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 55 | ← | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | → | Archive 65 |
I was startled to learn that graduate theses and dissertations are not considered reliable sources by some. The article in its present form says about them, "Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not." In every university where I have studied or taught, theses and dissertations have to go through a vigorous process of scrutiny by a committee of professors and an oral examination. The institution does not approve one until a rigorous process is followed. This makes theses and dissertations more researched and reliable than most newspaper reports. I do admit that something written for a masters degree, especially on some topics, is less likely to be reliable than others. For example a treatise claiming to prove that the Mona Lisa was not painted by by da Vinci may be cited as evidence that some doubt whether da Vinci painted it, but should not be cited as proof that he did not.
Therefore, I am revising the article on the matter of theses and dissertations as reliable sources. I hope my revisions are seen as gentle, logical, and appropriate. Pete unseth ( talk) 18:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I would say it depends. I have looked (in some detail) into two phDs in "my area" on Wikipedia:
Frantzman from Hebrew Uni, (see User:Huldra/Frantzman), and
Rhode, H. (1979). Administration and Population of the Sancak of Safed in the Sixteenth Century (PhD). Columbia University.
Now, the Frantzman thesis is pure trash (I have found mistakes on virtual all pages), while the Rhode thesis looks fine (his findings have been backed up by other researchers, later).
So I would say it has to be evaluated on a case to case basis, Huldra ( talk) 21:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Implementing edit filter warnings for deprecated sources that relates to this guideline. Please feel free to participate if you are interested. — Newslinger talk 08:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
RTG I'm not sure what you meant with this edit. I know that Rotten Tomatoes is used across Wikipedia, but only the critical response, not the audience ratings, which is user-generated content. -- / Alex/ 21 02:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
How should we read this RS guideline wrt law? At first sight I'd say a published law can be quoted as is. Or is a secondary source i.e., a scholar publishing about that law, required? Same for court cases (judgements): do we need a secondary source to describe a case? Cannot we quote the verdict itself? ( Category:United States Supreme Court cases). - DePiep ( talk) 16:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
A table has been added to Gatwick Airport#Traffic and statistics to show the number of passengers per year, the source is a wikidata query. If I check to see where the data comes from all I get is a page of coding gibberish on wikidata. How do I or any reader of the article know the figures have come from a reliable source? MilborneOne ( talk) 09:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a local street newspaper, http://www.streetroots.org which is a special interest paper distributed by transients for the transient community. The editorial policy is pro homeless leaning by a good deal. Should this be considered reliable, or on the par with "indy press" type stuff? For example, how appropriate is it to be used as a source for subjects that relate to their specialized interest such as the article homelessness in Oregon Graywalls ( talk) 10:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Every now and then, new editors tries to use something like a google search as a source in an article. Would it be reasonable to include something in the spirit of "Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source a search-engine result such as a Google-search is not in itself a source, though it may contain useful sources."? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I think wikipedia is out of date on how to use social media sourcing correctly. I am seeing veteran editors delete social media tweets, posts saying WP:RS. Modern media techniques like the BBC, Guardian, CNN, etc, will cite a tweet or a facebook post in their article for the primary source. We need to update this page to better explain when and when not to use social media as a primary source. Along with uses in how to create the best article for wikipedia. Govvy ( talk) 08:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Certain US newspapers such as the LA Times deny access to EU readers rather than have to deal with GDPR. I did an archive search, but couldn't find where this was previously discussed.
My question is: what's our stance re: such sources. It stands to reason we would recommend editors to find better sources to avoid turning English Wikipedia into a US-focused project. I fully acknowledge that the LA Times remains a perfectly valid source despite me not being able to access it. I am NOT asking for LA Times (et al) to be blacklisted a la the Daily Mail.
My point here is if we are encouraging editors to improve sources semi-permanently closed off to such a large chunk of the constituency? That is, when both the New York Times and the LA Times cover a specific story, let's go with NYT for the simple reason it doesn't automatically exclude European readers. (When LAT is the sole source, keeping it is perfectly fine)
I would like to see an inline "Missing or problematic reference" template specifically for this purpose. "source unavailable to EU readers due to the GRDP" or somesuch. There might be lots of US editors completely unawares their shiny citation is worthless to EU editors.
