, differences in interpretation of the original version (English version) appeared in the part translated into Japanese. So, it is a question to those using native English.
Although this sentence "there is no reasonable doubt about authenticity", Is this interpretation meaning that "Where the responsibility is clearly stated to be the author itself" ? or, "There is no reasonable doubt about the contents described" ? or both? The difference in interpretation is manifested in the word "authenticity", Opinions are divided on whether this word points to the source or whether it points to the truth of the article.
Thank you for your cooperation. -- 禮旺 ( talk) 12:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The section WP:NEWSORG talks in terms of whether opinions can be "reliable" as per WP:RS analysis. I submit that the term "reliable" is misplaced in this context. Rather, we should consider whether the opinions themselves, published in reliable sources, are WP:NOTEWORTHY. With this in mind, I suggest changing the first sentences in the first bullet point to read:
"When taking factual information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. Likewise, the opinions of such specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be noteworthy and may be used to reflect a significant viewpoint."
The suggested changes are underlined. Present text reads: "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." Comments? – S. Rich ( talk) 03:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Ronz: I'm unclear on how NOTNEWS and UNDUE would apply to the wording I've suggested. Can you clarify or give a suggestion. @ The Four Deuces: I am not saying all viewpoints by experts should be included. In many cases the differences between experts might be difficult to parse in a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE encyclopedia. (But such efforts are part of the challenge of good editing.) The first step in the editing process is determining whether the material comes from RS. Then we should consider the NOTEWORTHYness; e.g., whether the view/opinion is significant. The proposed changes allows for such NOTEWORTHYness instead of asking whether their opinions, per se, are "reliable". – S. Rich ( talk) 04:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events...-- Ronz ( talk) 14:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
"When taking factual information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. Likewise, the opinions of
suchspecialists, notable persons, and recognized experts are more likely to be noteworthy and may be used to reflect a significant viewpoint. In every case editors should consider WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS in their evaluations."
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed clarification of reviews' relation to WP:PSTS and MOS:TONE. This is a request for comments in the general sense, but not a WP:RFC at this stage, being an initial discussion draft (broadened to cover writing about fiction generally), building on a lengthy discussion/dispute at the same page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I typed a lot of text here, but have decided to replace it with these two questions:
If a point of view is found only in sources that are only reliable for their own opinion, under what circumstances would we want to include it?
If someone argues to include a particular source/opinion "because WP:BIASED says that biased sources can be reliable sources for their own opinion", what wikipolicy do you point to in response? (and I mean "you" in the literal sense, not as in me or as in "one")
The point: It seems like the section could use a little hedging. There should be a reason beyond existence and editors' opinions on what is "important" to include a source that is only reliable for its own opinion. Maybe it's when that opinion is already reflected in other sources? Maybe just having a qualifier articulating that, although bias doesn't mean a source is unreliable, sources that are only reliable for their own opinion have limited uses on Wikipedia?
There is no specific ongoing issue that led me to open this thread, and I feel like a concrete example would overly complicate things, so I'll leave it at that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Please see this sprawling discussion, in which an alarmingly large number of people are convinced that primary-source opinion pieces in the form of film (and book, etc.) reviews are secondary sources within WP's meaning because they're reviews of other works (i.e. that the work that is the subject of WP's article is the primary source, and that individual opinion magically transubstantiates into secondary sourcing because it's about a work instead of about, say, a mineral or a person). A secondary mistaken argument is that it must be secondary because it's in a newspaper/newssite, and this makes it secondary because everything in a news-focused publication is magically secondary. This is total bollocks, but they're actually trying to change an important site-wide guideline to reflect this nonsense. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Anyone have any experience/opinion on how reliable transit statistics from Moovit are? I feel like because not everyone in a region would be using their app, their numbers can't be properly representative of what's going on. — Joeyconnick ( talk) 18:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Don't know if this is the best venue to point this out, and my apologies if this is not news to anyone here, but a couple of days ago the New York Times published an article, "Many Academics Are Eager to Publish in Worthless Journals", discussing a highly worrisome trend in academic publishing which should be of concern to anyone trying to judge the quality of sources. (Wikipedia doesn't come up in the article—I made the connection to our concerns myself.) I think it's definitely worth a read. -- Colin Douglas Howell ( talk) 00:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I've raised this at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Predatory publishers, fake conferences and academics who find them a way to succeed. To make it easier, here's what I posted there. I hope interested editors will respond there.
