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 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | → | Archive 70 |
Hi Wikipedia editors & Talk page readers: I write to draw your attention to a new report by Art+Feminism on these guidelines, published in June 2021. The report uses an intersectional methodology to address to what extent are contributions from and content about marginalized communities affected by guidelines about reliability in three language versions of Wikipedia? Based on community conversations and interpretative analysis of the guidelines, the report describes the lack of rigor in the guidelines (citations are not required), the ways that the definition of consensus perpetuates exclusions and makes revisions difficult, and the role of Wikipedia trainers in scaffolding the experience of editing for newcomers. There are several recommendations in the report as well on how to tend to these findings and improve the way the guidelines are written and governed to be more inclusive. Spanish Wikipedias Unreliable Guidelines: Reliable Sources and Marginalized Communities in French, English and Spanish Wikipedias Shameran81 ( talk) 18:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
We build on efforts in feminist technoscience to acknowledge that, epistemologically, knowledge is “situated” and knowers have a “partial perspective.” In other words, there is no such thing as purely “objective” knowledge because there are no pure, objective knowers. Rather, there are practices of knowing. We foreground asking “who is the knower and who is being known” in efforts to determine reliable sources. Understanding the circumstances and values through which legitimacy is conferred, and at what costs, is crucial to the effort to remediate asymmetrical structures of power.If that is your position, then an encyclopedia is by definition something you would not be interested in or would argue to be socially valuable. Situated knowledge theory is more compatible with an online forum than a project like Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-06-27/Recent research. See also WP:NOTTRUTH.
The guidelines about reliable sources in English, French, and Spanish lack academic rigor, notably through the lack of citations to support the claimsactually echoes a fascinating 2006 discussion I had the pleasure of discovering while looking for something else in the archives. Basically, the point is that a policy does not need sources, because a policy is based on a decision by the relevant community, and not an attempt at summarizing external sources. Laws do not have sources, because they are based on parliamentary votes. Similarly, Wikipedia policies do not have sources because they are based on community consensus.
Town Hall community conversationsand
close readings"?
We have a lot of big problems that need fixing that aren't getting fixed. Including that much of our "reliable" source stuff needs a nuking and reboot. And so good hard pokes are useful. But I think that the discussed premises of this particular poke are faulty. North8000 ( talk) 21:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
We are used to creating pages in the arts communityindicates that this person does not understand the difference between promotional pages and encyclopedic content. Also, I would very much like to see the actual content that they attempted to add to the project, especially the content that was sourced to a catalogue. Because a classic example of content that I have encountered in this topic area is
X Y is an internationally recognized artist whose works have been displayed at many prestigious exhibitions, sourced to a catalogue. Obviously, this cannot work. JBchrch talk 00:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
a reputation for fact-checking and accuracywould be a good definition. But then I thought: how would we then determine the reputation of a source? Well, the answer would probably be... from reliable sources — which would effectively lead us to a chicken and egg problem. An interesting thing I found in the Oxford English Dictionary is that one of the meaning of "reliable" (admittedly, in the context of statistics) is
free from error. I like that quite a bit. Could it be that reliable sources are sources that are "generally free from factual errors"? JBchrch talk 21:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
relied upon (or accepted?) by a subject-matter expert, if the expert was trying to support the statement/claim in questionis an expression of the consensus around these issues. I can think of two counter-examples: 1) WP:MEDRS, whereas medical practitioners and medical publications often rely on non-MEDRS sources to source some claims; 2) the topic area of blockchain and cryptocurrencies, which I am pretty familiar with: the broad consensus on the project is that crypto-centric publications (such as Coindesk, Decrypt or CoinTelegraph) are generally not reliable for factual assertions, with editors holding that they are overly promotional of crypto projects. However, if you take a look at the academic literature on these topics, authors will very often cite these publications to source factual assertions. I think more generally — and loosely speaking — that subject-matter experts can cite shit sources because they have the expertise to determine which (and how) shit sources can be cited. But is it the current consensus that wikipedia editors should attempt to do this? I don't think so.