Thx CapnZapp ( talk) 10:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, the following (general and absolutely crucial) rule contains glaring logical fallacies:
(...) making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered.
So, I replaced it with:
(...) making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in the article are covered by sources.
Where the default meaning of the word "covered" is "actually covered". There is no need to emphasize this. Being "covered by sources" is a well defined and precise condition to be met. However, my edit has been rejected as a "change in [the] intended meaning". So, what was the intended meaning? Please tell me. I will be very grateful and take my skills to the next level. Vikom talk 19:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should ... mak[e] sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered, is that wikipedia articles should be comprehensive, ie they should include all viewpoints that can be reliably sourced. ( WP:DUE further clarifies that such coverge should be proportionate.) Hope that answers your question. Abecedare ( talk) 06:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I focused on "all views", neglecting the key words inside the phrase "all majority and significant minority views". However covering all views seemed so unrealistic, that the only alternative I could find was an "illogical sentence". Now I wonder why none of you gave me a simple example like: "...otherwise we could describe Ronald Reagan only as an actor, neglecting his presidency". If I had known the reason for the rule, I would have easily understood the rule itself. Sorry about the whole thing.
Thank you all very much!
Vikom
talk 03:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
If you're interested in fact checking and evaluation of sources for accuracy and bias, check out both of these links. This happens to be the best media bias chart I know of:
"Most people don’t visit 40 sites about one story to compare bias and quality, but that’s one of the things we do here, so we hope it helps you get a better sense of the universe of reporting."
"Junk news (by which we mean anything falling in the hyper-partisan (-18 to +18) and beyond categories, and anything below 40 on our quality scale) mostly serves to satisfy people’s craving to be right and confirm their existing beliefs."
I like to regularly check the chart to ensure I only use the best sources and keep track of which are good for facts and which are good for opinions, noting that it's important to check both the left and right sides of the spectrum for how their bias is related to the facts. It's pretty fascinating. Have fun. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 06:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
This page is for discussion of how to modify or improve this guideline. For questions about individual sources, please use
Reliable Sources Noticeboard —
TransporterMan (
TALK) 15:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
|
---|
Basically, I used this book by Temple Prime as a source for the article John, Count of Soissons and Enghien: Is this book actually a reliable source? I was told by another Wikipedia user (named Kansas Bear) that it isn't, but I want to hear everyone else's thoughts on this. It looks like Prime was primarily interested in conchology but that he also had an interest in genealogy. Futurist110 ( talk) 22:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC) |
This guideline is confusing. Computers and robots don't write content, and therefore any information that is text-based in some way has to be physically written/typed by a human being, and therefore by definition all content is "user-generated" since a real person (a user) has to generate said content before it could be published. Perhaps this could be clarified? 98.118.32.140 ( talk) 18:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
An RfC has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#RfC about independent sources for academic notability to decide the following question:
Current wording: Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.
Proposed wording: Academics/professors meeting one or more of the following conditions, as substantiated using multiple published, reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the subject and each other, are notable.Shall the wording in the section Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria be changed to the proposed wording above?
