![]() | 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 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | → | Archive 70 |
WP:RSEDITORIAL states
"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."
I've been working with a lot of Islam-related articles on controversial topics, both pro-Islam and anti-Islam. Many of them have "criticism" or "controversy" sections. Since opinion pieces/editorials are primary sources, is it appropriate to cite them directly in such articles to say, for example, "Person A believes that Muslim Organization X is Islamist and terrorist-leaning" (citing Person A's editorial) or that "Person B believes that Person Y is very anti-Muslim" (citing Person B's editorial)? Do the editorials, as primary sources, need to be covered in other reliable secondary sources before they can be discussed on the article of whichever Wikipedia topic is the target of criticism by the editorials? If not, does that mean practically any editorial could warrant mention for the opinion of its author as long as it is relevant to the topic of the Wikipedia article? Snuish ( talk) 03:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes there are articles which are about an application or piece of software where it can be difficult to find reliable secondary sources describing application features, known issues, etc, as they may not even exist in the currently allowable list. I propose the idea that if actual source code is publicly available, that it should be allowed as a reliable source. The source code doesn't have a point of view, and cannot lie or make exaggerated claims (the comments might, but the actual code cannot). If source code can be pointed to, then it should be acceptable. For example, the GIMP article has a lot of references to gimp.org for release notes (which is technically not even allowed, as it a website promoting a product), but the GIMP source code itself is the source itself, and should be an indisputable source of whether or not a certain feature (or bug) exists. -- Thoric ( talk) 20:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Given that edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Istanbul_Airport&oldid=1012106079 , what happens if a source cannot be read and thus no longer gives proof? -- Bouzinac ( talk) 18:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I've asked this question at WT:VG but wasn't really satisfied with the answer.
Nintendo Everything is considered an unreliable source per WP:VG/RS, namely because it's a fan blog site in broad terms. However, they often interview video game developers, and more often than not I see these interviews trying to rewrite an article (this time around Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam). So, would these interviews be considered WP:PRIMARY and allowed, or would they still be unusable? And follow-up question, would it meet WP:GA standards? P anini 🥪 17:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to add this to the project page with the above heading. The section WP:CONTEXTMATTERS or WP:RSCONTEXT deals with 'reliability of source' whereas this section would deal with the issue of biased generalisation of claims.
Theories dealing with subjective interpretations and implementations need to be contextualised in concrete conditions. This contextualisation needs to account for specific historic development and overlapping characteristics without trying to extrapolate to other contexts with different historic backgrounds and conditions. There are a set of topics that are contentious due to the nature of their implementation and corresponding effects. The contention could arise from the lack of contextualisation, the fallacy of mixing theory with practice, giving
WP:UNDUE weightage to certain examples or because the point of view is not supported by
WP:RS. Due to this, editors will almost inevitably confuse opposing views, based on different contexts, as violating
neutral point of view. If you think you've spotted one, please spend a moment before trying to report them straight to
the incident noticeboard and consider
dispute resolution.
Vikram Vincent
09:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
The policy village pump is the most visible venue for policy/guideline suggestions, and my advice is to start a discussion there (after completing the essay) to determine if any portion of the essay content can be incorporated into a relevant policy/guideline. There is a possibility that there would be no consensus for any changes, and if that is the case, there is nothing wrong with adding the essay to the essay directory. — Newslinger talk 21:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Sorry, I missed a word. — Newslinger talk 08:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
the whole origin of this "contextualization" stuff is to aid and abet POV pushingis toxic and far from the truth. My PhD work has been around historical thinking and my interest stems from there. You attributing motive where none exists is against WP:AGF. I think you need to redact that sentence and apologise cause this is not how an editor treats others irrespective of the disagreement. Vikram Vincent 09:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
What happens if a reliable source makes a false claim, while dealing with claims in statistics. The proposal is simple and can be boiled down to one line:Clearly state the context of the claims that you are making. This would be very useful to contentious topics. Vikram Vincent 06:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Doing a GA review of Siwanoy, there's a source I'm dubious about:
Barr, Lockwood (1946). Ancient Town of Pelham, Westchester County, New York. Richmond, Va.: Dietz Press. p. 13.
I can't find much on Dietz Press. Their website ( https://www.dietzpress.com/) gives precious little information. The google book entry also mentions Higginson Book Company ( https://higginsonbooks.com/) which also doesn't say much. I'm guessing this is a vanity press. Anybody know anything about Dietz? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I thought that folks would want to be aware of this.
