![]() | 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 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | → | Archive 70 |
In WP:V#Reliable sources, "reliable, third-party, published sources" was changed to "reliable, independent, published sources" by WhatamIdoing (see this discussion) and similarly by Dayirmiter from "reliable third-party sources" to "reliable independent sources" in NOR (see this discussion). I think those changes make sense. Should the same change be made here in the Overview and Medical claims sections? Humanengr ( talk) 18:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I made those changes along with a few others to comport. Humanengr ( talk) 21:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources …to WP:SOURCE's
Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources …, does seem to support adding 'independent' to the RS lede. But the full text of WP:RS and WP:V indicates that all content should be verifiable (aka attributable) to 'published' sources, some of which are 'reliable' and others 'are usually not reliable'. In the latter category, certain exceptions are allowed; with 'Independence' indicated explicitly for WP:SELFPUB in WP:V and its counterpart WP:RSSELF in WP:RS and implicitly for WP:ABOUTSELF (in WP:V) and its counterpart WP:SELFSOURCE (in WP:RS). On that basis, it seems to me that — for consistency — 'independent' should be removed from WP:SOURCE to indicate it is not, as Blueboar notes, required for all content. I also suggest we add a sentence to WP:RS 1st para to the effect (adopting Blueboar's words): "The bulk of an article should be based on independent sources." Similar language
… the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources.appears (buried a bit?) at WP:SELFSOURCE. [Adding:] Or perhaps fold in WP:SECONDARY's
Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources.(~ WP:V's
Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources) to yield "The bulk of an article should be based on independent secondary sources"? Humanengr ( talk) 00:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
very limited. Contrastingly, lots of dependent sources are regularly used appropriately in articles (e.g., court decisions, legislative documents like statutes, press releases, censuses, etc.). -- Bsherr ( talk) 00:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Unpublished materials are not considered reliable, thus, reliable already means published.
Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.There's also the section about bias. And the section about self-published sources. All of these things can be sources that are not independent, but are not always so. Could we have a section about independence as a factor in determining whether a source is reliable? Definitely yes. But I think we need to commit to doing that, so we're not bringing up the concept in the lede and then never actually discussing it on the page.
@Flyer22 Frozen, given Masem's and Bsherr's remarks, if (as you returned it to now), 'independent' is dropped from the lead phrase, leaving 'reliable, published', I think for consistency we should remove it from the lead sentence of 'Overview'. The other couplings of 'reliable' and 'independent' in the body (in 'Vendor and e-commerce sources', 'Self-published sources (online and paper)', 'Medical claims') would remain (along with other scattered uses of 'independent/ce' on its own). At least some of those should be linked to WP:IS, as in WP:V and WP:NOR.
Re having a separate § on 'Independence', as Bsherr mentioned, it might work to have a brief 'Independence matters' § after 'Context matters' that summarizes the various issues raised below — maybe starting with something like "The great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources." (pulling that from Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves §) and then continuing with 'Allowable exceptions and issues to be considered regarding independence are addressed in several sections below.'
@ Jc3s5h, Bsherr, all: What if, along with the above, we also put the "The great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources." as the second sentence in the intro? Or maybe an elaborated version — "The great majority of any article must be drawn from sources that are independent from and can fairly portray the subject." — where 'can fairly portray' comes from the lead sentence of WP:IS. That is, the lead para would be
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The great majority of any article must be drawn from sources that are independent from and can fairly portray the subject. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. [italics for new]
Humanengr ( talk) 17:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The great majority of any article must be drawn from sources that are independent from and can fairly portray the subject. If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. [italics for new]
independence as a factor in determining whether a source is reliablesuggests inverting the order to "independent reliable". Would that satisfactorily address both the 'factor' and 'conjunction' issues? If so, the last sentence in the above proposal should be changed to
If no independent reliable sources can be found ….
the merits of independent sourcesin WP:NPOV or WP:IS, the former currently speaks only in terms of 'bias', so it might be too detailed for there; the latter is not a policy or guideline. So, maybe it does deserve a § in WP:RS as you mentioned. Humanengr ( talk) 05:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
The way we have split up material in our policies and guidelines that deals with sources tends to create a need to mention different aspects of non-independent sources in each of several policies and guidelines. For example
Jc3s5h ( talk) 13:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Humanengr, I just saw that you came back and continued this discussion. I stand by what I've stated. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 03:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Verifiability on Wikipedia is a reader's ability to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article.— spoke only (if one ignores the links) to what I'm labeling 'provenance' — providing the reader with the "ability to check where the information comes from" (including issues such as identifying document, author, publisher and ease of access).
reliable already means published: I'm more inclined to place 'published' under the heading of 'provenance' than 'reliability'. Also, given that 'reliable' and 'published' are coupled prominently in all 3 core content policies, I'd prefer to leave that be for now. OK? Humanengr ( talk) 08:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey everyone I found this page and a lot of its sources are cited as unreliable for being blogs. Someone recently added a source on that page but it's for a YouTube video and it was placed by the user to promote another artist so I don't know if it counts as reliable either. It's my first time finding a page that has lots of sources cited unreliable and I thought they should be removed but since they are cited instead of just removed I wasn't sure if it had to be discussed at a talk page first or could those sources just be removed. If someone could either tell me what the proper step is to correcting that page or look into that page themselves I would appreciate it. FanDePopLatino ( talk) 15:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."You have certainly challenged the material and sources. I checked a few of the sources you tagged... self-published, blogs, questionable, etc. You may find after verification that this person is not even notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia, and was only using it as advertising. Normal Op ( talk) 23:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Wikipedia:SOURCE?. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 9#Wikipedia:SOURCE? until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –
The Grid (
talk)
00:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Reliability of PETA. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 02:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I am requesting clarity re WP:SELFSOURCE with regards editors using activism/ advocacy websites as sources for citations on biography pages, effectively using Wikipedia to continue promotion of their activism and prolonging/perpetuating/expanding their own use of celebrity branding over many years through Wikipedia.
I have encountered a few cases of blowback when I have tried to remove non-RS content per WP:SELFSOURCE. Some editors think that if Activism X's website says blahblahblah about Person Y, then it is okay to put Activism-X's blahblahblah claim on Person-Y's Wikipedia article. Their assertion is that Act-X is talking about themselves. I assert that per WP:SELFSOURCE, Activism-X may only be used as a citation to claim what Activism-X says about activism-X, and may not ever be used as a citation to state any claim about Person-Y. I read the policy as meaning that an editor must instead provide a secondary source that verifies the claim by Activism-X about Person-Y, because Act-X's website is a self-published, non-reliable source. It's like these editors are confused about how far the phrase "about themselves" extends in WP:SELFSOURCE.