Editors are welcome to join the discussion. -- Netoholic @ 20:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Written 100 years ago is the maximum allowable limit for WP:RS. See e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244#Gospel of John. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 05:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
You linked to the article on the historical method, but did you read it?Yes, have you? Perhaps I should have linked to a more appropriate article, such as scientific consensus which more accurately portrays what Bdub is claiming to be wrong. You can't assume that because an editors is capable of making points that they are correct: Bdub's assertion is that the consensus of modern historians is wrong and ancient sources are right, which puts his position in many of the same categories as Creationism, Breatharianism, The flat Earth theory, Acupuncture and the belief in ancient aliens. No matter hos sophisticated their argument: Bdub has an extraordinarily high standard for evidence to clear, and absolutely no business doing so here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Quoted by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 05:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
What is the policy of using pre-modern historians (such as the works of Herodotus or Ibn Khaldun) as sources? Especially if their works are translated and published in recent times. Intutively I think they should be used very sparingly, but I don't know of any section here that's relevant to this question. According to clasification in WP:PRIMARY, they might even classify as "Secondary sources" if they're writing about events they do not directly observe. HaEr48 ( talk) 05:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
What is the policy about using reliable sources with a known bias, especially biased reliable sources that may contradict each other? Is this issue currently settled? Bneu2013 ( talk) 03:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Muslim Association of Canada, another editor and I are having a polite discussion (see "Director Jamal Badawi") on content in the article. I have a citation from the Toronto Sun, a popular daily newspaper in Canada. I believe the newspaper is considered a broadsheet rather than a tabloid, but note that I personally do not consider it as trustworthy as, say, The Globe and Mail, Canada's newspaper of record. The citation is an op-ed, not a "regular article". I believe this is a guest editorial. I wish to use this to establish a contentious point about a living person, so WP:BLP applies. Specifically, I wish to use this citation to establish Dr. Jamal Badawi has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and/or was part of the Muslim Brotherhood's Shura Council. I believe, but could be mistaken, that the Toronto Sun would normally qualify as a WP:RS. I believe, but could be mistaken, that an op-ed in that newspaper would normally qualify as a WP:RS. Both of those things may be true but WP:BLP may mean this particular citation is insufficient for the information I'm trying to cite, about a living person. The anonymous editor is concerned that this citation is insufficient. -- Yamla ( talk) 20:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion of User:Rosguill/NPPRS, a list of sources intended to help new page patrollers evaluate an article subject's notability. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § Centralizing information about sources. — Newslinger talk 04:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Fairly new editor, what is the policy regarding anonymous/unnamed sources? Specifically anonymous interviews and eyewitness accounts. Wikipedia:Acceptable sources provides a good explanation, but the page is currently inactive, has the policy remained the same? 24.57.43.93 ( talk) 16:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't sure how quite to search for this to see if it has been discussed before, so apologies if it has. Given a Wikipedia article on a potential source (e.g. The New York Times, VentureBeat, National Lampoon), it would be useful, but likely but perhaps inadvisable to place a 'reliable source' template on the talk page. I think it would be quite useful to editors, but would equally be a target for vandalism, and would break the wall between Article and Wikipedia spaces - pros and cons. Now that I think of it, maybe a hidden category would be less obtrusive, less likely to be vandalized, and not break that membrane between the spaces. The only reason why I spin this out is that I'm not aware of a comprehensive list of sources and their consensus reliability - if there is one, thanks very much for enlightening me. Regards --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 02:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
It seems that the addition of the 'auto-reverted' status icon and the 'edit-filtered' status icon to the Perennial sources table would render the table at WP:DEPSOURCES redundant and in need of parallel updating with the "main" list. I've confirmed that every item in WP:DEPSOURCES is in the Perennial list. As a target of the WP:DEPSOURCES shortcut, could create on the Perennial page a set of compact source name lists, one being a list of deprecated sources; the main table would then be the detail table supplementing the compact lists for quick reference. Thoughts? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 01:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Twice today I have come across edits where a citation has been removed and replaced with {{ citation needed}}. [3] [4]. In my view a citation should not be deleted unless the content that relies on it has been deleted. A poor source is better than no source, and poor sources should be tagged with {{ Unreliable source?}}, {{ Better source}} or similar. Do other editors agree with me. Is there a Wikipedia guideline that covers this? Verbcatcher ( talk) 20:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I have been enjoying a program that previously aired via PBS. I am accessing the content through Amazon with a subscription. I've got producers' names, titles and such...but no air date. I would love some opinions on how this can be referenced. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 17:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
wallmine Can anyone give me advise on the wallmine . I have been going thru their articles and they seem to be pretty intent in reporting in a responsible nature ~ they republish reuter articles ~ which I'm sure that the pay a fee for that, but it looks like they have a pretty good grasp of information that you can access and you don't have to register with wallmine in order to access that information i.e. if you insert AVY in the ticker search box you will get information on Avery Dennison Corp. ~ but then if you scroll down to the executive section, and say lets choose the first independent director on the list 'Julia Stewart'. You get a lot of current biographical material ~ the question is here ~ Can wallmine be a reliable source to use on Wiki? ~ thanks for your input Mitchellhobbs ( talk) 14:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I have just encountered the above-named site used as a ref by a newbie when removing citation needed. Any thoughts on this Prabook homepage? Very vague about us section. A WP search returns a few very recent uses in the last few days only. I'm thinking this is a recent US-based development, likely a crowd-sourced wiki needing login? The content accessed by the newbie ref I believe to be copy-paste plagiarism from WP. I've flagged it up at Inge Stoll and Talk.-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 01:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Why is a link to a photo of a tombstone on "Find a Grave" considered bad, where as a link to a photo on Wikimedia Commons is good? Both are "user-generated content"!!! I can't link to "Find a Grave", but I could go to a cemetery, take a photo, upload it to Wikimedia Commons, then MAGICALLY it's ok now! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
"Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic."and the reasoning is that they serve as
"an important illustrative aid to understanding". Readers should still rely on the article text for facts. — Newslinger talk 01:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
In response to a question about Fox News and specifically Hannity, this statement was created: "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."