Peaceray ( talk) 17:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I have read Wikipedia articles on a regular basis (usually daily) for several years now. What I've noticed is that the large majority of reliable sources are liberal/left-leaning news media outlets. This is a fact based on simple analysis (not opinion). Why are so few right-leaning/conservative news outlets considered reliable? I could be wrong on this but I believe WSJ is literally the only right-leaning outlet considered "generally reliable" (i.e. the green check) according to perennial sources page, while there are at least 15 or 20 liberal/left-leaning sources. How can Wikipedia be considered a neutral and balanced encyclopedia when this is the case? K.Q.1997 ( talk) 22:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Checking back and noticed none of the above editors answered my original question about the bias found throughout Wikipedia on American political articles. Instead people brought up stuff about how Trump is a liar (which I agree with) and how conservative media are all in a cult and embrace alternative facts. This makes me thinks the issue could be the editors themselves who have a partisan bias and are able to skew Wikipedia in one direction. What are the credentials of people who edit Wikipedia articles? Also to be fair I don't follow politics of other countries but as a person who identifies as a centrist on most issues/liberal on social issues like abortion & LGBT rights, the bias in favor of one side is pretty obvious. K.Q.1997 ( talk) 22:40, 14 April 2021 (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.
These two media outlets seem to be consistently failing to verify what they hear from unnamed sources. See the articles from multiple media outlets this week about the unreliability of reports (broken by the NY Times) about the Russian bounty program. Pkeets ( talk) 14:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
See articles on the Project Veritas videos here where a CNN staffer admitted the outlet's bias: [6] [7] [8] [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkeets ( talk • contribs)
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.
Suggest the reliability of these outlets be reduced given recent retraction of Georgia Sec of State story. Pkeets ( talk) 22:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I see someone already complained about CNN and the NY Times just above. Is anybody going to say anything here about Sicknick? NY Times broke that story about how he was clubbed to death with a fire extinguisher and then everybody else ran with it, even the Democrats that cited the Times article in the impeachment documents. That's not a very good advertisement for reliability, is it? CNN STILL has articles out there saying Sicknick was killed during the Capitol riot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4000:f910:e139:4a7e:24d8:4a56 ( talk) 04:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello all. I just want to know that references cited in Draft:Smile Foundation are really questionable? Because most sources are from major Indian mainstream media. Some of them are scholarly sources. It would be really appreciative if someone could point me out which sources are problematic? Pratikbhansali123 ( talk) 07:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
We've been having a longer discussion on [13] about a meta-analysis that misrepresents the data of another study. Comparing the tables of the two studies directly, the data as presented by the meta-analysis is clearly not the same as the data presented by that other study. However, I'm told that the meta-analysis cannot be removed from the article as a source because it's very credible and has been published in The Lancet, and apparently if The Lancet decides that 16 is the same as 13 (13 being the number presented in the original), and that 7 is the same as 6 (6 being the number presented in the original), then the fact that 16 is NOT 13 and that 7 is NOT 6 is overruled as per The Lancet's credibility. In my opinion, this policy is deeply harmful to Wikipedia's credibility, as it prevents obviously flawed sources from being removed. There should be some policy stating that if a source either obviously misrepresents data from a source on which it is based or directly contradicts basic rules of inference, then this disqualifies the source, whether published in The Lancet or not. 5.186.122.187 ( talk) 04:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, we should add the following sentence
If scholarly consensus is absent, cite the different positions or opinions in accord with due weight.
after this sentence:
Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent.
Otherwise there is lack of knowledge of what to do if scholarly consensus isn't available. Uni3993 ( talk) 17:32, 1 May 2021 (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.
I have three questions about reliable sources on Wikipedia:
-what are the criteria for determining if a source is reliable or not?
-who exactly on wikipedia decides if a source/website is reliable or unreliable?
-what credentials do these people/editors have that makes them so knowledgeable to decide if a source is reliable or not?
I also want to state in response to another editor who accused me in this thread
[14] of being a troll that I'm only posing questions on this website in good faith. For some reason other editors are able to do this (I'm assuming this is because they are established editors who are allowed to insult "newbie people" and not be penalized, which is fine by the way but it should be noted). I was also accused of being a Trump supporter becaue I pointed out how mainstream media bombarded the U.S. public for years with propaganda about Trump colluding with Russia. So instead of just being someone who can see how corrupt mainstream media is in the U.S., I must be someone who thinks Trump is good.
K.Q.1997 (
talk)
23:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Also I just read this now on WP:SPA so please other editors follow the rules: "New editors have the right to be treated with respect and civility...editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly and civilly, and to not bite newcomers. Remember that every editor on Wikipedia was new at some point. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits.
K.Q.1997 (
talk)
19:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Nobody wants to discuss why supposedly reliable sources publish verified news from anonymous sources one week and then retract it the next week? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4000:f910:18c0:6d81:cba5:b07b ( talk • contribs)
Hypothetically if it got to a point where a publication were having to issue major retractions every month, then maybe that would stop counting in their favor.Please sign your posts.— Bagumba ( talk) 02:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Every month, not Within the past month. Either you need to start reading comments more carefully, or you're trolling. If you want to convince people that you're participating in good faith here: Let's define "major retraction" as one which garners widespread coverage in not exclusively media-focused sources other than the retracting publication. (That is to say, not a few publications gravedancing over another's mistake, and not media blogs that chronicle everything.) Using that definition, draw up a list of major retractions by NYT, NBC, and WaPo, and report back your findings. And then we can all discuss whether the frequency is excessive. Otherwise, I don't think there's anything left for me to say here. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 06:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not going to spend hours in busy work, but here's a sampling I put together in a few minutes. My point is that the "reliable sources" in Wikipedia's list are subject to the same movement toward sensationalist misinformation as many considered less reliable. That means arguments based on the reliability of these sources are starting from a false premise that they are always reliable. This has implications for using them without question in articles, as well. The NYTimes recently admitted that it's writers frequently present their opinions as fact. Doesn't this suggest the WP policy for "reliable sources" needs another look?