Especially in the case where Person-Y may have been hired by Activism-X to appear in an advertisement for the benefit of Activism-X using celebrity branding (whether or not Person-Y was paid money or donated their time and name). It would seem inappropriate to use Activism-X's website's claims as a citation in Person-Y's Wikipedia article. The purpose is self-promotion of Activism-X; there's never any further content on the page except for "Joe Blow supports our cause". It's just name-dropping, advertising, and link spam. There is no secondary source saying it happened. It could actually be a hoax where Activism-X is just using a celebrity's name to promote their cause. There is no editorial oversight on many of these activist websites; they just don't qualify as reliable sources.
Here is an example to illustrate the problem: an editor made a series of edits on 2012-10-14 where they inserted content about "Oscar's Law" activism into at least 5 celebrity articles. Eight years later, three of the articles they inserted this into still have the edits ( 1 2 3), and two have been corrected ( 4 5). Here are two sample diffs showing the insertions: [2] [3].
They aren't the only editor adding this particular non-RS website as a citation. There are currently 9 articles using oscarslaw.org as a "citation" on wiki BLP pages (see search result [4]), and one that mentions "Oscar's Law" with no citation at all (see search result [5]).
I attempted to remove the content and citation from Sia (musician) but was not only reverted, I was challenged/queried, had my detailed explanation on the Talk page half-ignored, and was told I was "misreading the SPS rule". Presumably this advocate meant self-published sources guidelines, rather than various guidelines I have been operating from, including the Questionable sources guidelines and:
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves ... so long as ... It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."
"The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.", and
"The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.", and
"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."
This isn't the only activism or activist-website that I'm having this trouble with ( you oughta see this one! ), but it was a small enough example that still illustrates the problem. There seems to be a rampant problem with this and I'm just trying to correct the encyclopedia per policy. About one in every 20 corrective edits I make there is some sort of activism blowback to waste my time.
I just want to make sure that I'm reading this policy correctly. I don't think WP:SELFSOURCE is ambiguous at all. Do others see it the same as I do, or is there another viewpoint I'm missing? Perhaps the problem is the wiki phenomenon of WP:ACTIVIST and WP:ADVOCACY, and I should just tackle each one as it comes and WP:AN/EW anyone who starts an edit war over edits correcting such activism.
Requesting feedback, please.
— Normal Op ( talk) 02:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
There is an RfC on whether the reliable sources guideline should state that headlines are unreliable. If you are interested, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Reliability of headlines. — Newslinger talk 01:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Inspired by the recent RFC about Fox News, I have started two separate RFCs on the RS noticeboard on the reliability of these media outlets. NOT intended as a Deprecation question. Please see: RFC on CNN and RFC on MSNBC. Blueboar ( talk) 00:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Currently this content guideline mentions that some sources "... should not be treated differently than the underlying press release". But it never mentions how we should treat press releases. Are press releases a "deprecated source", or are they sometimes OK as a "self-published sources"? -- DavidCary ( talk) 23:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
This might be a stupid question but I am wondering if documentaries or movies can be used as secondary sources for Wikipedia references? I haven't been able to find any mention of them in the policies on sources. If they can be used, what kind of 'publication' credentials are needed? thanks Mekinna1 ( talk)
Yes, many documentaries and some movies meet Wikipedia's requirements for a reliable source. Wikipedia:Published briefly mentions video. Wikipedia:Citing sources has some details on how to cite videos, and Wikipedia:Video links and Wikipedia:YTCOPYRIGHT goes into more detail on how (and whether) to link to the video in a citation. -- DavidCary ( talk) 23:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you DavidCary. Mekinna1 ( talk) 19:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
At WT:Verifiability#RfC:_Definition_of_self-published_works, there is an RfC to decide whether a particular definition of "self-published source" should be added to WP:V. Comments are welcome there. Zero talk 13:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Violence#RfC about the first and second sentences in the lead. Discussion partly concerns what are the best sources to use in context. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 04:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Is there any policy regarding the use of sources that have a personal conflict or some type of conflict of interest that impacts their reliability and/or objectivity as a source? Particularly if that source is being used extensively in a BLP? Like is there a policy on the use of tell-all books by ex-wives, for instance, or are they just treated like other biased sources that one should balance them out with other sources and try to document any personal history or conflict between the subject of the BLP and the author of the source? Is this a policy that should be articulated on this page somehow (or maybe it's already in a different policy somewhere else?) - thanks. Mekinna1 ( talk) 19:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
"When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering."Normal Op ( talk) 19:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I've expanded the reliable sources quiz for new editors a little more, but it still needs a few more examples before it'll be ready to launch, and I keep having an unexpectedly hard time finding good ones. Could anyone help? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
In the article squatting, I'm in a disagreement about contents that I believe is to be undue using sources which I believe to be comparable to Indymedia.org (which is a source that is crossed out red on WP:RSP as well as adding these sources alongside already present reliable source. I have little doubt that these sites are disreputable. I think introducing contents from such articles into article is inappropriate. I'm not really uncertain about the reliability of the source, but the other editor do not agree on it. Is this a source related matter for RSN or is it a due weight issue for NPOV/N instead? My contention is over the presence of sources, as well as contents based on sources 1,3,4 and 5 in the example below
Example
The building which once housed Neary's Hotel on Parnell St in Dublin's north inner city, was occupied in 2015 and renamed The Barricade Inn by squatters. [1] [2]
In protest, squatters in Amsterdam had occupied a former fire department the week before the law began (returning it to the owners control on 30 September) and a riot occurred on 1 October when the police blocked a protest and led a horse charge upon it. [3] In Nijmegen (on 2 October), there was also a riot. [4] [5]
Graywalls ( talk) 04:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
References
I was looking up Clark Middleton, and saw something from Showbiz Cheat Sheet.