There's a discussion at RSN that might benefit from a definition of "analysis". It obviously doesn't include a meta-analysis, which is described as a "preferred" source type elsewhere on this page. It probably doesn't include "analysis" in the sense of analysis being a key characteristic of a secondary source (see WP:SECONDARY). But what is it meant to encompass? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Is a link from randomstory.com bad? JaneciaTaylor ( talk) 22:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello. What is the status of YouTube as a source? Thanks. No Great Shaker ( talk) 15:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :IMO it's a vehicle and should not have a status, the items that it carries should. Could be a post from someone's personal blog to a high grade documentary with editors and the other trappings of a wp:rs. North8000 ( talk) 15:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, both. It seems to follow the guidelines for online sources generally. That's very useful. No Great Shaker ( talk) 15:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
How should I deal with a so-called reliable source that has many factual errors in it....? The regulars on the page insist in using it, even after I pointed out that it contained factual errors..... KFvdL ( talk) 16:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I refereed to the NASA articles as I would suspect that NASA would be a reliable source as they studied it to deal with Space related Intercranial Hypertension. KFvdL ( talk) 02:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum; repeatedly posting essays about the same imaginary problem on multiple Wikipedia talk pages is inappropriate. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 05:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
If a correct epistemic system is not used, the results of the study may be flawed. If a correct epistemic system is used, then be it a self published website, a blog or whatever source, then the source is 100% correct. Thus such sources must be considered reliable. Epistemic systems have fixed steps. If the source has used correct epistemic system towards fact checking, and if it is a correct one, then how does it matter whether the source is a self published website, a blog or whatever source? All that wikipedians need to do is, cross check if the source has stuck to a correct epistemic system. If there are no visible deviations from the correct epistemic system, the source must be considered reliable at wikipedia. A publishing house may get considered reliable due to propaganda, due to muscle power, due to money power etc., even though it uses a wrong epistemic system towards fact checking. Do wikipedians consider the use of a correct epistemic system towards deciding a source reliable or they consider the popularity, age, etc to consider a source reliable? ProtectorOfWorldSaves ( talk) 04:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC) |
Newsweek has modified the meaning of a quotation (or badly translated it), and the mistake has caused the information to stay on the article The Great Replacement for months. See the discussion page. I had another issue with The Independent who allegedly modified a quotation too (see history of edits on this article, but I cannot say if it's the newspaper or the editor who changed the quote (it was a reference from 1991 without a link to the website). Both mistakes were significant and totally changed the original meaning: the first one claimed Renaud Camus had dismissed his own conspiracy theory as "nazism" while he was talking about the so-called "replacist elites". The second one claimed Alain de Benoist was in favor of the USSR while he was saying the contrary. Both sources are considered "reliable" here, but this needs to be pointed out Azerty82 ( talk) 17:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
IMDb Is Credible I believe IMDb should not be included in somewhat unreliable sources due to it being "User Generated". As all publications to the site go through a vicarious screening by IMDb researchers and staff to insure credibility and truth/Facts. Abbycarroll ( talk) 18:57, 23 September 2019 (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 55 | ← | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | → | Archive 65 |
I was startled to learn that graduate theses and dissertations are not considered reliable sources by some. The article in its present form says about them, "Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not." In every university where I have studied or taught, theses and dissertations have to go through a vigorous process of scrutiny by a committee of professors and an oral examination. The institution does not approve one until a rigorous process is followed. This makes theses and dissertations more researched and reliable than most newspaper reports. I do admit that something written for a masters degree, especially on some topics, is less likely to be reliable than others. For example a treatise claiming to prove that the Mona Lisa was not painted by by da Vinci may be cited as evidence that some doubt whether da Vinci painted it, but should not be cited as proof that he did not.