2601:844:4000:F910:FCEC:F3F6:74FB:45A5 ( talk) 15:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding my comments on "Henry Drummond": I know that Henry Drummond had at least one child because Henry Drummond is my great-grandfather. His concubine, Karoline Kahn, conceived the child Herman Kahn out of wedlock, therefore there is no documentation. (signed) 73.254.97.23 ( talk) 16:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Richard Karnes
Many movies have interesting splits between their Rotten Tomatoes "approved" reviewer aggregated scores, and their audience ratings. These splits are notable in their own right for many movies, and I would argue that because both forms of score aggregation are in-itself aggregations. In the end, there is no discernable difference between them other than elitism. Citing a single audience rating could is problematic as self-published original research, but aggregate is not that, and I would argue, extremely meaningful. I will edit this policy if nobody objects. 64.46.20.154 ( talk) 11:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Think_tanks. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 01:04, 18 May 2021 (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.
Read the discussion here: [16] K.Q.1997 ( talk) 22:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Great journalists like Chris Hedges, Matt Taibbi, and Glenn Greenwald have written that since around probably the 1990s corporatist elitists have controlled most of the mainstream media in the U.S.
Greenwald in particular is great at exposing these people, here is a great article from just today: [17]
There's a lot of literature on the ability to use paranoia and tribal fears in order to manipulate people. You know, when Obama used to be pressured by Marco Rubio and McCain and the hawks in the Democrat party, he used to say that Russia is not a scary power. They have an economy smaller than Italy, they are like a regional power at best and yet in the Democratic party mind, Vladimir Putin is like Darth Vader, Russia is an existential threat.
They've contaminated and infiltrated institutions, they are deliberately stoking the fear constantly among their liberal flock because doing so keeps them frightened, and keeping them frightened means that they are more submissive and more malleable to control. K.Q.1997 ( talk) 23:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
What if a reliable news source published an article that said A=B. But then three peer reviewed papers said A=A.
Would that make the news article questionable or unreliable, even thought the news source itself is considered reliable. I know this sounds weird but, it happens a good amount of times. (Especially around political issues). CycoMa ( talk) 15:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing Thanks for that, I get a basic grasp on that. But some of these contradictions can be extreme.
For example I have seen sources make claims like “experts think this about A” But when I read sources written by experts many of them say something different.
And this isn’t one of those cases where oh Cyco you must have read old outdated sources. Sure that may be the case but in some cases it isn’t.
For example I have seen well respected news sources post articles on why GMOs are dangerous. But, then I would read peer reviewed papers on the topic they say something different. And these peer reviews papers were published years before and years after news articles like that are made.
In weird cases especially when a topic may be controversial, experts from completely different fields of expertise say different things on basically the same topic. A certain view may be controversial to sociologists but, isn’t controversial towards biologists.
I research a lot on topics like gender, sexology, religion, or mythology and trust me you would be surprised how a certain view isn’t controversial among experts in one field but not controversial in the other. CycoMa ( talk) 04:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Aren't duplicated sections like this a problem? They are just minor variations of the other, but it becomes arbitrary which section is linked to people, and sometimes one misses out on a point because they happened to read the different version to someone else. It also makes the PAGs look longer than they are. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 22:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
What does this sentence mean? More generally, if I am reading it right, does it imply that biased sources may only be reliable in specific contexts? For context, I feel like the usual interpretation of policy is that bias alone cannot disqualify a source, and was considering WP:BIASED in the context of an RSP discussion for a site with extremely strident, fringe-y views. When I reread this sentence, my brain locked up for a moment because it seems to be written from the assumption that biases disqualify sources by default and that only a "specific context" can salvage them and make them usable. Am I misinterpreting it? Should it be reworded or eliminated, or should it be expanded on to discuss how strong biases may or may not limit the usages of a source and what contexts are appropriate to use them in? -- Aquillion ( talk) 05:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
There are situations where I have seen writers in recent years that make articles that claim certain things. But when asked about it on social media the writer admits they aren’t defending a certain view. What do we do about this? CycoMa ( talk) 03:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
In researching a song, I came across an unpublished PhD dissertation that included discussion that I thought would benefit the article for the song. I plan on working to get the article to FA status eventually and would like to get a sense as to whether or not quoting this dissertation is going to bog things down. In the Scholarship section of this page, the bullet on completed dissertations includes the sentence, "If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties." In this case, two of the four professors who approved the dissertation have Wikipedia biography pages that each list more than one book that's been published. Do their published works qualify them as recognized specialists? Danaphile ( talk) 21:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Current: News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable sourceif the information in the headline is not explicitly supported in the body of the source. [...] Propose: News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. If the information is supported by the body of the source then cite it from the body. [...]