Is this a reliable source? MikaelaArsenault ( talk) 00:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm trying to find a RS for Edward G. Faile being buried at Saint Paul's Church. Surprisingly, I can't find this mentioned anywhere, but I do know he was buried there because I stood in front of his gravestone and took a photo of it. How can I cite this? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Crawford, Joan (Lucille LeSueur, March 23, 1904 – May 10, 1977) San Antonio born film star.... Her ashes were placed in the vault beside the coffin of her husband, with the crypt listing her birth year as 1908..-- Moxy 🍁 20:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Are editors aware of any discussions how best to handle articles that blend factual reporting and commentary? I found one relevant prior discussion [ [6]] but I was curious if there was a larger one. I think this was one of the big criticisms of Fox News in that it would report the same objective facts as other sources but their subjective commentary was considered questionable. Outside of the many Fox News discussions is anyone aware of a more general discussion? If not is here or RSN a better place to start one? Springee ( talk) 13:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Do we have an WP:RSP equivalent? When I'm faced with print books, I'm having hard time determining if the publisher is good for fact checking (and if then for what fields) and what publishers are useless for notability establishment purposes. Graywalls ( talk) 20:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Can we cite an official website of writers-critics. I want to cite two websites: https://www.deepagahlot.com/ of Deepa Gahlot & http://bhawanasomaaya.com/ of Bhawana Somaaya. Thanks. -- Gazal world ( talk) 18:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
The /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#cite_note-7 used for the claim about human interest reporting: "[as] generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy," does not meet WP:RS guidelines. The citation is to a book review, where Laura Miller, the author of the review, is describing someone who is interviewed in the book, who is explaining that they heard that a reporter who once wrote human interest stories took "considerable license with facts." While this may be the case for that reporter, does this generalize to the genre? The review is not about the rigor of human-interest reporting in general. I'd like to open that up for discussion, and suggest finding better sources about the caliber of human-interest reporting, or modify/delete this claim from the guidelines. Shameran81 ( talk) 21:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The first 2 section titles:
I would like to propose a third section titled "Definition of reliable".
There someone could perhaps clearly mention explain that and how it's assessed over time?
It's strange there's no section for this word despite it being in the title here. WakandaQT ( talk) 08:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Someone said a podcast is not a reliable source. Is this correct and if so, where can I read the consensus about this? I can't find anything in this guideline. Bijdenhandje ( talk) 12:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello everyone, One thing I've sometimes seen on Wikipedia and which illicitly gives the false perception that something is more widely covered that it actually is, is Circular reporting, which that page defines as: "Circular reporting, false confirmation, or citogenesis is a situation in source criticism where a piece of information appears to come from multiple independent sources, but in reality comes from only one source."
I know there is a very particular Wikipedia policy for sources citing Wikipedia (see WP:CIRCULAR) that warns against using Wikipedia articles as sources. What I would like to discuss is including the more general sense of circular reporting, as defined above. In the most extreme case, there can be a Wikipedia article with one source that claims something, and all other sources on the claim citing that one single original source and not providing any new information. However, it can give the false impression that all kinds of different sources are independent source covering (even if only by trivial mention) a claim or topic. A Wikipedia article was recently deleted in part due to this issue. What do you think about this become a formal guideline? Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 05:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For example it says "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact ...". This hasn't been the case for a long time. It's well known to the public that "well-established news organizations" are heavily partisan and report everything from one point of view. One recent example is CNN/MSNBC/CBS/etc asserting that there has been no evidence of fraud in the 2020 US elections, while there are hundreds of affidavits exist alleging elections fraud, and affidavits are legally considered to be evidence. This is one of many cases of blatant lying by "well-established news organizations". This contradicts the statement that they are "generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". They can't be considered reliable when they are lying so often. I suggest this paragraph should be changed to state the opposite: "News reporting from mass-media news outlets can not be considered reliable for statements of fact ..." Yurivict ( talk) 17:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
The RfC at WP:VPP § RfC: Reliability of headlines has been closed with consensus to include a new subsection to state that headlines are unreliable. In the workshop, Awilley's suggestion garnered the most support:
News headlines are not a reliable source if the information in the headline is not explicitly supported in the body of the source. Headlines are written to quickly and briefly grab readers' attention, and may be overstated or lack context. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles.
Thryduulf suggested "explicitly noting that headlines are a reliable source for themselves when they are the subject", which would allow headlines to be used along the lines of
WP:ABOUTSELF.
Skdb
Sdkb recommended using the phrase "generally reliable" instead of the word "reliable" to afford some flexibility.
What are your thoughts on these suggestions, and do you have any other proposals for the final text? — Newslinger talk 17:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
"there is broad consensus here that we should avoid citing information in a headline that is not supported by the body of the article. … There was also some concern that the proposal is over-broad and does not allow for editorial discretion in edge cases. Sdkb suggested the wording generally unreliable instead of simply unreliable, which I don't think anyone directly objected to.Inclusion of 'general' might satisfy 'some' but shouldn't be included without qualification. Did you want particular justification for the med and bio cases I offered as compromise? Humanengr ( talk) 04:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
… when it comes to actually writing a Wikipedia article, it is misleading to give a full citation for a source after reading only its abstract; the abstract necessarily presents a stripped-down version of the conclusions and omits the background that can be crucial for understanding exactly what the source says, and may not represent the article's actual conclusions. [1] …From the article cited there:
Even in large-circulation general medical journals, data in abstracts were commonly inconsistency[sic] with full reports.Those confirm — for this high consequence area — both the RfC's view of headlines and WP:NEWSORG's
even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors.. Re bios, I note WP:BLPSOURCE's caution re
Contentious material … that is … poorly sourced; and WP:PUBLICFIGURE:
If an allegation or incident is … well-documented …Humanengr ( talk) 06:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The headline seems undoubtedly reliable for a sentence like, 'X [journalist/author/critic], wrote [headline].' or 'The Chicago Tribune published an article, [headline]. - Alanscottwalker ( talk) 12:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
But here we’re talking about a generally reliable source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.Humanengr ( talk) 19:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I've fixed the misspelling, sorry about that. My comment used {{ np}} to avoid pinging anyone, since I did not want to invite only those who were mentioned in the comment. I did publish a short notification of this discussion at WP:VPP § Continuation of workshop. — Newslinger talk 16:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
a new policy in which all writers write their own headlines and all headlines are put through three rounds of fact checking before publication, start an RFC carving out a headline exception for that agency. Schazjmd (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
References
generally. You are putting words in the mouth of several of the users you list, as e.g. Izno did not weigh in on whether or not to use that word, and Elizium23 weighed in only with a skeptical query to Blueboar that seems to indicate if anything more a leaning toward my view. But this is a discussion, not a vote, so the pertinent question is arguments, not numbers. My argument about
generallywas sufficiently strong that Mz7 mentioned it in their close, and in this follow-up discussion here, I do not see anyone convincingly addressing the RSP Greenlit Times point I raised above. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 23:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
generally, so to implement the RfC result after more than a month of delay, I think we should go with PackMecEng's edit. For what it's worth, I do not think this is a big deal; if the hypothetical situation you pose ever does occur, then we can revisit this issue then. At the end of the day, this is merely a guideline and WP:IAR is policy. Mz7 ( talk) 00:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
? Humanengr ( talk) 11:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly, and may be overstated or lack context.