I just read this report, and found the encouragement for us to systematically rely on academic and professional sources for understanding what reliable sources are, as well as to understand systemic biases in published sources, to be a great idea. For example, the report says:
Participants, especially librarians, also noted the lack of guidance for editors on how to evaluate the range of sources of secondary information such as catalogs, databases, indexes, bibliographies, pamphlets, online magazines or press releases, which may be from institutions but are not primary sources, nor are unreliable simply by nature of being produced by an institution. [emphasis original
Right now, our tendency would be to treat the type of publication, as an index of reliability, with a tendency towards skepticism for anything involved in commerce. But that may be a bad approach for the art world. How should do we know? Well by turning to established sources on the reliability of source material. For the example of art, that would include:
Ideally, we would amplify this guideline, informed by such sources, so that there is much more clarity about who we can rely on. Alternatively, we could write in encouragement to editors to find subject-relevant guidance on the reliability of sources, rather than assume that genre or, say, university press publication, is the best guide.-- Carwil ( talk) 14:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Peter Gulutzan, even though this phrase has been in the guideline for a number of years, I don't think it's a good one. We have no definition of WP:Reliable authors. A source is considered reliable when editors accept it as evidence that a given claim has been previously published elsewhere, in a manner that would make us feel comfortable relying on it for content in a Wikipedia article. No equivalent process would be logical for declaring a human to be reliable.
Also, we don't technically "publish" any author's opinions (we "include" what the author has published elsewhere), and we include far more than what's strictly considered an Opinion. I therefore thing that the sentence should be changed to say that "the views only of reliable sources" rather than "the opinions only of reliable authors". WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
"this book argues that"
gives me 4.1 million
Ghits. We might not normally use the exact phrase you suggest (for one thing, the idiom is that opinions are usually "held" rather than "had"), but we do seem to ascribe "analysis, views and opinions" to sources and not just to the authors (a sort of
metonymy).
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
00:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)A question on WP:TEAHOUSE arose on using a podcast as a source. After hunting around, I couldn't find any guideline about this.
In my view, a podcast is the audio equivalent of a blog, and should be treated the same way we treat blogs. That is, it can be reliable depending on the podcast.
I propose that podcasts be listed in the WP:USERGENERATED section of this document. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 11:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Fully support adding podcasts to lists of WP:SPS. Verifying a claim in a podcast would probably be annoying, but how annoying or not it is not a requirement for sourcing anyways. In the future I hope that transcription software will be more reliable/available on Wiki projects. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I listen to very few podcasts. Very likely they're atypical podcasts; but anyway, most are interviews. I'd have trouble calling them "user generated": rather, a named, slightly/moderately known person interviews a named, moderately/well known person. (They could indeed be called self published; but I think we have to realize that publishing now isn't what it was just twenty years ago.) I rarely if ever cite them; mostly because they're interviews. (But also, yes, because they're podcasts: hunting for the relevant part, transcribing it, etc, is such a bore.) -- Hoary ( talk) 22:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I 'd like to make a suggestion: Adding the sentence "Newspapers and other media from authoritarian regimes should not be considered RS unless there is strong evidence of their reliability" as a bullet point at section #News organizations. This will tackle a couple of significant problems: a)Help editors stop wasting time in repeated discussion on Reliable Sources from authoritarian regimes. b)Stop misinformation spreading in WP (since the line between fiction and reality is blurred in media coming from authoritarian regimes) c)we as WP will avoid the fruits of poisonous trees not only in regards of reliability, but it will prevent us from using sources produced by inhumane means (not merely illegal, or even legal but inhumane nonetheless). My understanding is that already the existing guidelines are excluding sources from authoritarian regimes, my suggestion is just a clarification. Thanks, would appreciate any feedback! Cinadon 36 12:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I get your point @ WhatamIdoing: and I mostly agree with it. Could we introduce it to the guideline somehow? I feel it is important to say something about MUAR. Cinadon 36 07:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes @ WhatamIdoing: sounds great! Cinadon 36 15:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
;-)
) Let's wait a few days on the second, to see whether anyone has any advice for us about it. If we don't get any objections by early next week, then let's do it.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
15:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
IMO any blanket statement about a source is an over-generalization and IMO we should start eliminating that, not increasing it. Acrual reliability comes from having expertise and objectivity with regard to the item which cited it. So an authoritarian newspaper would be reliable for reporting n yesterday's temperature in the capitol but not on why a dissident was arrested or killed. North8000 ( talk) 16:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
This edit looks harmless. The proposed second edit -- treat MUAR as non-independent primary sources -- looks like a blanket statement. I agree that we should not be increasing blanket statements in WP:RS. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 17:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
/* Heading */
. The MediaWiki software interprets the slashes and asterisks as being equivalent to [[#Heading]]