Reasons:
Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Reliability in specific contexts should include a new subsection to state that headlines are unreliable.
The current text basically attempts to say that it is ok to source a claim from the headline only if you could also source that claim from the body. In principal that makes sense, but in practice that is useless and actively unhelpful. If you can source it from the body, then source it from the body. If you can't source it from the body then the headline is not sufficiently supported (under our meaning of "supported"), and we don't want motivated-argument trying to claim a free pass in between. Alsee ( talk) 16:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
—including subheadlines—based on a short discussion. If someone thinks there's a better way to re-word it, then please suggest it. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 19:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
The guideline about WP:SELFSOURCE currently says:
These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources.
I suspect that I agree with what's intended. However, it's odd that this is in the section about self-publishing, because the independence (are you paid to write something?) of a source is unrelated to the question of whether the source is self-published (is there an editor/publisher who can refuse to publish your article, or are you in charge of the whole process?). If you go out to eat at a restaurant and later tweet that it's your favorite restaurant, you're independent, but self-published.
IMO articles should primarily be WP:Based upon sources that are both independent (no COI, no money changing hands, etc.) of the subject and also non-self-published (not blog posts or tweets, even if those self-published sources were written by experts – those can be used, but only for a minority of content). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to link to an article about this page called "Unreliable Guidelines". It critiques the guidelines for not citing sources themselves, among other things. Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 20:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to make a post without political opinions and commentary because apparently that is not allowed in this section of Wikipedia which I have been made aware of. Please do not close the discussion. I'm only asking questions here in good faith and trying to better understand how Wikipedia operates.
Two questions about reliable sources:
-What are the criteria used for determining if a news source is reliable for usage on Wikipedia?
-What are the credentials Wikipedia editors have that enables them to determine if a source is reliable and/or accurate?
K.Q.1997 (
talk)
22:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ... Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest.(2) This is Wikipedia, so Wikipedia editors have the ability to decide is reliable and/or accurate for Wikipedia, per community-based processes involving multiple editors, usually at WP:RSN. Sounds like a similar question to: "What credentials do you have to live in a house you own?" ( exalt) 02:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
certain political articles on this site it seems much closer to being a propaganda outlet for certain political points of view instead of a neutral reliable encyclopedia- there's different phenomenon at play here. First phenomenon - I would say more obscure articles tend to attract supporters of the subject, because this is a volunteer project, after all, and who would put in effort to maintain these articles than fans? Second phenomenon - bias in reliable sources. Obviously the approved U.S. news sources lean more left than right. As such, coverage of political issues at least, for the most popular articles, maybe they lean left. Unfortunately, many popular right-wing sources don't have a good record of reliability. We can't trust right-wing sources whose news articles are following Trump's wild claims, because of the tenuous relationship with the truth. How I wish there were more right-wing sources like the WSJ news section - you can read WP:RERIGHT on that. starship .paint ( exalt) 02:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
56% of Americans said they agreed with the following statement: "Journalists and reporters are purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations" and "59% said they agree with the statement most news organizations are more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than with informing the public.” Also 61% of Americans think that “The media is not doing well at being objective and non-partisan.” according to this reliable article [22]. As fas as the "Trump colluded with Russia conspiracy theory" the Senate Intelligence Chair Marco Rubio (who yes is GOP but is no fan of Trump) said last year after a long exhaustive intelligence report was released on alleged collusion “We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election." And making "misleading statements" does not equal colluding with a foreign government to influence an election. The Manafort stuff you brought up is nothing since it's all redacted. Also the Washington Post (an elitist partisan propaganda news outlet just like NY Times) even says "Manafort's connection with the Russian hack and leak operation is largely unknown". K.Q.1997 ( talk) 22:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the "Some types of sources section" says that academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks as very reliable sources, and allows flexibility in its usage by this caveat:
However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field
. In my opinion we can improve the wording on the caveat part of this section. There's a potential loophole in the current version, specifically when a review paper of low quality is presented. The low quality may happen because of it being published in a low-ranked journal, or by a non-expert, or by it being not entering the academic discourse (for example, when the review paper receives no citations despite having been published more than a year ago). In my opinion, we can stregthen the wording of the caveat part of this section by introducing some sort of failsafe text that prevents an editor to game the system, which can hypothetically happen when a low-quality review paper is diametrically opposed to most research in primary sources, and there are no other review papers to counter it. In this case, the editor may weaponize Wikipedia: Scholarship to hold the position in the review paper above the position of the better primary sources. Forich ( talk) 22:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Dhaluza: the Jeffrey Beall source you now appear to be edit warring over [23], [24], or you are in violation of WP:BRD, is in no way barred by WP:SPS on this page. There is no "irony" about it. Please undo your out-of-process revert and incorrect application of SPS to change a longstanding part of the guideline. The Beall source is useful for identifying predatory journals, and its removal can only support predatory journals. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 23:39, 18 August 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 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | → | Archive 70 |
WP:RSEDITORIAL states
"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."