Therefore, I am revising the article on the matter of theses and dissertations as reliable sources. I hope my revisions are seen as gentle, logical, and appropriate. Pete unseth ( talk) 18:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I would say it depends. I have looked (in some detail) into two phDs in "my area" on Wikipedia:
Frantzman from Hebrew Uni, (see User:Huldra/Frantzman), and
Rhode, H. (1979). Administration and Population of the Sancak of Safed in the Sixteenth Century (PhD). Columbia University.
Now, the Frantzman thesis is pure trash (I have found mistakes on virtual all pages), while the Rhode thesis looks fine (his findings have been backed up by other researchers, later).
So I would say it has to be evaluated on a case to case basis, Huldra ( talk) 21:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Implementing edit filter warnings for deprecated sources that relates to this guideline. Please feel free to participate if you are interested. — Newslinger talk 08:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
RTG I'm not sure what you meant with this edit. I know that Rotten Tomatoes is used across Wikipedia, but only the critical response, not the audience ratings, which is user-generated content. -- / Alex/ 21 02:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
How should we read this RS guideline wrt law? At first sight I'd say a published law can be quoted as is. Or is a secondary source i.e., a scholar publishing about that law, required? Same for court cases (judgements): do we need a secondary source to describe a case? Cannot we quote the verdict itself? ( Category:United States Supreme Court cases). - DePiep ( talk) 16:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
A table has been added to Gatwick Airport#Traffic and statistics to show the number of passengers per year, the source is a wikidata query. If I check to see where the data comes from all I get is a page of coding gibberish on wikidata. How do I or any reader of the article know the figures have come from a reliable source? MilborneOne ( talk) 09:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a local street newspaper, http://www.streetroots.org which is a special interest paper distributed by transients for the transient community. The editorial policy is pro homeless leaning by a good deal. Should this be considered reliable, or on the par with "indy press" type stuff? For example, how appropriate is it to be used as a source for subjects that relate to their specialized interest such as the article homelessness in Oregon Graywalls ( talk) 10:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Every now and then, new editors tries to use something like a google search as a source in an article. Would it be reasonable to include something in the spirit of "Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source a search-engine result such as a Google-search is not in itself a source, though it may contain useful sources."? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I think wikipedia is out of date on how to use social media sourcing correctly. I am seeing veteran editors delete social media tweets, posts saying WP:RS. Modern media techniques like the BBC, Guardian, CNN, etc, will cite a tweet or a facebook post in their article for the primary source. We need to update this page to better explain when and when not to use social media as a primary source. Along with uses in how to create the best article for wikipedia. Govvy ( talk) 08:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Certain US newspapers such as the LA Times deny access to EU readers rather than have to deal with GDPR. I did an archive search, but couldn't find where this was previously discussed.
My question is: what's our stance re: such sources. It stands to reason we would recommend editors to find better sources to avoid turning English Wikipedia into a US-focused project. I fully acknowledge that the LA Times remains a perfectly valid source despite me not being able to access it. I am NOT asking for LA Times (et al) to be blacklisted a la the Daily Mail.
My point here is if we are encouraging editors to improve sources semi-permanently closed off to such a large chunk of the constituency? That is, when both the New York Times and the LA Times cover a specific story, let's go with NYT for the simple reason it doesn't automatically exclude European readers. (When LAT is the sole source, keeping it is perfectly fine)
I would like to see an inline "Missing or problematic reference" template specifically for this purpose. "source unavailable to EU readers due to the GRDP" or somesuch. There might be lots of US editors completely unawares their shiny citation is worthless to EU editors.