The thesis/dissertation paragraph in the " Scholarship" section needs a lot of work as it greatly confuses reliability with due weight. In brief, nearly all theses and dissertations that are produced at reputable (in the U.S., I'd say "accredited") institutions with typical processes of review by a committee or supervisor are reliable. Most of what the current paragraph is addressing is whether the document is sufficiently noteworthy to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article. It's good advice but misplaced in this policy as it's not about reliability. ElKevbo ( talk) 18:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I understand that
WP:RSPRIMARY states that secondary sources that present the same material [as primary sources] are preferred
, but is it necessary to include a primary source (e.g., an Instagram post that verifies a child's birth) in addition to an existing secondary source (e.g., a magazine article that verifies said birth by directly referencing said Instagram post)? A user said to me that it is a
basic journalistic and biographical-research tenet that you go to the original source
and that we don't have to take [the secondary source's] word for it
when we can see the source for ourselves
, which I believed contradicted RSPRIMARY, so I'd like clarity on the matter.
KyleJoan
talk
04:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree "basic journalistic and biographical-research tenet that you go to the original source". When preparing to edit an article, the editor may find several reputable secondary sources that summarize a primary source in different ways, so the editor, if possible, would view the primary source. Then the editor would choose the secondary source that best represented the primary source, and if the difference among the secondary sources was significant, cite both the primary and secondary sources. On rare occasions, the primary source may be more reputable than the secondary sources, and all the secondary sources got it wrong, so it would be best to cite only the primary source.
I have had occasions where editors who were not especially well informed about calendars challenged dates for events that occurred where the Julian calendar was in effect, and sometimes the beginning of the year was observed on March 25 instead of January 1, and who challenged a date from a secondary source. The challenge might occur on the English Wikipedia, or it might occur on Wikidata, where a bot had imported the date from the English Wikipedia (and probably screwed it up in the process). In these cases it is helpful to cite a birth or death role made by civil or church authorities close to the time the event occurred, so the calendar conversion policy of the secondary source can be determined. For example,
which is cited in John Penn ("the American"). Jc3s5h ( talk) 16:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Do images require RS? File:Columbia University Tunnels.png is a self-drawn map of the tunnels under Columbia University. The legend states, "Information gathered over the course of many expeditions by many people", so clearly WP:OR. It's used to illustrate Columbia University tunnels, which itself is a poster child for OR. The question is, where does the requirement to have WP:RS apply? Does the image itself need RS, or just when it's used to illustrate an article? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Millions of article pre-prints, white papers, and datasets (e.g., for COVID research) are available in university institutional and open science repositories, and these artifacts are used as credible academic sources all the time, typically in the hard sciences.
I've recently proposed and pioneered a new form of academic/scholarly communication and digital space/property that I call a LODLIB--a Linked Open Data Living Informational Book, essentially an iterative digital codex, or a science book treated as evolving software. It works just like the academic literature and artifacts above, allowing an author or research team to revise, update, and supplement it as needed.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3971881
I kindly ask that the Wikipedia community of editors give consideration to this new proposed mode of scholarly communication, one that resonates deeply with the core values of Wikipedia: transparency, open science, free knowledge, ease of correction, and global open peer review. Peer-review already takes many forms in the print-based knowledge sharing ecosystem: prior to publication, during the editorial process leading to publication, and after publication. An iterative Linked Open Data and Open Science mode of publishing findings does not bypass peer-review. Quite the opposite, it opens it up radically and instantly to global scholarly audiences.
The crucial question really is, can scientific discoveries and scientific knowledge be evaluated and shared freely and independently of publisher monopolies? Do academic publishers alone get to define what is real and reliable, or is legitimate scientific truth self-evident? It will be fascinating to see how the Wikipedia hive mind sorts out that question.
Thank you for your consideration! Vocesanticae ( talk) 23:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Do we have any explanation yet of how we avoid the turtles all the way down problem when using reliable source A to establish source B is reliable source B?
It seems like we would need some independent means of evaluation as a starting point to first establish a starting reference point of sources which we could then use to justify other ones. WakandaQT ( talk) 07:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I've started an RfC on the acceptability of a source and would greatly appreciate if a few editors who are deeply familiar with sourcing on the English Wikipedia might pop over to the particular RfC and offer perspective. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 21:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi all
Are there any rules or guidelines around the reliability of sources that produce hate speech? Would sources by definition be unreliable sources because they publish hate speech?
As an example The American Conservative is used as a reference 32 times on English Wikipedia and has published several articles that would to me clearly fit within the UK (where I live) legal definition of a hate crime. I'm including this as a definition of hate speech rather than to bring in legality of sources in different places.
Some example articles from their website:
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 23:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:SOURCETYPES emphasises scholarship and academic sources but does not mention works published by respected publishing houses, although this type of source is mentioned explicitly in
WP:SOURCES: Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: *University-level textbooks *Books published by respected publishing houses [...].
I suggest adding a very small bit of text to this page as follows: Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications and respected publishing houses. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.