I've been working with a lot of Islam-related articles on controversial topics, both pro-Islam and anti-Islam. Many of them have "criticism" or "controversy" sections. Since opinion pieces/editorials are primary sources, is it appropriate to cite them directly in such articles to say, for example, "Person A believes that Muslim Organization X is Islamist and terrorist-leaning" (citing Person A's editorial) or that "Person B believes that Person Y is very anti-Muslim" (citing Person B's editorial)? Do the editorials, as primary sources, need to be covered in other reliable secondary sources before they can be discussed on the article of whichever Wikipedia topic is the target of criticism by the editorials? If not, does that mean practically any editorial could warrant mention for the opinion of its author as long as it is relevant to the topic of the Wikipedia article? Snuish ( talk) 03:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes there are articles which are about an application or piece of software where it can be difficult to find reliable secondary sources describing application features, known issues, etc, as they may not even exist in the currently allowable list. I propose the idea that if actual source code is publicly available, that it should be allowed as a reliable source. The source code doesn't have a point of view, and cannot lie or make exaggerated claims (the comments might, but the actual code cannot). If source code can be pointed to, then it should be acceptable. For example, the GIMP article has a lot of references to gimp.org for release notes (which is technically not even allowed, as it a website promoting a product), but the GIMP source code itself is the source itself, and should be an indisputable source of whether or not a certain feature (or bug) exists. -- Thoric ( talk) 20:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Given that edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Istanbul_Airport&oldid=1012106079 , what happens if a source cannot be read and thus no longer gives proof? -- Bouzinac ( talk) 18:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I've asked this question at WT:VG but wasn't really satisfied with the answer.
Nintendo Everything is considered an unreliable source per WP:VG/RS, namely because it's a fan blog site in broad terms. However, they often interview video game developers, and more often than not I see these interviews trying to rewrite an article (this time around Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam). So, would these interviews be considered WP:PRIMARY and allowed, or would they still be unusable? And follow-up question, would it meet WP:GA standards? P anini 🥪 17:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to add this to the project page with the above heading. The section WP:CONTEXTMATTERS or WP:RSCONTEXT deals with 'reliability of source' whereas this section would deal with the issue of biased generalisation of claims.
Theories dealing with subjective interpretations and implementations need to be contextualised in concrete conditions. This contextualisation needs to account for specific historic development and overlapping characteristics without trying to extrapolate to other contexts with different historic backgrounds and conditions. There are a set of topics that are contentious due to the nature of their implementation and corresponding effects. The contention could arise from the lack of contextualisation, the fallacy of mixing theory with practice, giving
WP:UNDUE weightage to certain examples or because the point of view is not supported by
WP:RS. Due to this, editors will almost inevitably confuse opposing views, based on different contexts, as violating
neutral point of view. If you think you've spotted one, please spend a moment before trying to report them straight to
the incident noticeboard and consider
dispute resolution.
Vikram Vincent
09:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
The policy village pump is the most visible venue for policy/guideline suggestions, and my advice is to start a discussion there (after completing the essay) to determine if any portion of the essay content can be incorporated into a relevant policy/guideline. There is a possibility that there would be no consensus for any changes, and if that is the case, there is nothing wrong with adding the essay to the essay directory. — Newslinger talk 21:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Sorry, I missed a word. — Newslinger talk 08:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
the whole origin of this "contextualization" stuff is to aid and abet POV pushingis toxic and far from the truth. My PhD work has been around historical thinking and my interest stems from there. You attributing motive where none exists is against WP:AGF. I think you need to redact that sentence and apologise cause this is not how an editor treats others irrespective of the disagreement. Vikram Vincent 09:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
What happens if a reliable source makes a false claim, while dealing with claims in statistics. The proposal is simple and can be boiled down to one line:Clearly state the context of the claims that you are making. This would be very useful to contentious topics. Vikram Vincent 06:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Doing a GA review of Siwanoy, there's a source I'm dubious about:
Barr, Lockwood (1946). Ancient Town of Pelham, Westchester County, New York. Richmond, Va.: Dietz Press. p. 13.
I can't find much on Dietz Press. Their website ( https://www.dietzpress.com/) gives precious little information. The google book entry also mentions Higginson Book Company ( https://higginsonbooks.com/) which also doesn't say much. I'm guessing this is a vanity press. Anybody know anything about Dietz? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I thought that folks would want to be aware of this.