(i.e., a link to the specific section).I dunno. This would, for example, make it impossible to source scores of a domestic football match in China, for example. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 01:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with SmokeyJoe here. No newspaper can be automatically trusted on matters of national importance in its own jurisdiction. Most countries have laws governing those issues, such as the official secrets act in the UK. Any newspaper veering too far towards publishing material the government considered classified, would be stopped in its tracks. So as much as organs such as the Guardian and New York Times etc are very often good sources, there's no blanket statement that they are always reliable, any more than there's a blanket statement that the Chinese press is unreliable. I would oppose the change suggested as far too general, fraught with problems about what constitutes "authoritarian", and also a rule creep. Let's instead keep the time-honoured system of analyzing sources case-by-case, in the context of what it is they're supporting. — Amakuru ( talk) 06:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Any newspaper veering too far towards publishing material the government considered classified, would be stopped in its tracks.Well, not necessarily: cf. The Pentagon Papers. Government might want to stop the source in its tracks, but whether officialdom succeeds depends on what government, what judicial system, and what source; also, what era. U.S. papers did regularly self-censor at govt request during WWII, but much less frequently since then. DonFB ( talk) 08:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
In the "Statements of opinion" section above the list of sources which shouldn't be used "unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material" includes tweets. Does that mean someone's verified tweets are acceptable sources in an article about the tweets' author? My question is prompted by "Tucker has blogged in opposition to social distancing measures and face masks, framing them as subservience to "arbitrary and ignorant authority".[24]" in the last paragraph of an article section on Jeffrey Tucker [1] where the reference is to an article where the author mentions a hyperlinked tweet which only refers to masks. In my view it would be preferable to replace "blogged" with "tweeted" and direct references to Tucker's social distancing [2] and mask [3] tweets instead of the secondary source.
If correct would it be OK to reference the tweets as I have here or in a different way? Mcljlm ( talk) 13:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
References
I feel like the section context matters need more information and gives more clarification in what it means when it says reliable depending on the context. I don't know the section comes off as vague. CycoMa ( talk) 17:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, for such an important concept there is little or nothing on it in its section. A good explanation might be something like: The strength of provided sourcing is also determined by the expertise and objectivity of the provided source with respect to the item which cited it.North8000 ( talk) 20:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:RSOPINION contains some somewhat unusual language that seems intended to summarize the relevant part of
WP:BLP but doesn't quite say the same thing. RSOPINION says Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person
, giving the impression that this is an exhaustive list (and that otherwise generally unreliable sources can therefore be used as sources for BLP-sensitive opinion about living people, provided it is presented as an opinion.)
WP:BLP, however, is much more broad, saying contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion
(and making no exception for opinion.) Therefore, I suggest that the list in RSOPINION be amended to read Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs, tweets, or other unreliable or low-quality sources as a source for material about a living person
or words to that effect, making it clear that opinions about living people must be cited to high-quality sources. --
Aquillion (
talk)
03:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Srich32977 changed a phrase in WP:RSOPINION long ago with edit summary = "Statements of opinion: improve syntax": from "mainstream newspapers" to "sources recognized as reliable". That is not a syntax change. I can't find a talk page discussion. Unless there was one that I missed, there should be consensus for this change. I oppose it. Any other support/oppose opinions? 01:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The discography of Todrick Hall has errors. There was an original version of provincial life that has been replaced will Beauty and the Beats. But there is NO mention of the first. It seems someone is trying to erase that piece of art by Mr. Hall. What happened to that video? It’s been completely replaced with the newer lgbtq version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.6.143 ( talk) 13:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Concretely, the statement
is WRONG. The policy strictly divides sources on reliable, questionable, SPS,, and Wikipedia's mirrors. The criteria of placement of a source in one of those categories are purely contextless. that means, e.g. some source that fit SPS criteria can never be considered "reliable" per WP:V. However, it may be appropriate in some context (and the policy explains that context). The policy doesn't say "in this context, SPS are deemed reliable", it says "SPS are always questionable, but in some situations they can be used". I think this answer should be removed as directly contradicting to WP:V, and some other answer should be added.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 21:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I've added in the original question and the "No, " part of the answer. It would seem a bit perverse to argue about text that says context matters, and then quote it out of context. -- Colin° Talk 09:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
As noted, at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#WP:V vs WP:NPOV there is a twisted over-long discussion trying to explain what some believe WP:V means, while avoiding what WP:V says. There are repeated claims that WP:V is "contextless", and that certain sources are always reliable (or unreliable) per WP:V regardless of what we might be using them for. It is claimed that it is only thanks to other policies (like NPOV or OR) that we are prevented from using them. No amount of examples to the contrary, or quoting WP:V seems to matter.