At World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (WASET] an attempt by an editor to speedy delete it, then an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (2nd nomination) and discussions raised at RSN and NPOVN spurred me and other editors to look for current sources. Some of these sources discuss OMICS and Allied Academies, recently acquired by OMICS along with Future Medicine.
These have sparked a number of articles in the mainstream media and complaints by academics, while at the same time some academics are cooperating.
A study reported in the Japan Times [8] by James McCrostie looks at fake conferences in Japan. McCrostie discusses submitting fake papers generated by SCIgen to fake conferences all of which were accepted. It also discusses both the cost to attendees for these conferences (which are cheap to run) and the damage that can be done to reputations.
The New York Times published an article last month [9] called "Many Academics Are Eager to Publish in Worthless Journals". It also discusses aspects of predatory journals such as using names almost identical to prestigious ones, the fact that many or most don't have paper publications or do serious reviews, etc. And the fact that publishing in them is a way for academics to get promoted. "Many faculty members — especially at schools where the teaching load is heavy and resources few — have become eager participants in what experts call academic fraud that wastes taxpayer money, chips away at scientific credibility, and muddies important research." Senior academics publish in them -- 200 McGill University professsors, for instance. [10]
They also run fake conferences where by paying a hefty fee an academic can be listed as a presenter even if they don't attend. It's also easy to become an editor of a fake journal. A fictional academic with ludicrous credentials applied to 360 open-access journals asking to become an editor, with 48 accepting her, 4 making her editor-in-chief. [11] [12] See also this article.
There are now more predatory conferences than scholarly ones. [13] Many of these are run by Waset: "research into Waset, which is registered in the United Arab Emirates, shows that it will hold some 183 events in 2018, although these will cover almost 60,000 individual “conferences” – averaging 320 at each event. Conferences are scheduled almost every day up until the end of 2030." These take place in small rooms with multiple conferences held in each room but few attendees, although many will have paid a large sum to attend.
An article last month in Die Zeit [14] says the ownership of WASET is unknown, and "website of Waset does not give an address anywhere. Interested parties can only fill out an anonymous form or send an SMS - with the United Arab Emirates dialing code." "The purpose of a waset conference is to extend the CV by a conference as well as a contribution in a scientific journal. Because every lecture is published in an online publication, which is also published by Waset. Over 40,000 articles are said to have come together since 1999, according to the website."
There are more sources of course, I could go on and on. And warnings from academics. [15] [16] [17] [18]
This raises serious issues from Wikipedia. The obvious one is that it is now very difficult for most editors to distinguish between reputable journals and predatory ones, especially when the contributor seems "normal". My other issue is whether Wikipedia or the WMF has a role to play in the fight against these. Maybe we don't, I'd like to think there is something we can do. We do have Predatory open access publishing which oddly doesn't linketo Predatory conference. Perhaps one of the relevant wikiprojects should set up a working party to improve all the related articles?
Mild rant over. Please read the sources, they are pretty alarming and go into much more detail than I can here. Doug Weller talk 20:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
This raises serious issues from WikipediaTo be frank, there was no shortage of bunk papers and bogus sources before the recent explosion, but this certainly makes it much easier to find bad sources because these journals pretty much exist to be found on the first page of search results on Google. This is an issue for academia to solve, and Wikipedia will hopefully follow suit. If we want to be proactive we can blacklist or automatically tag edits that source suspected predatory journals. Bright☀ 20:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I've seen a list of predatory publishers somewhere in Wikipedia non-article spaces. Can anyone remind me? Staszek Lem ( talk) 01:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
In General Wikipedia does not allow UGC in blogs to be cited as reference. I feel this rules need to add exception for Release announcements for Open Source Projects. As many of these projects are developed in a collaborative environment, Forums / Blogs maintained by the company are the authoritative location where announcements regarding new releases are published. So this scenario should also be an exception to the WP:UGC rule.
Hagennos ( talk) 08:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
For some reason there is no mention if the local police department or the FBI are reliable sources, or the Senate or the Department of State, or the ACLU or Human Rights Watch. Or foreign governments agencies. At least some mention should be given to these sources, talking about examples of when they can be reliable sources. Thinker78 ( talk) 05:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The current section on "Biased or opinionated sources" appears to me to be an open invitation to problematic editing. It invites Wikipedia editors to decide which non-neutral views are significant. For example, we might be asked to accept a statement of opinion by Michael Moore published in Politico, where there is no evidence from politically neutral sources that his view is considered significant, let alone accurate, by progressives more generally. Or we might be asked to accept a statement by Roger Stone repeated in Breitbart, again without any evidence that this is considered significant even by the far right.