Peaceray ( talk) 17:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I have read Wikipedia articles on a regular basis (usually daily) for several years now. What I've noticed is that the large majority of reliable sources are liberal/left-leaning news media outlets. This is a fact based on simple analysis (not opinion). Why are so few right-leaning/conservative news outlets considered reliable? I could be wrong on this but I believe WSJ is literally the only right-leaning outlet considered "generally reliable" (i.e. the green check) according to perennial sources page, while there are at least 15 or 20 liberal/left-leaning sources. How can Wikipedia be considered a neutral and balanced encyclopedia when this is the case? K.Q.1997 ( talk) 22:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Checking back and noticed none of the above editors answered my original question about the bias found throughout Wikipedia on American political articles. Instead people brought up stuff about how Trump is a liar (which I agree with) and how conservative media are all in a cult and embrace alternative facts. This makes me thinks the issue could be the editors themselves who have a partisan bias and are able to skew Wikipedia in one direction. What are the credentials of people who edit Wikipedia articles? Also to be fair I don't follow politics of other countries but as a person who identifies as a centrist on most issues/liberal on social issues like abortion & LGBT rights, the bias in favor of one side is pretty obvious. K.Q.1997 ( talk) 22:40, 14 April 2021 (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.
These two media outlets seem to be consistently failing to verify what they hear from unnamed sources. See the articles from multiple media outlets this week about the unreliability of reports (broken by the NY Times) about the Russian bounty program. Pkeets ( talk) 14:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
See articles on the Project Veritas videos here where a CNN staffer admitted the outlet's bias: [6] [7] [8] [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkeets ( talk • contribs)
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.
Suggest the reliability of these outlets be reduced given recent retraction of Georgia Sec of State story. Pkeets ( talk) 22:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I see someone already complained about CNN and the NY Times just above. Is anybody going to say anything here about Sicknick? NY Times broke that story about how he was clubbed to death with a fire extinguisher and then everybody else ran with it, even the Democrats that cited the Times article in the impeachment documents. That's not a very good advertisement for reliability, is it? CNN STILL has articles out there saying Sicknick was killed during the Capitol riot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4000:f910:e139:4a7e:24d8:4a56 ( talk) 04:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello all. I just want to know that references cited in Draft:Smile Foundation are really questionable? Because most sources are from major Indian mainstream media. Some of them are scholarly sources. It would be really appreciative if someone could point me out which sources are problematic? Pratikbhansali123 ( talk) 07:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
We've been having a longer discussion on [13] about a meta-analysis that misrepresents the data of another study. Comparing the tables of the two studies directly, the data as presented by the meta-analysis is clearly not the same as the data presented by that other study. However, I'm told that the meta-analysis cannot be removed from the article as a source because it's very credible and has been published in The Lancet, and apparently if The Lancet decides that 16 is the same as 13 (13 being the number presented in the original), and that 7 is the same as 6 (6 being the number presented in the original), then the fact that 16 is NOT 13 and that 7 is NOT 6 is overruled as per The Lancet's credibility. In my opinion, this policy is deeply harmful to Wikipedia's credibility, as it prevents obviously flawed sources from being removed. There should be some policy stating that if a source either obviously misrepresents data from a source on which it is based or directly contradicts basic rules of inference, then this disqualifies the source, whether published in The Lancet or not. 5.186.122.187 ( talk) 04:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, we should add the following sentence
If scholarly consensus is absent, cite the different positions or opinions in accord with due weight.
after this sentence:
Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent.
Otherwise there is lack of knowledge of what to do if scholarly consensus isn't available. Uni3993 ( talk) 17:32, 1 May 2021 (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.
I have three questions about reliable sources on Wikipedia:
-what are the criteria for determining if a source is reliable or not?
-who exactly on wikipedia decides if a source/website is reliable or unreliable?
-what credentials do these people/editors have that makes them so knowledgeable to decide if a source is reliable or not?
I also want to state in response to another editor who accused me in this thread
[14] of being a troll that I'm only posing questions on this website in good faith. For some reason other editors are able to do this (I'm assuming this is because they are established editors who are allowed to insult "newbie people" and not be penalized, which is fine by the way but it should be noted). I was also accused of being a Trump supporter becaue I pointed out how mainstream media bombarded the U.S. public for years with propaganda about Trump colluding with Russia. So instead of just being someone who can see how corrupt mainstream media is in the U.S., I must be someone who thinks Trump is good.
K.Q.1997 (
talk)
23:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Also I just read this now on WP:SPA so please other editors follow the rules: "New editors have the right to be treated with respect and civility...editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly and civilly, and to not bite newcomers. Remember that every editor on Wikipedia was new at some point. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits.
K.Q.1997 (
talk)
19:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Nobody wants to discuss why supposedly reliable sources publish verified news from anonymous sources one week and then retract it the next week? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4000:f910:18c0:6d81:cba5:b07b ( talk • contribs)
Hypothetically if it got to a point where a publication were having to issue major retractions every month, then maybe that would stop counting in their favor.Please sign your posts.— Bagumba ( talk) 02:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Every month, not Within the past month. Either you need to start reading comments more carefully, or you're trolling. If you want to convince people that you're participating in good faith here: Let's define "major retraction" as one which garners widespread coverage in not exclusively media-focused sources other than the retracting publication. (That is to say, not a few publications gravedancing over another's mistake, and not media blogs that chronicle everything.) Using that definition, draw up a list of major retractions by NYT, NBC, and WaPo, and report back your findings. And then we can all discuss whether the frequency is excessive. Otherwise, I don't think there's anything left for me to say here. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 06:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not going to spend hours in busy work, but here's a sampling I put together in a few minutes. My point is that the "reliable sources" in Wikipedia's list are subject to the same movement toward sensationalist misinformation as many considered less reliable. That means arguments based on the reliability of these sources are starting from a false premise that they are always reliable. This has implications for using them without question in articles, as well. The NYTimes recently admitted that it's writers frequently present their opinions as fact. Doesn't this suggest the WP policy for "reliable sources" needs another look?