Thx CapnZapp ( talk) 10:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, the following (general and absolutely crucial) rule contains glaring logical fallacies:
(...) making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered.
So, I replaced it with:
(...) making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in the article are covered by sources.
Where the default meaning of the word "covered" is "actually covered". There is no need to emphasize this. Being "covered by sources" is a well defined and precise condition to be met. However, my edit has been rejected as a "change in [the] intended meaning". So, what was the intended meaning? Please tell me. I will be very grateful and take my skills to the next level. Vikom talk 19:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should ... mak[e] sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered, is that wikipedia articles should be comprehensive, ie they should include all viewpoints that can be reliably sourced. ( WP:DUE further clarifies that such coverge should be proportionate.) Hope that answers your question. Abecedare ( talk) 06:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I focused on "all views", neglecting the key words inside the phrase "all majority and significant minority views". However covering all views seemed so unrealistic, that the only alternative I could find was an "illogical sentence". Now I wonder why none of you gave me a simple example like: "...otherwise we could describe Ronald Reagan only as an actor, neglecting his presidency". If I had known the reason for the rule, I would have easily understood the rule itself. Sorry about the whole thing.
Thank you all very much!
Vikom
talk 03:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
If you're interested in fact checking and evaluation of sources for accuracy and bias, check out both of these links. This happens to be the best media bias chart I know of:
"Most people don’t visit 40 sites about one story to compare bias and quality, but that’s one of the things we do here, so we hope it helps you get a better sense of the universe of reporting."
"Junk news (by which we mean anything falling in the hyper-partisan (-18 to +18) and beyond categories, and anything below 40 on our quality scale) mostly serves to satisfy people’s craving to be right and confirm their existing beliefs."
I like to regularly check the chart to ensure I only use the best sources and keep track of which are good for facts and which are good for opinions, noting that it's important to check both the left and right sides of the spectrum for how their bias is related to the facts. It's pretty fascinating. Have fun. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 06:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
This page is for discussion of how to modify or improve this guideline. For questions about individual sources, please use
Reliable Sources Noticeboard —
TransporterMan (
TALK) 15:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
|
---|
Basically, I used this book by Temple Prime as a source for the article John, Count of Soissons and Enghien: Is this book actually a reliable source? I was told by another Wikipedia user (named Kansas Bear) that it isn't, but I want to hear everyone else's thoughts on this. It looks like Prime was primarily interested in conchology but that he also had an interest in genealogy. Futurist110 ( talk) 22:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC) |
This guideline is confusing. Computers and robots don't write content, and therefore any information that is text-based in some way has to be physically written/typed by a human being, and therefore by definition all content is "user-generated" since a real person (a user) has to generate said content before it could be published. Perhaps this could be clarified? 98.118.32.140 ( talk) 18:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
An RfC has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#RfC about independent sources for academic notability to decide the following question:
Current wording: Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.
Proposed wording: Academics/professors meeting one or more of the following conditions, as substantiated using multiple published, reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the subject and each other, are notable.Shall the wording in the section Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria be changed to the proposed wording above?