It also invites a false equivalency between somewhat biased and extremely biased sources. Do we "balance" Mother Jones with Breitbart? Is NPOV actually equidistant between Politico and Federalist? I don't think we should be making those judgments as editors. It puts us in the place of arbiters of truth, something we are explicitly not allowed to be.
I do feel this section reflects gentler times and is no longer appropriate in the current heavily polarised climate - though in fact it is quite recent ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AIdentifying_reliable_sources&type=revision&diff=534579697&oldid=531328734 2013). I think we should step back from using biased sources to show what outliers say about things, and pull back to the standard Wikipedia practice of relying on sources that are reliable and independent, to establish the significance and context of a statement or claim. If the Washington Post quotes a partisan on a partisan website as an exemplar, then that's fine, but I do not think we should be weaving together the narrative from primary, partisan sources, however much we might like any individual one of them.
We deprecated the Daily Mail as a source because it is biased, and its bias leads to poor fact-checking. This section positively invites the inclusion of sources that are equally bad. It fails to properly distinguish between respected organisations with a bias (e.g. Guardian, Wall Street Journal, NY Times, Washington Post) and organisations that exist to promote an agenda, especially think tanks. It places policy-based evidence making on an equal footing with analytical reporting. As I say, I think this section is inappropriate in the current climate. Guy ( Help!) 11:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Someone rejected an edit where I supplied a translation of a German phrase, on the grounds that I did not cite a source for the translation (which I couldn't do, because the translation was my own). Now of course, a translation might be wrong or biased; but it's readily open to challenge. Rejecting it purely because the translation is original seems absurd. Mhkay ( talk) 17:25, 4 December 2017 (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 50 | ← | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 |
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.
Hi all, I'm new here and writing with background of journalistic studies. Mass media is commonly used as a reliable source in several Wikipedia article and referred as "a reliable source". I'd like to suggest adding the following into the definition of reliable sources:
When citing a medium as a reliable source, there should be an independent study or poll supporting the reliability of that medium. For example a poll showing more than 50% trust among the readers would support the reliability, and in the opposite less than 50% would support unreliability. This should not be taken as a requirement, as such information is not available for all the mediums, but for those who have it's a good rule of thumb when defining the reliability. This rule of thumb should not be used for defining a reliability of a single article published in any medium as any article might be reliable despite the trust on the medium in general. However, reliability of a medium shouldn't be founded solely on trust among readers as there are areas, times and circumstances where/when mediums are used for propaganda or for other purposes. Please also refer to other methods identifying reliable sources. The reliability of a single article should always be handled separately considering the concept, but more focus on reliability should be addressed especially when using articles in mediums having low public trust among their readers. When a reliability on a medium(s) plays important role in a Wikipedia article, and especially when using article(s) of medium(s) carrying low public trust, it's a good practice to reason the use of such medium and when possible, link readers to a recent study or poll on the reliability of the medium.
EDITS IN THE ABOVE SUGGESTION:
1. After comment by Hob Gadling, edited adding However, reliability of a medium shouldn't be founded solely on trust among readers as there are areas, times and circumstances where/when mediums are used for propaganda or for other purposes. Please also refer to other methods identifying reliable sources. Edit by 81.197.179.232 ( talk) 11:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
DISCUSSION:
I think the above suggestion requires a discussion in advance both on it's usefulness, topic and the content itself. My goal here is to ensure good practices when referring to mediums as a source. Thanks for any opinions. 81.197.179.232 ( talk) 13:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
English can be a confusing language... It took me a moment to realize that we were (once again) discussing news media, and not discussing the reliability of mediums. For a moment there, I thought the OP was asking us to search for polls to determine whether (for example) Theresa Caputo was more trusted than John Edward... or something like that. Blueboar ( talk) 12:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
How long time should we give for the discussion here before considering editing the page? (assuming the suggestion would benefit Wikipedia) 81.197.179.232 ( talk) 12:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Challenges to the closure should be taken to WP:AN (after contacting the closer, which has taken place), not WP:TO, per WP:CLOSE#Challenging other closures – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
For a case where a primary source x says “We conclude with y degree of certainty that z” where the primary source defines ‘y degree’ as being less than 100%, is a secondary source’ considered reliable when it specifically cites the primary source a statement of the form “<primary source x> concluded y” rather than qualifying that statement as the source did? Related: Are there degrees of reliability that pertain here? Humanengr ( talk) 00:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Is that what you are recommending? Humanengr ( talk) 12:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)"<Name of 1ary source> concluded that y did z.[cite to 2ary source] <Name of 1ary source> "concluded with high confidence that y did z.[cite to 1ary source]"
I should also add that in my experience on Wikipedia I've really only seen a few instances where a secondary, reliable, source really "got it wrong". 90 times out of a 100 it was the user who wanted to use primary rather than secondary, who either did not understand the primary source or was pretending not to understand it in order to push their POV. Out of the remaining 10% a good chunk just involved sources which used some ambiguous phrasing which could be easily misconstrued. The couple times where the source "got it wrong" it actually wasn't that hard to get consensus on talk not to use that particular source, or to write it in the way which makes it clear that something fishy is going on (for example, do it the way Zero0000 suggests).