2601:844:4000:F910:FCEC:F3F6:74FB:45A5 ( talk) 15:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding my comments on "Henry Drummond": I know that Henry Drummond had at least one child because Henry Drummond is my great-grandfather. His concubine, Karoline Kahn, conceived the child Herman Kahn out of wedlock, therefore there is no documentation. (signed) 73.254.97.23 ( talk) 16:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Richard Karnes
Many movies have interesting splits between their Rotten Tomatoes "approved" reviewer aggregated scores, and their audience ratings. These splits are notable in their own right for many movies, and I would argue that because both forms of score aggregation are in-itself aggregations. In the end, there is no discernable difference between them other than elitism. Citing a single audience rating could is problematic as self-published original research, but aggregate is not that, and I would argue, extremely meaningful. I will edit this policy if nobody objects. 64.46.20.154 ( talk) 11:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Think_tanks. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 01:04, 18 May 2021 (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.
Read the discussion here: [16] K.Q.1997 ( talk) 22:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Great journalists like Chris Hedges, Matt Taibbi, and Glenn Greenwald have written that since around probably the 1990s corporatist elitists have controlled most of the mainstream media in the U.S.
Greenwald in particular is great at exposing these people, here is a great article from just today: [17]
There's a lot of literature on the ability to use paranoia and tribal fears in order to manipulate people. You know, when Obama used to be pressured by Marco Rubio and McCain and the hawks in the Democrat party, he used to say that Russia is not a scary power. They have an economy smaller than Italy, they are like a regional power at best and yet in the Democratic party mind, Vladimir Putin is like Darth Vader, Russia is an existential threat.
They've contaminated and infiltrated institutions, they are deliberately stoking the fear constantly among their liberal flock because doing so keeps them frightened, and keeping them frightened means that they are more submissive and more malleable to control. K.Q.1997 ( talk) 23:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
What if a reliable news source published an article that said A=B. But then three peer reviewed papers said A=A.
Would that make the news article questionable or unreliable, even thought the news source itself is considered reliable. I know this sounds weird but, it happens a good amount of times. (Especially around political issues). CycoMa ( talk) 15:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing Thanks for that, I get a basic grasp on that. But some of these contradictions can be extreme.
For example I have seen sources make claims like “experts think this about A” But when I read sources written by experts many of them say something different.
And this isn’t one of those cases where oh Cyco you must have read old outdated sources. Sure that may be the case but in some cases it isn’t.
For example I have seen well respected news sources post articles on why GMOs are dangerous. But, then I would read peer reviewed papers on the topic they say something different. And these peer reviews papers were published years before and years after news articles like that are made.
In weird cases especially when a topic may be controversial, experts from completely different fields of expertise say different things on basically the same topic. A certain view may be controversial to sociologists but, isn’t controversial towards biologists.
I research a lot on topics like gender, sexology, religion, or mythology and trust me you would be surprised how a certain view isn’t controversial among experts in one field but not controversial in the other. CycoMa ( talk) 04:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Aren't duplicated sections like this a problem? They are just minor variations of the other, but it becomes arbitrary which section is linked to people, and sometimes one misses out on a point because they happened to read the different version to someone else. It also makes the PAGs look longer than they are. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 22:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
What does this sentence mean? More generally, if I am reading it right, does it imply that biased sources may only be reliable in specific contexts? For context, I feel like the usual interpretation of policy is that bias alone cannot disqualify a source, and was considering WP:BIASED in the context of an RSP discussion for a site with extremely strident, fringe-y views. When I reread this sentence, my brain locked up for a moment because it seems to be written from the assumption that biases disqualify sources by default and that only a "specific context" can salvage them and make them usable. Am I misinterpreting it? Should it be reworded or eliminated, or should it be expanded on to discuss how strong biases may or may not limit the usages of a source and what contexts are appropriate to use them in? -- Aquillion ( talk) 05:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
There are situations where I have seen writers in recent years that make articles that claim certain things. But when asked about it on social media the writer admits they aren’t defending a certain view. What do we do about this? CycoMa ( talk) 03:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
In researching a song, I came across an unpublished PhD dissertation that included discussion that I thought would benefit the article for the song. I plan on working to get the article to FA status eventually and would like to get a sense as to whether or not quoting this dissertation is going to bog things down. In the Scholarship section of this page, the bullet on completed dissertations includes the sentence, "If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties." In this case, two of the four professors who approved the dissertation have Wikipedia biography pages that each list more than one book that's been published. Do their published works qualify them as recognized specialists? Danaphile ( talk) 21:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Current: News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable sourceif the information in the headline is not explicitly supported in the body of the source. [...] Propose: News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. If the information is supported by the body of the source then cite it from the body. [...]