--
JBchrch (
talk)
10:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I did a quick search of this guideline for the words "foreign" and "language", didn't find anything. I believe we are allowed to use foreign language sources. Should we perhaps add a sentence to this guideline explicitly stating this? Also, are foreign language sources addressed in another guideline somewhere? Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
As an example, I've found several reliable sources which claim that Japan's birth rate in 2019 was its lowest in history. [1] [2] [3] However, this claim is completely false, Japan's birth rate has actually increased since 2005. [4] [5]
Should there be any dicussion as to whether this source is still as reliable, given that it has promoted false claims? Prins van Oranje 18:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Far too often, I've come across text that's only supported by the subheading of the article--and not by the main body. It is my understanding that subheadings are often written for click bait purposes and by the same copy editors who write the headlines. WP:HEADLINES should encompass sub-headings too. Any thoughts or objections on this? Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 07:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles- is that also true for subheadings? -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:18, 12 March 2021 (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 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | → | Archive 70 |
In WP:V#Reliable sources, "reliable, third-party, published sources" was changed to "reliable, independent, published sources" by WhatamIdoing (see this discussion) and similarly by Dayirmiter from "reliable third-party sources" to "reliable independent sources" in NOR (see this discussion). I think those changes make sense. Should the same change be made here in the Overview and Medical claims sections? Humanengr ( talk) 18:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I made those changes along with a few others to comport. Humanengr ( talk) 21:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources …to WP:SOURCE's
Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources …, does seem to support adding 'independent' to the RS lede. But the full text of WP:RS and WP:V indicates that all content should be verifiable (aka attributable) to 'published' sources, some of which are 'reliable' and others 'are usually not reliable'. In the latter category, certain exceptions are allowed; with 'Independence' indicated explicitly for WP:SELFPUB in WP:V and its counterpart WP:RSSELF in WP:RS and implicitly for WP:ABOUTSELF (in WP:V) and its counterpart WP:SELFSOURCE (in WP:RS). On that basis, it seems to me that — for consistency — 'independent' should be removed from WP:SOURCE to indicate it is not, as Blueboar notes, required for all content. I also suggest we add a sentence to WP:RS 1st para to the effect (adopting Blueboar's words): "The bulk of an article should be based on independent sources." Similar language
… the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources.appears (buried a bit?) at WP:SELFSOURCE. [Adding:] Or perhaps fold in WP:SECONDARY's
Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources.(~ WP:V's
Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources) to yield "The bulk of an article should be based on independent secondary sources"? Humanengr ( talk) 00:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
very limited. Contrastingly, lots of dependent sources are regularly used appropriately in articles (e.g., court decisions, legislative documents like statutes, press releases, censuses, etc.). -- Bsherr ( talk) 00:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Unpublished materials are not considered reliable, thus, reliable already means published.
Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.There's also the section about bias. And the section about self-published sources. All of these things can be sources that are not independent, but are not always so. Could we have a section about independence as a factor in determining whether a source is reliable? Definitely yes. But I think we need to commit to doing that, so we're not bringing up the concept in the lede and then never actually discussing it on the page.
@Flyer22 Frozen, given Masem's and Bsherr's remarks, if (as you returned it to now), 'independent' is dropped from the lead phrase, leaving 'reliable, published', I think for consistency we should remove it from the lead sentence of 'Overview'. The other couplings of 'reliable' and 'independent' in the body (in 'Vendor and e-commerce sources', 'Self-published sources (online and paper)', 'Medical claims') would remain (along with other scattered uses of 'independent/ce' on its own). At least some of those should be linked to WP:IS, as in WP:V and WP:NOR.
Re having a separate § on 'Independence', as Bsherr mentioned, it might work to have a brief 'Independence matters' § after 'Context matters' that summarizes the various issues raised below — maybe starting with something like "The great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources." (pulling that from Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves §) and then continuing with 'Allowable exceptions and issues to be considered regarding independence are addressed in several sections below.'
@ Jc3s5h, Bsherr, all: What if, along with the above, we also put the "The great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources." as the second sentence in the intro? Or maybe an elaborated version — "The great majority of any article must be drawn from sources that are independent from and can fairly portray the subject." — where 'can fairly portray' comes from the lead sentence of WP:IS. That is, the lead para would be
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The great majority of any article must be drawn from sources that are independent from and can fairly portray the subject. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. [italics for new]
Humanengr ( talk) 17:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The great majority of any article must be drawn from sources that are independent from and can fairly portray the subject. If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. [italics for new]
independence as a factor in determining whether a source is reliablesuggests inverting the order to "independent reliable". Would that satisfactorily address both the 'factor' and 'conjunction' issues? If so, the last sentence in the above proposal should be changed to
If no independent reliable sources can be found ….
the merits of independent sourcesin WP:NPOV or WP:IS, the former currently speaks only in terms of 'bias', so it might be too detailed for there; the latter is not a policy or guideline. So, maybe it does deserve a § in WP:RS as you mentioned. Humanengr ( talk) 05:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
The way we have split up material in our policies and guidelines that deals with sources tends to create a need to mention different aspects of non-independent sources in each of several policies and guidelines. For example
Jc3s5h ( talk) 13:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Humanengr, I just saw that you came back and continued this discussion. I stand by what I've stated. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 03:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Verifiability on Wikipedia is a reader's ability to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article.— spoke only (if one ignores the links) to what I'm labeling 'provenance' — providing the reader with the "ability to check where the information comes from" (including issues such as identifying document, author, publisher and ease of access).
reliable already means published: I'm more inclined to place 'published' under the heading of 'provenance' than 'reliability'. Also, given that 'reliable' and 'published' are coupled prominently in all 3 core content policies, I'd prefer to leave that be for now. OK? Humanengr ( talk) 08:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey everyone I found this page and a lot of its sources are cited as unreliable for being blogs. Someone recently added a source on that page but it's for a YouTube video and it was placed by the user to promote another artist so I don't know if it counts as reliable either. It's my first time finding a page that has lots of sources cited unreliable and I thought they should be removed but since they are cited instead of just removed I wasn't sure if it had to be discussed at a talk page first or could those sources just be removed. If someone could either tell me what the proper step is to correcting that page or look into that page themselves I would appreciate it. FanDePopLatino ( talk) 15:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."You have certainly challenged the material and sources. I checked a few of the sources you tagged... self-published, blogs, questionable, etc. You may find after verification that this person is not even notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia, and was only using it as advertising. Normal Op ( talk) 23:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Wikipedia:SOURCE?. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 9#Wikipedia:SOURCE? until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –
The Grid (
talk)
00:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Reliability of PETA. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 02:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I am requesting clarity re WP:SELFSOURCE with regards editors using activism/ advocacy websites as sources for citations on biography pages, effectively using Wikipedia to continue promotion of their activism and prolonging/perpetuating/expanding their own use of celebrity branding over many years through Wikipedia.
I have encountered a few cases of blowback when I have tried to remove non-RS content per WP:SELFSOURCE. Some editors think that if Activism X's website says blahblahblah about Person Y, then it is okay to put Activism-X's blahblahblah claim on Person-Y's Wikipedia article. Their assertion is that Act-X is talking about themselves. I assert that per WP:SELFSOURCE, Activism-X may only be used as a citation to claim what Activism-X says about activism-X, and may not ever be used as a citation to state any claim about Person-Y. I read the policy as meaning that an editor must instead provide a secondary source that verifies the claim by Activism-X about Person-Y, because Act-X's website is a self-published, non-reliable source. It's like these editors are confused about how far the phrase "about themselves" extends in WP:SELFSOURCE.