Basically, if you think "source got it wrong" and others don't see it that way on the talk page, there's a pretty good chance that you're the one getting it wrong. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
"We conclude with y degree of certainty that z" is a typical way to state a conclusion in a scientific journal. "Jones concluded z" or even just "z" may be a typical way to state a conclusion in a source aimed at a popular audience, or when addressing a technical audience in a briefer format. So it comes down to whether the author of the secondary source has the qualifications to make the jump from "Jones concluded with y degree of certainty that z" to "Jones concluded z". If the secondary author is a scholar in the field, I'd consider it reliable unless there are other reliable sources contradicting the statement. If it's a general-interest reporter writing a newspaper article about a technical subject, I wouldn't be so sure the secondary source is reliable for the statement about z. Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Might be of interest: https://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/vast-literatures-as-mud-moats.html Nemo 19:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Discussion at: Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Encouraging_accessibility
Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange).
Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange).
That said, all else being equal, a source freely available to read online is preferable because more readers will be able to verify its claims. If two sources are equally suitable to verify a claim, accessibility is a reason to prefer one over the other.
Thoughts welcome. Ocaasi t | c 11:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
MilHist project is hosting a discussion on GA / FA articles that have been tagged as possibly having unreliable sources. The discussion can be found here:
Interested editors are invited to participate. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
We need some opinions on the following matter: Template talk:Refimprove#Or better. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Are there guidelines for when/how to characterize known partisan sources on politically-related articles? I have seen run into this circumstance several times and am usually met with hostility and lengthy unproductive debates when trying to add information and put sources into context. Here's an example that stands out to me, from James Comey: "His decisions have been regarded by a number of analysts, including Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, to have likely cost Clinton the election.[7][8][9]" The "number of analysts" is actually three avowed liberal blogs previously loyal to Hillary Clinton: 538 (mentioned), Vox (which cites 538), and Vanity Fair. As has been established, it's acceptable to use biased sources, but not to sway the tone of the article with these biased sources. So using this case as an example, what would be the preferred re-wording of this sentence? SInce I see no reason to single out Nate Silver, I removed his specific reference. Here a few options I came up with:
Without getting too deep into the weeds of what the best option is here (that discussion can be saved for that article's talk page), what would be the best M.O. for adding a frame of reference to sources to ensure that the reader isn't misled into believing that the source is independent and disinterested? Can we possibly create an article with a list of common sources and acceptable descriptors for political articles? I realize that such an article would create debate within itself, but this seems like a common enough problem that it would be worth the trouble. Hidden Tempo ( talk) 21:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
The Breaking news section lacks a good definition of "breaking news" and contains a problematic absolutist statement: "All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS."
I would change that sentence to: "Breaking news stories are sometimes primary sources and should be treated with caution per WP:PSTS."
And I suggest adding this sentence to the beginning of the section:
Breaking news is unedited or real-time reporting about an event as it is happening. Some examples are live video reports, online time-stamped short items that are continually updated, or social media posts. Completed news stories, while they may be updated or corrected later, are not automatically breaking news that should not be used in an article.
- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 21:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
When Nation A and A's media accuse Nation B of doing x but those accusations have not been proven in an international court, should WP, in citing A's media, report those accusations as 'fact' or as 'allegations'? E.g., should WP say "B did x" or "A alleges that B did x"? Humanengr ( talk) 03:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
What is it that you think editors are here to do? Evaluate evidence? No offense, but what you seem to be suggesting reads like WP:SYNTH. I could be reading into it a bit too much myself, but case in point, you see what I mean, I hope. DN ( talk) 05:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Just to provide another example (of which I'm currently indifferent on either way) is 2017 cyberattacks on Ukraine. Ukraine officials blame Russia, but while independent security experts do this some state-level agency may have been behind it, have not named Russia (though clearly would be at the top of the list). There we have not factually said Russia did it, but assigned whom has made that assertion. -- MASEM ( t) 12:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven, re 'Nations are generally not taken to court': agree, and until they are taken to court, allegations remain allegations, whatever the media says. Humanengr ( talk) 12:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't really understand why a YouTube video can't be reliable source. What would the difference be if someone made a video about something, then proceeded to write down all the things said in the video and published them as an article? Its the exact same content made by the original creator.