It is ignored that both WP:V and WP:RS mention context ( WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). It is ignored that for a publication to be considered a "source" it must be cited by article text (or at least proposed as such for statements that may or may not be in final polished form). WP:V mentions "source" over 200 times and WP:RS over 300 times. We don't have policy & guideline on "Reliable publications", we have them on "sources". It is ignored that publications are complex beasts with multiple kinds of articles and even within articles there are multiple kinds of statements. It is ignored that WP:V frequently mentions "content" and "material [in Wikimedia namespace]" and "citing" and isn't just some discussion about the quality of publications in the abstract. I don't think it is useful for that discussion to spill over onto other pages. I actually think participants should stop and go clear their heads of it for a while in order to get a fresh perspective.
For what it is worth, this "WRONG" faq entry was added in 2011. Some humility about a considering that a major guideline FAQ was wrong for 10 years might be justified I think. Surely a more appropriate reaction on finding this long-lived FAQ entry is to reconsider one's position, rather than assume nobody else on Wikipedia has spotted this glaring mistake for a decade. -- Colin° Talk 09:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Reliable sources has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
ERIC CLAPTON LIVE HISTORY book. By Christian Larsen and Marc Roberty says Clapton started using the Stratocaster as his main guitar in 1975. The Stratocaster use should be changed from end of 1969 to 1975. 1969 Eric Clapton only played Gibson Les Paul.
Change year of starting using Stratocaster till 1970 and as his main guitar till 1975. At the end of 1969 He did not use Fender Stratocaster but a Gibson Les Paul. The part written about Stratocaster is completely innacurate.
PaulM1234a (
talk)
12:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Reliable sources has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The page looks outdated. Several sources and credits are missing. I see this with many artists. That's why I'd like to update it. Seandahna ( talk) 21:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Is there a list of sources that are considered reliable/unreliable somewhere? I seem to remember seeing that in the past week and I can't find it again.
Other question: if I do find this list, is Broadway World on it, and if not, can it be added? The link I reference in that sentence shows that anyone can use the site as a press release-type thing, and they'll just publish it. So probably not great for establishing notability. In my opinion. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 01:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this is a reliable source but want to ask here. The website has an official-sounding name, but it turns out there is no Worcester Herald newspaper. It was founded in 2014, and has been dormant since 2019. Going to their Facebook page reveal a ton of links to http://blog.flyorh.com/ - The "Worcester Airport Blog". What say you? Fred Zepelin ( talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
At first glance I thought it was related to Deadline Hollywood. It isn't. Appears to be its own thing in Scotland. It's being used as a source on an article up for deletion and I dug into the site a little [3] and found people can just submit and/or pay for "stories" to appear on the website. So I should remove that reference that uses that as a source, right? Fred Zepelin ( talk) 23:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Have attempted to insert this text, and was instantly reverted by another editor (not surprised, as the popular dogmatism about never using unreliable sources is almost chronic in Wikipedia -- to the point of substantially undermining the validity, thoroughness, relevance and usefulness of articles.)
Here, for all to bash, is my suggested revision to the section on "Context matters." Before dismissing cavalierly, or dogmatically, please think through, carefully, consider it seriously, and comment respectfully:
The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.
In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.
Conversely, a major, but otherwise-unreliable, source -- if cited merely to establish notoriety of a topic -- is appropriate.
For instance, while the London Daily Mail, or the Xinhua News Agency would not normally be considered a WP:RS on the substance of a topic, noting the article subject's mention in those major-but-questionable sources may be relevant for establishing WP:NOTABILITY (extensive publicity in major venues, however unreliable they may be, nevertheless implicitly creates conspicuousness, and thus public consciousness, and thus notability), or it may be relevant as an example of a significant publicity event related to the topic, so long as the truthfulness of that publicity is appropriately debunked or validated with a regular reliable source.