Especially in the case where Person-Y may have been hired by Activism-X to appear in an advertisement for the benefit of Activism-X using celebrity branding (whether or not Person-Y was paid money or donated their time and name). It would seem inappropriate to use Activism-X's website's claims as a citation in Person-Y's Wikipedia article. The purpose is self-promotion of Activism-X; there's never any further content on the page except for "Joe Blow supports our cause". It's just name-dropping, advertising, and link spam. There is no secondary source saying it happened. It could actually be a hoax where Activism-X is just using a celebrity's name to promote their cause. There is no editorial oversight on many of these activist websites; they just don't qualify as reliable sources.
Here is an example to illustrate the problem: an editor made a series of edits on 2012-10-14 where they inserted content about "Oscar's Law" activism into at least 5 celebrity articles. Eight years later, three of the articles they inserted this into still have the edits ( 1 2 3), and two have been corrected ( 4 5). Here are two sample diffs showing the insertions: [2] [3].
They aren't the only editor adding this particular non-RS website as a citation. There are currently 9 articles using oscarslaw.org as a "citation" on wiki BLP pages (see search result [4]), and one that mentions "Oscar's Law" with no citation at all (see search result [5]).
I attempted to remove the content and citation from Sia (musician) but was not only reverted, I was challenged/queried, had my detailed explanation on the Talk page half-ignored, and was told I was "misreading the SPS rule". Presumably this advocate meant self-published sources guidelines, rather than various guidelines I have been operating from, including the Questionable sources guidelines and:
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves ... so long as ... It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."
"The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.", and
"The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.", and
"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."
This isn't the only activism or activist-website that I'm having this trouble with ( you oughta see this one! ), but it was a small enough example that still illustrates the problem. There seems to be a rampant problem with this and I'm just trying to correct the encyclopedia per policy. About one in every 20 corrective edits I make there is some sort of activism blowback to waste my time.
I just want to make sure that I'm reading this policy correctly. I don't think WP:SELFSOURCE is ambiguous at all. Do others see it the same as I do, or is there another viewpoint I'm missing? Perhaps the problem is the wiki phenomenon of WP:ACTIVIST and WP:ADVOCACY, and I should just tackle each one as it comes and WP:AN/EW anyone who starts an edit war over edits correcting such activism.
Requesting feedback, please.
— Normal Op ( talk) 02:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
There is an RfC on whether the reliable sources guideline should state that headlines are unreliable. If you are interested, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Reliability of headlines. — Newslinger talk 01:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Inspired by the recent RFC about Fox News, I have started two separate RFCs on the RS noticeboard on the reliability of these media outlets. NOT intended as a Deprecation question. Please see: RFC on CNN and RFC on MSNBC. Blueboar ( talk) 00:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Currently this content guideline mentions that some sources "... should not be treated differently than the underlying press release". But it never mentions how we should treat press releases. Are press releases a "deprecated source", or are they sometimes OK as a "self-published sources"? -- DavidCary ( talk) 23:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
This might be a stupid question but I am wondering if documentaries or movies can be used as secondary sources for Wikipedia references? I haven't been able to find any mention of them in the policies on sources. If they can be used, what kind of 'publication' credentials are needed? thanks Mekinna1 ( talk)
Yes, many documentaries and some movies meet Wikipedia's requirements for a reliable source. Wikipedia:Published briefly mentions video. Wikipedia:Citing sources has some details on how to cite videos, and Wikipedia:Video links and Wikipedia:YTCOPYRIGHT goes into more detail on how (and whether) to link to the video in a citation. -- DavidCary ( talk) 23:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you DavidCary. Mekinna1 ( talk) 19:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
At WT:Verifiability#RfC:_Definition_of_self-published_works, there is an RfC to decide whether a particular definition of "self-published source" should be added to WP:V. Comments are welcome there. Zero talk 13:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Violence#RfC about the first and second sentences in the lead. Discussion partly concerns what are the best sources to use in context. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 04:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Is there any policy regarding the use of sources that have a personal conflict or some type of conflict of interest that impacts their reliability and/or objectivity as a source? Particularly if that source is being used extensively in a BLP? Like is there a policy on the use of tell-all books by ex-wives, for instance, or are they just treated like other biased sources that one should balance them out with other sources and try to document any personal history or conflict between the subject of the BLP and the author of the source? Is this a policy that should be articulated on this page somehow (or maybe it's already in a different policy somewhere else?) - thanks. Mekinna1 ( talk) 19:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
"When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering."Normal Op ( talk) 19:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I've expanded the reliable sources quiz for new editors a little more, but it still needs a few more examples before it'll be ready to launch, and I keep having an unexpectedly hard time finding good ones. Could anyone help? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
In the article squatting, I'm in a disagreement about contents that I believe is to be undue using sources which I believe to be comparable to Indymedia.org (which is a source that is crossed out red on WP:RSP as well as adding these sources alongside already present reliable source. I have little doubt that these sites are disreputable. I think introducing contents from such articles into article is inappropriate. I'm not really uncertain about the reliability of the source, but the other editor do not agree on it. Is this a source related matter for RSN or is it a due weight issue for NPOV/N instead? My contention is over the presence of sources, as well as contents based on sources 1,3,4 and 5 in the example below
Example
The building which once housed Neary's Hotel on Parnell St in Dublin's north inner city, was occupied in 2015 and renamed The Barricade Inn by squatters. [1] [2]
In protest, squatters in Amsterdam had occupied a former fire department the week before the law began (returning it to the owners control on 30 September) and a riot occurred on 1 October when the police blocked a protest and led a horse charge upon it. [3] In Nijmegen (on 2 October), there was also a riot. [4] [5]
Graywalls ( talk) 04:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
References
I was looking up Clark Middleton, and saw something from Showbiz Cheat Sheet.