2601:18D:680:2B2C:ADA5:83C5:9437:95A5 ( talk) 00:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I've been periodically checking on this, looked through some archives, but no mods have explained why RT's news network is called "propaganda" while privately owned mass media with admitted biases are not referred to as such in their intro, i.e. Fox News. Propaganda as defined on Wikipedia: "biased info that promotes a political view." In its page intro, Fox News is referred to as "biased reporting" that promotes the "Republican view" and links to a Controversies section. I suggested changing the loaded term 'propaganda' on RT's page to a "biased reporting" link like Fox currently has, or more accurately, changing Fox News's page to the word 'propaganda' if going by definition. Climate change debate alone is justification enough to call Fox political propaganda; constant denialism is pushing a Big Oil agenda contrary to scientific consensus because Republicans get most of the petroleum lobbying money. Yet, different wording is used for RT. Fox News Broadcasting doesn't even including a mention of bias, neither does the NBC News page. All news sources are biased; I'm wondering why corporate-owned mainstream media is given the illusion of objectivity.
The RT intro says the network is "frequently referred to as propaganda" (clearly a negative term, alluding to Cold War-era communist rhetoric) to assert a narrative, quoting other (reliable) sources to feign neutrality. However, those same three sources - Columbia Journalism Review [1], CBS [2], and Der Spiegel [3] - have also referred to Fox News as propaganda, hence it appears Wikipedia is not being neutral by omitting that word from Fox's intro. Likewise, Al Jazeera is referred to as propaganda on its main page intro, yet Al Jazeera English (like RT America) is not referred to as such, even though it is owned and funded by the same network. Furthermore, Al Jazeera English and RT America are used as a source all over Wikipedia, so this seems inconsistent. Wikipedia RS guidelines states that bias and errors does not invalidate a RS, so why does RT and Al Jazeera's main pages cite the criticisms of them as propaganda from the get-go just because they are state run? CNN has no mention of bias in their intro, despite that they are known to have a neoliberal bias. [4] [5]
This looks bad on Wikipedia as a company. RT gives a platform to far-left and libertarian political figures silenced by American MSM, including dissident journalists with credibility such as Chris Hedges and Larry King. Wikipedia can't paint the network as a Putin mouthpiece when there are clearly independent reporters, at least on RT America; meanwhile, Phil Donahue has been open that he was fired for his anti-war stance on the so called left-leaning MSNBC. [6] [7] Yet, Wiki-guidelines specifically mentions that Russia's low press freedom is the reason to question their reliability - are Comcast employees any more free? Oligarchy-approved cable news rather than the state is not freedom - at least not for the political left and other liberal media critics like Glenn Greenwald and Cenk Uyger, who left MSNBC for that very reason - "establishment bias" [8].
So three things - why are the same 3 sources' use of the term 'propaganda' not applied to a corporate network with equally dubious credibility? Why are the English-speaking subsidiaries treated differently than their parent network? Finally, why is it legitimate to dismiss an entire source (RT, Al Jazeera) because of its ownership/funding by an oppressive state when there is a clear COI in all privately owned corporate media (who inherently have their own financial interests paramount as is required of corporations by law)? Talk pages tend to devolve into when the admins have cognitive dissonance about their trust in "reliable sources" (corporations whose reliability is based on age and brand recognition more than veracity) versus the reality of US media post 1996 Telecommunications Act. Verifiable evidence suggests that Time Warner, Comcast, etc. have a biased, pro-war agenda. Wikipedia itself details this extensively on isolated pages, but not in CNN's intro.