Similarly, while a source may not be reliable, it may be referenced as an example of the nature of an entity's own publications, or its official public position on a matter (for instance, an article in an unreliable tabloid newspaper may be logically cited as an example of that publication's style and content, in an article about that specific publication).
Likewise, a government entity's press release or official document is a relevant source to cite when pointing out that the agency has made a public declaration, or established a regulation or law, or ruled in a controversy.
Finally, an otherwise-unreliable source, though a primary source, is the logical principal source of information on entity's own assignment of awards or titles.
For instance, while an activist organization or employer may not be a reliable source on a given person, it is a reliable source (indeed, the foremost source) on whatever awards, recognition, office or job title they have accorded that individual. So such an otherwise-unreliable source is an appropriate reference for their own internal assignment of honors and titles to that person (though an echo of their announcement in a conventional reliable source is a wise supplement, when available).
This is particularly significant for current events, as an organization's or company's or agency's website is far more likely to accurately report the current title of a person (or the current person assigned that title) than "reliable" secondary sources, which often lag far behind personnel changes, or simply get it wrong, if they report it at all.
~ Penlite ( talk) 13:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Reliable sources: when not relevantrestates CONTEXTMATTERS. Regarding
Notoriety and publicity examples, there is simply no consensus that unreliable sources may be used to establish notability. I don't understand what
Examples of the source, itself, and its declarationsand
The source's own assignment of recognition and titlesmeans: these sources are not unreliable, they are just WP:PRIMARY. As for
Likewise, a government entity's press release or official document is a relevant source to cite when pointing out that the agency has... established a regulation or law, or ruled in a controversy., this seems to contradict WP:RSLAW § Original texts which, while not a guideline, expresses some form of consensus in this area. JBchrch talk 14:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
...which is somewhat awkward since this is the page discussing RS. Looks like a case of WP:EGG, but I am not sure. Cinadon 36 20:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
It also feels like making circles, since the phrase "reliable, published sources" links to a section where it starts as ===What counts as a reliable source=== {{further|Wikipedia:Reliable sources}} Cinadon 36 13:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability- and that policy links back to here. nothing really can be done here. Removing the link solves nothing in my opinion. Mvbaron ( talk) 12:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
guideline edits need consensus, of course they do (but see also WP:PGBOLD), hence you shouldn't reinstate a reverted edit just because you like it that way (= without consensus here). Also don't try to paint me as if I didn't care for policy, instead argue your case. My arguments are: (1) Removing the link is not an improvement. (2) removing the link doesn't solve the "circularity" issue. (3) the link is instead a good one, because it points to the relevant policy (guiding this guideline).
there would still be linking from WP:RS to WP:V.answers none of my points. -- Mvbaron ( talk) 15:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
The biggest issue as I see it @ Mvbaron: (thanks for jumping in btw) is not the circularity, but the confusion created since we are bluelinking the argument of the predicate, which is the exact subject of this page. Placement of an internal link indicates that the article/WP-page discussing Reliable Sources is a different one. See also bullet point #3 at MOS:LINKSTYLE. "Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead" See also examples at MOS:BOLDLEAD. As of the circularity, it is true that we can not avoid linking to policy page, and policy page linking to this one. But we can avoid creating the circularity through bluelinking the boldface phrase which is the real problem. My suggestion would be to remove the internal link at the first sentence and add a template just after the title, that would create a sentence like "This article is about the guideline, for RS are also discussed in Policy in page ___". There is no circularity problem this way, and yet the one page links to the other one. I think this would be an improvement. I hope other users will contribute to this discussion. This would be the best way to move forward. Cinadon 36 06:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
add a template just after the title ... like "This article is about the guideline, for RS are also discussed in Policy in page ___". That's perfect in my opinion. (Now I feel stupid pointlessly wasting time here when the solution was that easy) :) My only concern was the removal of the link to the policy from the lead alltogether. Thanks for making the effort and coming up with such a good solution. -- Mvbaron ( talk) 07:03, 16 November 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 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | → | Archive 70 |
Hi Wikipedia editors & Talk page readers: I write to draw your attention to a new report by Art+Feminism on these guidelines, published in June 2021. The report uses an intersectional methodology to address to what extent are contributions from and content about marginalized communities affected by guidelines about reliability in three language versions of Wikipedia? Based on community conversations and interpretative analysis of the guidelines, the report describes the lack of rigor in the guidelines (citations are not required), the ways that the definition of consensus perpetuates exclusions and makes revisions difficult, and the role of Wikipedia trainers in scaffolding the experience of editing for newcomers. There are several recommendations in the report as well on how to tend to these findings and improve the way the guidelines are written and governed to be more inclusive. Spanish Wikipedias Unreliable Guidelines: Reliable Sources and Marginalized Communities in French, English and Spanish Wikipedias Shameran81 ( talk) 18:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
We build on efforts in feminist technoscience to acknowledge that, epistemologically, knowledge is “situated” and knowers have a “partial perspective.” In other words, there is no such thing as purely “objective” knowledge because there are no pure, objective knowers. Rather, there are practices of knowing. We foreground asking “who is the knower and who is being known” in efforts to determine reliable sources. Understanding the circumstances and values through which legitimacy is conferred, and at what costs, is crucial to the effort to remediate asymmetrical structures of power.If that is your position, then an encyclopedia is by definition something you would not be interested in or would argue to be socially valuable. Situated knowledge theory is more compatible with an online forum than a project like Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-06-27/Recent research. See also WP:NOTTRUTH.