Reasons:
Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Reliability in specific contexts should include a new subsection to state that headlines are unreliable.
The current text basically attempts to say that it is ok to source a claim from the headline only if you could also source that claim from the body. In principal that makes sense, but in practice that is useless and actively unhelpful. If you can source it from the body, then source it from the body. If you can't source it from the body then the headline is not sufficiently supported (under our meaning of "supported"), and we don't want motivated-argument trying to claim a free pass in between. Alsee ( talk) 16:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
—including subheadlines—based on a short discussion. If someone thinks there's a better way to re-word it, then please suggest it. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 19:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
The guideline about WP:SELFSOURCE currently says:
These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources.
I suspect that I agree with what's intended. However, it's odd that this is in the section about self-publishing, because the independence (are you paid to write something?) of a source is unrelated to the question of whether the source is self-published (is there an editor/publisher who can refuse to publish your article, or are you in charge of the whole process?). If you go out to eat at a restaurant and later tweet that it's your favorite restaurant, you're independent, but self-published.
IMO articles should primarily be WP:Based upon sources that are both independent (no COI, no money changing hands, etc.) of the subject and also non-self-published (not blog posts or tweets, even if those self-published sources were written by experts – those can be used, but only for a minority of content). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to link to an article about this page called "Unreliable Guidelines". It critiques the guidelines for not citing sources themselves, among other things. Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 20:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to make a post without political opinions and commentary because apparently that is not allowed in this section of Wikipedia which I have been made aware of. Please do not close the discussion. I'm only asking questions here in good faith and trying to better understand how Wikipedia operates.
Two questions about reliable sources:
-What are the criteria used for determining if a news source is reliable for usage on Wikipedia?
-What are the credentials Wikipedia editors have that enables them to determine if a source is reliable and/or accurate?
K.Q.1997 (
talk)
22:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ... Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest.(2) This is Wikipedia, so Wikipedia editors have the ability to decide is reliable and/or accurate for Wikipedia, per community-based processes involving multiple editors, usually at WP:RSN. Sounds like a similar question to: "What credentials do you have to live in a house you own?" ( exalt) 02:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
certain political articles on this site it seems much closer to being a propaganda outlet for certain political points of view instead of a neutral reliable encyclopedia- there's different phenomenon at play here. First phenomenon - I would say more obscure articles tend to attract supporters of the subject, because this is a volunteer project, after all, and who would put in effort to maintain these articles than fans? Second phenomenon - bias in reliable sources. Obviously the approved U.S. news sources lean more left than right. As such, coverage of political issues at least, for the most popular articles, maybe they lean left. Unfortunately, many popular right-wing sources don't have a good record of reliability. We can't trust right-wing sources whose news articles are following Trump's wild claims, because of the tenuous relationship with the truth. How I wish there were more right-wing sources like the WSJ news section - you can read WP:RERIGHT on that. starship .paint ( exalt) 02:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
56% of Americans said they agreed with the following statement: "Journalists and reporters are purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations" and "59% said they agree with the statement most news organizations are more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than with informing the public.” Also 61% of Americans think that “The media is not doing well at being objective and non-partisan.” according to this reliable article [22]. As fas as the "Trump colluded with Russia conspiracy theory" the Senate Intelligence Chair Marco Rubio (who yes is GOP but is no fan of Trump) said last year after a long exhaustive intelligence report was released on alleged collusion “We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election." And making "misleading statements" does not equal colluding with a foreign government to influence an election. The Manafort stuff you brought up is nothing since it's all redacted. Also the Washington Post (an elitist partisan propaganda news outlet just like NY Times) even says "Manafort's connection with the Russian hack and leak operation is largely unknown". K.Q.1997 ( talk) 22:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the "Some types of sources section" says that academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks as very reliable sources, and allows flexibility in its usage by this caveat:
However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field
. In my opinion we can improve the wording on the caveat part of this section. There's a potential loophole in the current version, specifically when a review paper of low quality is presented. The low quality may happen because of it being published in a low-ranked journal, or by a non-expert, or by it being not entering the academic discourse (for example, when the review paper receives no citations despite having been published more than a year ago). In my opinion, we can stregthen the wording of the caveat part of this section by introducing some sort of failsafe text that prevents an editor to game the system, which can hypothetically happen when a low-quality review paper is diametrically opposed to most research in primary sources, and there are no other review papers to counter it. In this case, the editor may weaponize Wikipedia: Scholarship to hold the position in the review paper above the position of the better primary sources. Forich ( talk) 22:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Dhaluza: the Jeffrey Beall source you now appear to be edit warring over [23], [24], or you are in violation of WP:BRD, is in no way barred by WP:SPS on this page. There is no "irony" about it. Please undo your out-of-process revert and incorrect application of SPS to change a longstanding part of the guideline. The Beall source is useful for identifying predatory journals, and its removal can only support predatory journals. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 23:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)