I think Wikipedia needs to address its idea of what is and isn't biased; and separately, what is and isn't a "reliable source." When I tried to cite Telesur in the horribly biased Jill Stein article during the election, a mod said it wasn't a RS, nor is RT. Yet, Telesur's Wikipage doesn't call it propaganda in the intro, despite the fact that it is funded by states as bad or worse than Russia/Qatar in the Press Freedom Index (Venezuela & Cuba). If Wikipedia feels the need to whitewash corporate media while demonizing state run media that presents opposing views like the Green Party, they are participating in propaganda themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.206.251 ( talk) 00:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Hi, can anyone please check whether this source be considered as a reliable source? Though the publisher is a reliable one but the author claims himself to be professional heritage photographer who is writing about a historical monument. RRD ( talk) 14:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Footnote 8, http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/11/fake-facebook-news-sites-to-avoid.html, goes to a single site, which gives a single source, a list of sites reviewed and classified by what seems to be a single person. Is it desirable to give a single repository of what one person thinks is a proper news source or not the power to decide such things? - HKEY LOCAL MACHINE\Security ( talk) 08:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
— Amakuru ( talk) 10:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
See WP:RSN#Potentially serious issue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I assume medical sources or MEDRS compliant reviews are reliable for non-medical claims. I could not find where WP:RS mentions using medical sources for non-medical claims. QuackGuru ( talk) 23:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
This is not about getting into specifics. See WP:MEDORG: "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources." Something simple like that will work. Getting into specifics is a case-by-case basis. To have any useful discussion we must not get into specifics because we are not going to add specifics to this page. Questions such as what article, what source or what claim are all irrelevant to improving this page. There is no blanket answer is also irrelevant. What is relevant? Adding a simple sentence that it is possible that they may be reliable for non-medical claims. The key part is that they "may" be reliable. We are not going to say they are always reliable or that they are never reliable for non-medical claims. We don't need specific details to improve this page. I added "Material that fails verification may also be replaced with content that passes verification." [2] But editors objected because they believe policy should not explicitly allow the possibility of replacing FV content with content that passes verification even when that should be the norm. If editors literally follow policy failed verification content should be tagged and/or deleted. See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Problem_with_wording. Before Identifying reliable sources did not address this issue. For now I added "Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself. This means a medical source may be reliable for non-medical claims." [3] QuackGuru ( talk) 14:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't see why we want a statement about support for non-medical claims in a subsection about medical claims. The section "Context matters" is a generalized section that deals with this in a broader sense. A MEDRS-compliant source may or may not be a good source for a medical claim. That's a more specific instance of the general statement "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."
Maybe all we need to do is give some examples under WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. TJRC ( talk) 16:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
A MEDRS compliant source may be useful for non-medical content. [4] One sentence should be enough. We don't need to get into specifics. QuackGuru ( talk) 15:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
A MEDRS-compliant source is not inherently unreliable for non-medical content.?
A MEDRS-compliant source is neither inherently reliable or unreliable for non-medical content.I'd still oppose it as unnecessary even in that form, but it would improve it further. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
156.215.228.72 (
talk)
19:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello English Wikipedians! In the content of the article, differences in interpretation of the original version (English version) appeared in the part translated into Japanese. So, it is a question to those using native English.
Although this sentence "there is no reasonable doubt about authenticity", Is this interpretation meaning that "Where the responsibility is clearly stated to be the author itself" ? or, "There is no reasonable doubt about the contents described" ? or both? The difference in interpretation is manifested in the word "authenticity", Opinions are divided on whether this word points to the source or whether it points to the truth of the article.
Thank you for your cooperation. -- 禮旺 ( talk) 12:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The section WP:NEWSORG talks in terms of whether opinions can be "reliable" as per WP:RS analysis. I submit that the term "reliable" is misplaced in this context. Rather, we should consider whether the opinions themselves, published in reliable sources, are WP:NOTEWORTHY. With this in mind, I suggest changing the first sentences in the first bullet point to read:
"When taking factual information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. Likewise, the opinions of such specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be noteworthy and may be used to reflect a significant viewpoint."
The suggested changes are underlined. Present text reads: "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." Comments? – S. Rich ( talk) 03:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Ronz: I'm unclear on how NOTNEWS and UNDUE would apply to the wording I've suggested. Can you clarify or give a suggestion. @ The Four Deuces: I am not saying all viewpoints by experts should be included. In many cases the differences between experts might be difficult to parse in a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE encyclopedia. (But such efforts are part of the challenge of good editing.) The first step in the editing process is determining whether the material comes from RS. Then we should consider the NOTEWORTHYness; e.g., whether the view/opinion is significant. The proposed changes allows for such NOTEWORTHYness instead of asking whether their opinions, per se, are "reliable". – S. Rich ( talk) 04:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events...-- Ronz ( talk) 14:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
"When taking factual information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. Likewise, the opinions of
suchspecialists, notable persons, and recognized experts are more likely to be noteworthy and may be used to reflect a significant viewpoint. In every case editors should consider WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS in their evaluations."