Is this a reliable source? MikaelaArsenault ( talk) 00:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm trying to find a RS for Edward G. Faile being buried at Saint Paul's Church. Surprisingly, I can't find this mentioned anywhere, but I do know he was buried there because I stood in front of his gravestone and took a photo of it. How can I cite this? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Crawford, Joan (Lucille LeSueur, March 23, 1904 – May 10, 1977) San Antonio born film star.... Her ashes were placed in the vault beside the coffin of her husband, with the crypt listing her birth year as 1908..-- Moxy 🍁 20:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Are editors aware of any discussions how best to handle articles that blend factual reporting and commentary? I found one relevant prior discussion [ [6]] but I was curious if there was a larger one. I think this was one of the big criticisms of Fox News in that it would report the same objective facts as other sources but their subjective commentary was considered questionable. Outside of the many Fox News discussions is anyone aware of a more general discussion? If not is here or RSN a better place to start one? Springee ( talk) 13:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Do we have an WP:RSP equivalent? When I'm faced with print books, I'm having hard time determining if the publisher is good for fact checking (and if then for what fields) and what publishers are useless for notability establishment purposes. Graywalls ( talk) 20:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Can we cite an official website of writers-critics. I want to cite two websites: https://www.deepagahlot.com/ of Deepa Gahlot & http://bhawanasomaaya.com/ of Bhawana Somaaya. Thanks. -- Gazal world ( talk) 18:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
The /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#cite_note-7 used for the claim about human interest reporting: "[as] generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy," does not meet WP:RS guidelines. The citation is to a book review, where Laura Miller, the author of the review, is describing someone who is interviewed in the book, who is explaining that they heard that a reporter who once wrote human interest stories took "considerable license with facts." While this may be the case for that reporter, does this generalize to the genre? The review is not about the rigor of human-interest reporting in general. I'd like to open that up for discussion, and suggest finding better sources about the caliber of human-interest reporting, or modify/delete this claim from the guidelines. Shameran81 ( talk) 21:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The first 2 section titles:
I would like to propose a third section titled "Definition of reliable".
There someone could perhaps clearly mention explain that and how it's assessed over time?
It's strange there's no section for this word despite it being in the title here. WakandaQT ( talk) 08:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Someone said a podcast is not a reliable source. Is this correct and if so, where can I read the consensus about this? I can't find anything in this guideline. Bijdenhandje ( talk) 12:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello everyone, One thing I've sometimes seen on Wikipedia and which illicitly gives the false perception that something is more widely covered that it actually is, is Circular reporting, which that page defines as: "Circular reporting, false confirmation, or citogenesis is a situation in source criticism where a piece of information appears to come from multiple independent sources, but in reality comes from only one source."
I know there is a very particular Wikipedia policy for sources citing Wikipedia (see WP:CIRCULAR) that warns against using Wikipedia articles as sources. What I would like to discuss is including the more general sense of circular reporting, as defined above. In the most extreme case, there can be a Wikipedia article with one source that claims something, and all other sources on the claim citing that one single original source and not providing any new information. However, it can give the false impression that all kinds of different sources are independent source covering (even if only by trivial mention) a claim or topic. A Wikipedia article was recently deleted in part due to this issue. What do you think about this become a formal guideline? Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 05:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For example it says "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact ...". This hasn't been the case for a long time. It's well known to the public that "well-established news organizations" are heavily partisan and report everything from one point of view. One recent example is CNN/MSNBC/CBS/etc asserting that there has been no evidence of fraud in the 2020 US elections, while there are hundreds of affidavits exist alleging elections fraud, and affidavits are legally considered to be evidence. This is one of many cases of blatant lying by "well-established news organizations". This contradicts the statement that they are "generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". They can't be considered reliable when they are lying so often. I suggest this paragraph should be changed to state the opposite: "News reporting from mass-media news outlets can not be considered reliable for statements of fact ..." Yurivict ( talk) 17:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
The RfC at WP:VPP § RfC: Reliability of headlines has been closed with consensus to include a new subsection to state that headlines are unreliable. In the workshop, Awilley's suggestion garnered the most support:
News headlines are not a reliable source if the information in the headline is not explicitly supported in the body of the source. Headlines are written to quickly and briefly grab readers' attention, and may be overstated or lack context. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles.
Thryduulf suggested "explicitly noting that headlines are a reliable source for themselves when they are the subject", which would allow headlines to be used along the lines of
WP:ABOUTSELF.
Skdb
Sdkb recommended using the phrase "generally reliable" instead of the word "reliable" to afford some flexibility.
What are your thoughts on these suggestions, and do you have any other proposals for the final text? — Newslinger talk 17:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
"there is broad consensus here that we should avoid citing information in a headline that is not supported by the body of the article. … There was also some concern that the proposal is over-broad and does not allow for editorial discretion in edge cases. Sdkb suggested the wording generally unreliable instead of simply unreliable, which I don't think anyone directly objected to.Inclusion of 'general' might satisfy 'some' but shouldn't be included without qualification. Did you want particular justification for the med and bio cases I offered as compromise? Humanengr ( talk) 04:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
… when it comes to actually writing a Wikipedia article, it is misleading to give a full citation for a source after reading only its abstract; the abstract necessarily presents a stripped-down version of the conclusions and omits the background that can be crucial for understanding exactly what the source says, and may not represent the article's actual conclusions. [1] …From the article cited there:
Even in large-circulation general medical journals, data in abstracts were commonly inconsistency[sic] with full reports.Those confirm — for this high consequence area — both the RfC's view of headlines and WP:NEWSORG's
even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors.. Re bios, I note WP:BLPSOURCE's caution re
Contentious material … that is … poorly sourced; and WP:PUBLICFIGURE:
If an allegation or incident is … well-documented …Humanengr ( talk) 06:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The headline seems undoubtedly reliable for a sentence like, 'X [journalist/author/critic], wrote [headline].' or 'The Chicago Tribune published an article, [headline]. - Alanscottwalker ( talk) 12:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
But here we’re talking about a generally reliable source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.Humanengr ( talk) 19:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I've fixed the misspelling, sorry about that. My comment used {{ np}} to avoid pinging anyone, since I did not want to invite only those who were mentioned in the comment. I did publish a short notification of this discussion at WP:VPP § Continuation of workshop. — Newslinger talk 16:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
a new policy in which all writers write their own headlines and all headlines are put through three rounds of fact checking before publication, start an RFC carving out a headline exception for that agency. Schazjmd (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
References
generally. You are putting words in the mouth of several of the users you list, as e.g. Izno did not weigh in on whether or not to use that word, and Elizium23 weighed in only with a skeptical query to Blueboar that seems to indicate if anything more a leaning toward my view. But this is a discussion, not a vote, so the pertinent question is arguments, not numbers. My argument about
generallywas sufficiently strong that Mz7 mentioned it in their close, and in this follow-up discussion here, I do not see anyone convincingly addressing the RSP Greenlit Times point I raised above. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 23:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
generally, so to implement the RfC result after more than a month of delay, I think we should go with PackMecEng's edit. For what it's worth, I do not think this is a big deal; if the hypothetical situation you pose ever does occur, then we can revisit this issue then. At the end of the day, this is merely a guideline and WP:IAR is policy. Mz7 ( talk) 00:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
? Humanengr ( talk) 11:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly, and may be overstated or lack context.