Editors are welcome to join the discussion. -- Netoholic @ 20:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Written 100 years ago is the maximum allowable limit for WP:RS. See e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244#Gospel of John. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 05:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
You linked to the article on the historical method, but did you read it?Yes, have you? Perhaps I should have linked to a more appropriate article, such as scientific consensus which more accurately portrays what Bdub is claiming to be wrong. You can't assume that because an editors is capable of making points that they are correct: Bdub's assertion is that the consensus of modern historians is wrong and ancient sources are right, which puts his position in many of the same categories as Creationism, Breatharianism, The flat Earth theory, Acupuncture and the belief in ancient aliens. No matter hos sophisticated their argument: Bdub has an extraordinarily high standard for evidence to clear, and absolutely no business doing so here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Quoted by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 05:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
What is the policy of using pre-modern historians (such as the works of Herodotus or Ibn Khaldun) as sources? Especially if their works are translated and published in recent times. Intutively I think they should be used very sparingly, but I don't know of any section here that's relevant to this question. According to clasification in WP:PRIMARY, they might even classify as "Secondary sources" if they're writing about events they do not directly observe. HaEr48 ( talk) 05:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
What is the policy about using reliable sources with a known bias, especially biased reliable sources that may contradict each other? Is this issue currently settled? Bneu2013 ( talk) 03:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Muslim Association of Canada, another editor and I are having a polite discussion (see "Director Jamal Badawi") on content in the article. I have a citation from the Toronto Sun, a popular daily newspaper in Canada. I believe the newspaper is considered a broadsheet rather than a tabloid, but note that I personally do not consider it as trustworthy as, say, The Globe and Mail, Canada's newspaper of record. The citation is an op-ed, not a "regular article". I believe this is a guest editorial. I wish to use this to establish a contentious point about a living person, so WP:BLP applies. Specifically, I wish to use this citation to establish Dr. Jamal Badawi has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and/or was part of the Muslim Brotherhood's Shura Council. I believe, but could be mistaken, that the Toronto Sun would normally qualify as a WP:RS. I believe, but could be mistaken, that an op-ed in that newspaper would normally qualify as a WP:RS. Both of those things may be true but WP:BLP may mean this particular citation is insufficient for the information I'm trying to cite, about a living person. The anonymous editor is concerned that this citation is insufficient. -- Yamla ( talk) 20:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion of User:Rosguill/NPPRS, a list of sources intended to help new page patrollers evaluate an article subject's notability. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § Centralizing information about sources. — Newslinger talk 04:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Fairly new editor, what is the policy regarding anonymous/unnamed sources? Specifically anonymous interviews and eyewitness accounts. Wikipedia:Acceptable sources provides a good explanation, but the page is currently inactive, has the policy remained the same? 24.57.43.93 ( talk) 16:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't sure how quite to search for this to see if it has been discussed before, so apologies if it has. Given a Wikipedia article on a potential source (e.g. The New York Times, VentureBeat, National Lampoon), it would be useful, but likely but perhaps inadvisable to place a 'reliable source' template on the talk page. I think it would be quite useful to editors, but would equally be a target for vandalism, and would break the wall between Article and Wikipedia spaces - pros and cons. Now that I think of it, maybe a hidden category would be less obtrusive, less likely to be vandalized, and not break that membrane between the spaces. The only reason why I spin this out is that I'm not aware of a comprehensive list of sources and their consensus reliability - if there is one, thanks very much for enlightening me. Regards --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 02:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
It seems that the addition of the 'auto-reverted' status icon and the 'edit-filtered' status icon to the Perennial sources table would render the table at WP:DEPSOURCES redundant and in need of parallel updating with the "main" list. I've confirmed that every item in WP:DEPSOURCES is in the Perennial list. As a target of the WP:DEPSOURCES shortcut, could create on the Perennial page a set of compact source name lists, one being a list of deprecated sources; the main table would then be the detail table supplementing the compact lists for quick reference. Thoughts? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 01:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Twice today I have come across edits where a citation has been removed and replaced with {{ citation needed}}. [3] [4]. In my view a citation should not be deleted unless the content that relies on it has been deleted. A poor source is better than no source, and poor sources should be tagged with {{ Unreliable source?}}, {{ Better source}} or similar. Do other editors agree with me. Is there a Wikipedia guideline that covers this? Verbcatcher ( talk) 20:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I have been enjoying a program that previously aired via PBS. I am accessing the content through Amazon with a subscription. I've got producers' names, titles and such...but no air date. I would love some opinions on how this can be referenced. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 17:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
wallmine Can anyone give me advise on the wallmine . I have been going thru their articles and they seem to be pretty intent in reporting in a responsible nature ~ they republish reuter articles ~ which I'm sure that the pay a fee for that, but it looks like they have a pretty good grasp of information that you can access and you don't have to register with wallmine in order to access that information i.e. if you insert AVY in the ticker search box you will get information on Avery Dennison Corp. ~ but then if you scroll down to the executive section, and say lets choose the first independent director on the list 'Julia Stewart'. You get a lot of current biographical material ~ the question is here ~ Can wallmine be a reliable source to use on Wiki? ~ thanks for your input Mitchellhobbs ( talk) 14:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I have just encountered the above-named site used as a ref by a newbie when removing citation needed. Any thoughts on this Prabook homepage? Very vague about us section. A WP search returns a few very recent uses in the last few days only. I'm thinking this is a recent US-based development, likely a crowd-sourced wiki needing login? The content accessed by the newbie ref I believe to be copy-paste plagiarism from WP. I've flagged it up at Inge Stoll and Talk.-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 01:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Why is a link to a photo of a tombstone on "Find a Grave" considered bad, where as a link to a photo on Wikimedia Commons is good? Both are "user-generated content"!!! I can't link to "Find a Grave", but I could go to a cemetery, take a photo, upload it to Wikimedia Commons, then MAGICALLY it's ok now! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
"Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic."and the reasoning is that they serve as
"an important illustrative aid to understanding". Readers should still rely on the article text for facts. — Newslinger talk 01:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
In response to a question about Fox News and specifically Hannity, this statement was created: "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."