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed clarification of reviews' relation to WP:PSTS and MOS:TONE. This is a request for comments in the general sense, but not a WP:RFC at this stage, being an initial discussion draft (broadened to cover writing about fiction generally), building on a lengthy discussion/dispute at the same page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I typed a lot of text here, but have decided to replace it with these two questions:
If a point of view is found only in sources that are only reliable for their own opinion, under what circumstances would we want to include it?
If someone argues to include a particular source/opinion "because WP:BIASED says that biased sources can be reliable sources for their own opinion", what wikipolicy do you point to in response? (and I mean "you" in the literal sense, not as in me or as in "one")
The point: It seems like the section could use a little hedging. There should be a reason beyond existence and editors' opinions on what is "important" to include a source that is only reliable for its own opinion. Maybe it's when that opinion is already reflected in other sources? Maybe just having a qualifier articulating that, although bias doesn't mean a source is unreliable, sources that are only reliable for their own opinion have limited uses on Wikipedia?
There is no specific ongoing issue that led me to open this thread, and I feel like a concrete example would overly complicate things, so I'll leave it at that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Please see this sprawling discussion, in which an alarmingly large number of people are convinced that primary-source opinion pieces in the form of film (and book, etc.) reviews are secondary sources within WP's meaning because they're reviews of other works (i.e. that the work that is the subject of WP's article is the primary source, and that individual opinion magically transubstantiates into secondary sourcing because it's about a work instead of about, say, a mineral or a person). A secondary mistaken argument is that it must be secondary because it's in a newspaper/newssite, and this makes it secondary because everything in a news-focused publication is magically secondary. This is total bollocks, but they're actually trying to change an important site-wide guideline to reflect this nonsense. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Anyone have any experience/opinion on how reliable transit statistics from Moovit are? I feel like because not everyone in a region would be using their app, their numbers can't be properly representative of what's going on. — Joeyconnick ( talk) 18:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Don't know if this is the best venue to point this out, and my apologies if this is not news to anyone here, but a couple of days ago the New York Times published an article, "Many Academics Are Eager to Publish in Worthless Journals", discussing a highly worrisome trend in academic publishing which should be of concern to anyone trying to judge the quality of sources. (Wikipedia doesn't come up in the article—I made the connection to our concerns myself.) I think it's definitely worth a read. -- Colin Douglas Howell ( talk) 00:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I've raised this at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Predatory publishers, fake conferences and academics who find them a way to succeed. To make it easier, here's what I posted there. I hope interested editors will respond there.
At World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (WASET] an attempt by an editor to speedy delete it, then an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (2nd nomination) and discussions raised at RSN and NPOVN spurred me and other editors to look for current sources. Some of these sources discuss OMICS and Allied Academies, recently acquired by OMICS along with Future Medicine.
These have sparked a number of articles in the mainstream media and complaints by academics, while at the same time some academics are cooperating.
A study reported in the Japan Times [8] by James McCrostie looks at fake conferences in Japan. McCrostie discusses submitting fake papers generated by SCIgen to fake conferences all of which were accepted. It also discusses both the cost to attendees for these conferences (which are cheap to run) and the damage that can be done to reputations.
The New York Times published an article last month [9] called "Many Academics Are Eager to Publish in Worthless Journals". It also discusses aspects of predatory journals such as using names almost identical to prestigious ones, the fact that many or most don't have paper publications or do serious reviews, etc. And the fact that publishing in them is a way for academics to get promoted. "Many faculty members — especially at schools where the teaching load is heavy and resources few — have become eager participants in what experts call academic fraud that wastes taxpayer money, chips away at scientific credibility, and muddies important research." Senior academics publish in them -- 200 McGill University professsors, for instance. [10]
They also run fake conferences where by paying a hefty fee an academic can be listed as a presenter even if they don't attend. It's also easy to become an editor of a fake journal. A fictional academic with ludicrous credentials applied to 360 open-access journals asking to become an editor, with 48 accepting her, 4 making her editor-in-chief. [11] [12] See also this article.
There are now more predatory conferences than scholarly ones. [13] Many of these are run by Waset: "research into Waset, which is registered in the United Arab Emirates, shows that it will hold some 183 events in 2018, although these will cover almost 60,000 individual “conferences” – averaging 320 at each event. Conferences are scheduled almost every day up until the end of 2030." These take place in small rooms with multiple conferences held in each room but few attendees, although many will have paid a large sum to attend.