The guidelines about reliable sources in English, French, and Spanish lack academic rigor, notably through the lack of citations to support the claimsactually echoes a fascinating 2006 discussion I had the pleasure of discovering while looking for something else in the archives. Basically, the point is that a policy does not need sources, because a policy is based on a decision by the relevant community, and not an attempt at summarizing external sources. Laws do not have sources, because they are based on parliamentary votes. Similarly, Wikipedia policies do not have sources because they are based on community consensus.
Town Hall community conversationsand
close readings"?
We have a lot of big problems that need fixing that aren't getting fixed. Including that much of our "reliable" source stuff needs a nuking and reboot. And so good hard pokes are useful. But I think that the discussed premises of this particular poke are faulty. North8000 ( talk) 21:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
We are used to creating pages in the arts communityindicates that this person does not understand the difference between promotional pages and encyclopedic content. Also, I would very much like to see the actual content that they attempted to add to the project, especially the content that was sourced to a catalogue. Because a classic example of content that I have encountered in this topic area is
X Y is an internationally recognized artist whose works have been displayed at many prestigious exhibitions, sourced to a catalogue. Obviously, this cannot work. JBchrch talk 00:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
a reputation for fact-checking and accuracywould be a good definition. But then I thought: how would we then determine the reputation of a source? Well, the answer would probably be... from reliable sources — which would effectively lead us to a chicken and egg problem. An interesting thing I found in the Oxford English Dictionary is that one of the meaning of "reliable" (admittedly, in the context of statistics) is
free from error. I like that quite a bit. Could it be that reliable sources are sources that are "generally free from factual errors"? JBchrch talk 21:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
relied upon (or accepted?) by a subject-matter expert, if the expert was trying to support the statement/claim in questionis an expression of the consensus around these issues. I can think of two counter-examples: 1) WP:MEDRS, whereas medical practitioners and medical publications often rely on non-MEDRS sources to source some claims; 2) the topic area of blockchain and cryptocurrencies, which I am pretty familiar with: the broad consensus on the project is that crypto-centric publications (such as Coindesk, Decrypt or CoinTelegraph) are generally not reliable for factual assertions, with editors holding that they are overly promotional of crypto projects. However, if you take a look at the academic literature on these topics, authors will very often cite these publications to source factual assertions. I think more generally — and loosely speaking — that subject-matter experts can cite shit sources because they have the expertise to determine which (and how) shit sources can be cited. But is it the current consensus that wikipedia editors should attempt to do this? I don't think so.
I just read this report, and found the encouragement for us to systematically rely on academic and professional sources for understanding what reliable sources are, as well as to understand systemic biases in published sources, to be a great idea. For example, the report says:
Participants, especially librarians, also noted the lack of guidance for editors on how to evaluate the range of sources of secondary information such as catalogs, databases, indexes, bibliographies, pamphlets, online magazines or press releases, which may be from institutions but are not primary sources, nor are unreliable simply by nature of being produced by an institution. [emphasis original
Right now, our tendency would be to treat the type of publication, as an index of reliability, with a tendency towards skepticism for anything involved in commerce. But that may be a bad approach for the art world. How should do we know? Well by turning to established sources on the reliability of source material. For the example of art, that would include:
Ideally, we would amplify this guideline, informed by such sources, so that there is much more clarity about who we can rely on. Alternatively, we could write in encouragement to editors to find subject-relevant guidance on the reliability of sources, rather than assume that genre or, say, university press publication, is the best guide.-- Carwil ( talk) 14:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Peter Gulutzan, even though this phrase has been in the guideline for a number of years, I don't think it's a good one. We have no definition of WP:Reliable authors. A source is considered reliable when editors accept it as evidence that a given claim has been previously published elsewhere, in a manner that would make us feel comfortable relying on it for content in a Wikipedia article. No equivalent process would be logical for declaring a human to be reliable.