There's a discussion at RSN that might benefit from a definition of "analysis". It obviously doesn't include a meta-analysis, which is described as a "preferred" source type elsewhere on this page. It probably doesn't include "analysis" in the sense of analysis being a key characteristic of a secondary source (see WP:SECONDARY). But what is it meant to encompass? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Is a link from randomstory.com bad? JaneciaTaylor ( talk) 22:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello. What is the status of YouTube as a source? Thanks. No Great Shaker ( talk) 15:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :IMO it's a vehicle and should not have a status, the items that it carries should. Could be a post from someone's personal blog to a high grade documentary with editors and the other trappings of a wp:rs. North8000 ( talk) 15:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, both. It seems to follow the guidelines for online sources generally. That's very useful. No Great Shaker ( talk) 15:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
How should I deal with a so-called reliable source that has many factual errors in it....? The regulars on the page insist in using it, even after I pointed out that it contained factual errors..... KFvdL ( talk) 16:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I refereed to the NASA articles as I would suspect that NASA would be a reliable source as they studied it to deal with Space related Intercranial Hypertension. KFvdL ( talk) 02:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum; repeatedly posting essays about the same imaginary problem on multiple Wikipedia talk pages is inappropriate. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 05:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
If a correct epistemic system is not used, the results of the study may be flawed. If a correct epistemic system is used, then be it a self published website, a blog or whatever source, then the source is 100% correct. Thus such sources must be considered reliable. Epistemic systems have fixed steps. If the source has used correct epistemic system towards fact checking, and if it is a correct one, then how does it matter whether the source is a self published website, a blog or whatever source? All that wikipedians need to do is, cross check if the source has stuck to a correct epistemic system. If there are no visible deviations from the correct epistemic system, the source must be considered reliable at wikipedia. A publishing house may get considered reliable due to propaganda, due to muscle power, due to money power etc., even though it uses a wrong epistemic system towards fact checking. Do wikipedians consider the use of a correct epistemic system towards deciding a source reliable or they consider the popularity, age, etc to consider a source reliable? ProtectorOfWorldSaves ( talk) 04:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC) |
Newsweek has modified the meaning of a quotation (or badly translated it), and the mistake has caused the information to stay on the article The Great Replacement for months. See the discussion page. I had another issue with The Independent who allegedly modified a quotation too (see history of edits on this article, but I cannot say if it's the newspaper or the editor who changed the quote (it was a reference from 1991 without a link to the website). Both mistakes were significant and totally changed the original meaning: the first one claimed Renaud Camus had dismissed his own conspiracy theory as "nazism" while he was talking about the so-called "replacist elites". The second one claimed Alain de Benoist was in favor of the USSR while he was saying the contrary. Both sources are considered "reliable" here, but this needs to be pointed out Azerty82 ( talk) 17:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
IMDb Is Credible I believe IMDb should not be included in somewhat unreliable sources due to it being "User Generated". As all publications to the site go through a vicarious screening by IMDb researchers and staff to insure credibility and truth/Facts. Abbycarroll ( talk) 18:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)