An article last month in Die Zeit [14] says the ownership of WASET is unknown, and "website of Waset does not give an address anywhere. Interested parties can only fill out an anonymous form or send an SMS - with the United Arab Emirates dialing code." "The purpose of a waset conference is to extend the CV by a conference as well as a contribution in a scientific journal. Because every lecture is published in an online publication, which is also published by Waset. Over 40,000 articles are said to have come together since 1999, according to the website."
There are more sources of course, I could go on and on. And warnings from academics. [15] [16] [17] [18]
This raises serious issues from Wikipedia. The obvious one is that it is now very difficult for most editors to distinguish between reputable journals and predatory ones, especially when the contributor seems "normal". My other issue is whether Wikipedia or the WMF has a role to play in the fight against these. Maybe we don't, I'd like to think there is something we can do. We do have Predatory open access publishing which oddly doesn't linketo Predatory conference. Perhaps one of the relevant wikiprojects should set up a working party to improve all the related articles?
Mild rant over. Please read the sources, they are pretty alarming and go into much more detail than I can here. Doug Weller talk 20:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
This raises serious issues from WikipediaTo be frank, there was no shortage of bunk papers and bogus sources before the recent explosion, but this certainly makes it much easier to find bad sources because these journals pretty much exist to be found on the first page of search results on Google. This is an issue for academia to solve, and Wikipedia will hopefully follow suit. If we want to be proactive we can blacklist or automatically tag edits that source suspected predatory journals. Bright☀ 20:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I've seen a list of predatory publishers somewhere in Wikipedia non-article spaces. Can anyone remind me? Staszek Lem ( talk) 01:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
In General Wikipedia does not allow UGC in blogs to be cited as reference. I feel this rules need to add exception for Release announcements for Open Source Projects. As many of these projects are developed in a collaborative environment, Forums / Blogs maintained by the company are the authoritative location where announcements regarding new releases are published. So this scenario should also be an exception to the WP:UGC rule.
Hagennos ( talk) 08:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
For some reason there is no mention if the local police department or the FBI are reliable sources, or the Senate or the Department of State, or the ACLU or Human Rights Watch. Or foreign governments agencies. At least some mention should be given to these sources, talking about examples of when they can be reliable sources. Thinker78 ( talk) 05:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The current section on "Biased or opinionated sources" appears to me to be an open invitation to problematic editing. It invites Wikipedia editors to decide which non-neutral views are significant. For example, we might be asked to accept a statement of opinion by Michael Moore published in Politico, where there is no evidence from politically neutral sources that his view is considered significant, let alone accurate, by progressives more generally. Or we might be asked to accept a statement by Roger Stone repeated in Breitbart, again without any evidence that this is considered significant even by the far right.
It also invites a false equivalency between somewhat biased and extremely biased sources. Do we "balance" Mother Jones with Breitbart? Is NPOV actually equidistant between Politico and Federalist? I don't think we should be making those judgments as editors. It puts us in the place of arbiters of truth, something we are explicitly not allowed to be.
I do feel this section reflects gentler times and is no longer appropriate in the current heavily polarised climate - though in fact it is quite recent ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AIdentifying_reliable_sources&type=revision&diff=534579697&oldid=531328734 2013). I think we should step back from using biased sources to show what outliers say about things, and pull back to the standard Wikipedia practice of relying on sources that are reliable and independent, to establish the significance and context of a statement or claim. If the Washington Post quotes a partisan on a partisan website as an exemplar, then that's fine, but I do not think we should be weaving together the narrative from primary, partisan sources, however much we might like any individual one of them.
We deprecated the Daily Mail as a source because it is biased, and its bias leads to poor fact-checking. This section positively invites the inclusion of sources that are equally bad. It fails to properly distinguish between respected organisations with a bias (e.g. Guardian, Wall Street Journal, NY Times, Washington Post) and organisations that exist to promote an agenda, especially think tanks. It places policy-based evidence making on an equal footing with analytical reporting. As I say, I think this section is inappropriate in the current climate. Guy ( Help!) 11:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Someone rejected an edit where I supplied a translation of a German phrase, on the grounds that I did not cite a source for the translation (which I couldn't do, because the translation was my own). Now of course, a translation might be wrong or biased; but it's readily open to challenge. Rejecting it purely because the translation is original seems absurd. Mhkay ( talk) 17:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)