The thesis/dissertation paragraph in the " Scholarship" section needs a lot of work as it greatly confuses reliability with due weight. In brief, nearly all theses and dissertations that are produced at reputable (in the U.S., I'd say "accredited") institutions with typical processes of review by a committee or supervisor are reliable. Most of what the current paragraph is addressing is whether the document is sufficiently noteworthy to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article. It's good advice but misplaced in this policy as it's not about reliability. ElKevbo ( talk) 18:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I understand that
WP:RSPRIMARY states that secondary sources that present the same material [as primary sources] are preferred
, but is it necessary to include a primary source (e.g., an Instagram post that verifies a child's birth) in addition to an existing secondary source (e.g., a magazine article that verifies said birth by directly referencing said Instagram post)? A user said to me that it is a
basic journalistic and biographical-research tenet that you go to the original source
and that we don't have to take [the secondary source's] word for it
when we can see the source for ourselves
, which I believed contradicted RSPRIMARY, so I'd like clarity on the matter.
KyleJoan
talk
04:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree "basic journalistic and biographical-research tenet that you go to the original source". When preparing to edit an article, the editor may find several reputable secondary sources that summarize a primary source in different ways, so the editor, if possible, would view the primary source. Then the editor would choose the secondary source that best represented the primary source, and if the difference among the secondary sources was significant, cite both the primary and secondary sources. On rare occasions, the primary source may be more reputable than the secondary sources, and all the secondary sources got it wrong, so it would be best to cite only the primary source.
I have had occasions where editors who were not especially well informed about calendars challenged dates for events that occurred where the Julian calendar was in effect, and sometimes the beginning of the year was observed on March 25 instead of January 1, and who challenged a date from a secondary source. The challenge might occur on the English Wikipedia, or it might occur on Wikidata, where a bot had imported the date from the English Wikipedia (and probably screwed it up in the process). In these cases it is helpful to cite a birth or death role made by civil or church authorities close to the time the event occurred, so the calendar conversion policy of the secondary source can be determined. For example,
which is cited in John Penn ("the American"). Jc3s5h ( talk) 16:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Do images require RS? File:Columbia University Tunnels.png is a self-drawn map of the tunnels under Columbia University. The legend states, "Information gathered over the course of many expeditions by many people", so clearly WP:OR. It's used to illustrate Columbia University tunnels, which itself is a poster child for OR. The question is, where does the requirement to have WP:RS apply? Does the image itself need RS, or just when it's used to illustrate an article? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Millions of article pre-prints, white papers, and datasets (e.g., for COVID research) are available in university institutional and open science repositories, and these artifacts are used as credible academic sources all the time, typically in the hard sciences.
I've recently proposed and pioneered a new form of academic/scholarly communication and digital space/property that I call a LODLIB--a Linked Open Data Living Informational Book, essentially an iterative digital codex, or a science book treated as evolving software. It works just like the academic literature and artifacts above, allowing an author or research team to revise, update, and supplement it as needed.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3971881
I kindly ask that the Wikipedia community of editors give consideration to this new proposed mode of scholarly communication, one that resonates deeply with the core values of Wikipedia: transparency, open science, free knowledge, ease of correction, and global open peer review. Peer-review already takes many forms in the print-based knowledge sharing ecosystem: prior to publication, during the editorial process leading to publication, and after publication. An iterative Linked Open Data and Open Science mode of publishing findings does not bypass peer-review. Quite the opposite, it opens it up radically and instantly to global scholarly audiences.
The crucial question really is, can scientific discoveries and scientific knowledge be evaluated and shared freely and independently of publisher monopolies? Do academic publishers alone get to define what is real and reliable, or is legitimate scientific truth self-evident? It will be fascinating to see how the Wikipedia hive mind sorts out that question.
Thank you for your consideration! Vocesanticae ( talk) 23:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Do we have any explanation yet of how we avoid the turtles all the way down problem when using reliable source A to establish source B is reliable source B?
It seems like we would need some independent means of evaluation as a starting point to first establish a starting reference point of sources which we could then use to justify other ones. WakandaQT ( talk) 07:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I've started an RfC on the acceptability of a source and would greatly appreciate if a few editors who are deeply familiar with sourcing on the English Wikipedia might pop over to the particular RfC and offer perspective. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 21:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi all
Are there any rules or guidelines around the reliability of sources that produce hate speech? Would sources by definition be unreliable sources because they publish hate speech?
As an example The American Conservative is used as a reference 32 times on English Wikipedia and has published several articles that would to me clearly fit within the UK (where I live) legal definition of a hate crime. I'm including this as a definition of hate speech rather than to bring in legality of sources in different places.
Some example articles from their website:
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 23:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:SOURCETYPES emphasises scholarship and academic sources but does not mention works published by respected publishing houses, although this type of source is mentioned explicitly in
WP:SOURCES: Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: *University-level textbooks *Books published by respected publishing houses [...].
I suggest adding a very small bit of text to this page as follows: Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications and respected publishing houses. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.
--
JBchrch (
talk)
10:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I did a quick search of this guideline for the words "foreign" and "language", didn't find anything. I believe we are allowed to use foreign language sources. Should we perhaps add a sentence to this guideline explicitly stating this? Also, are foreign language sources addressed in another guideline somewhere? Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
As an example, I've found several reliable sources which claim that Japan's birth rate in 2019 was its lowest in history. [1] [2] [3] However, this claim is completely false, Japan's birth rate has actually increased since 2005. [4] [5]
Should there be any dicussion as to whether this source is still as reliable, given that it has promoted false claims? Prins van Oranje 18:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Far too often, I've come across text that's only supported by the subheading of the article--and not by the main body. It is my understanding that subheadings are often written for click bait purposes and by the same copy editors who write the headlines. WP:HEADLINES should encompass sub-headings too. Any thoughts or objections on this? Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 07:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles- is that also true for subheadings? -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)