Also, we don't technically "publish" any author's opinions (we "include" what the author has published elsewhere), and we include far more than what's strictly considered an Opinion. I therefore thing that the sentence should be changed to say that "the views only of reliable sources" rather than "the opinions only of reliable authors". WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
"this book argues that"
gives me 4.1 million
Ghits. We might not normally use the exact phrase you suggest (for one thing, the idiom is that opinions are usually "held" rather than "had"), but we do seem to ascribe "analysis, views and opinions" to sources and not just to the authors (a sort of
metonymy).
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
00:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)A question on WP:TEAHOUSE arose on using a podcast as a source. After hunting around, I couldn't find any guideline about this.
In my view, a podcast is the audio equivalent of a blog, and should be treated the same way we treat blogs. That is, it can be reliable depending on the podcast.
I propose that podcasts be listed in the WP:USERGENERATED section of this document. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 11:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Fully support adding podcasts to lists of WP:SPS. Verifying a claim in a podcast would probably be annoying, but how annoying or not it is not a requirement for sourcing anyways. In the future I hope that transcription software will be more reliable/available on Wiki projects. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I listen to very few podcasts. Very likely they're atypical podcasts; but anyway, most are interviews. I'd have trouble calling them "user generated": rather, a named, slightly/moderately known person interviews a named, moderately/well known person. (They could indeed be called self published; but I think we have to realize that publishing now isn't what it was just twenty years ago.) I rarely if ever cite them; mostly because they're interviews. (But also, yes, because they're podcasts: hunting for the relevant part, transcribing it, etc, is such a bore.) -- Hoary ( talk) 22:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I 'd like to make a suggestion: Adding the sentence "Newspapers and other media from authoritarian regimes should not be considered RS unless there is strong evidence of their reliability" as a bullet point at section #News organizations. This will tackle a couple of significant problems: a)Help editors stop wasting time in repeated discussion on Reliable Sources from authoritarian regimes. b)Stop misinformation spreading in WP (since the line between fiction and reality is blurred in media coming from authoritarian regimes) c)we as WP will avoid the fruits of poisonous trees not only in regards of reliability, but it will prevent us from using sources produced by inhumane means (not merely illegal, or even legal but inhumane nonetheless). My understanding is that already the existing guidelines are excluding sources from authoritarian regimes, my suggestion is just a clarification. Thanks, would appreciate any feedback! Cinadon 36 12:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I get your point @ WhatamIdoing: and I mostly agree with it. Could we introduce it to the guideline somehow? I feel it is important to say something about MUAR. Cinadon 36 07:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes @ WhatamIdoing: sounds great! Cinadon 36 15:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
;-)
) Let's wait a few days on the second, to see whether anyone has any advice for us about it. If we don't get any objections by early next week, then let's do it.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
15:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
IMO any blanket statement about a source is an over-generalization and IMO we should start eliminating that, not increasing it. Acrual reliability comes from having expertise and objectivity with regard to the item which cited it. So an authoritarian newspaper would be reliable for reporting n yesterday's temperature in the capitol but not on why a dissident was arrested or killed. North8000 ( talk) 16:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
This edit looks harmless. The proposed second edit -- treat MUAR as non-independent primary sources -- looks like a blanket statement. I agree that we should not be increasing blanket statements in WP:RS. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 17:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
/* Heading */
. The MediaWiki software interprets the slashes and asterisks as being equivalent to [[#Heading]]
(i.e., a link to the specific section).I dunno. This would, for example, make it impossible to source scores of a domestic football match in China, for example. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 01:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with SmokeyJoe here. No newspaper can be automatically trusted on matters of national importance in its own jurisdiction. Most countries have laws governing those issues, such as the official secrets act in the UK. Any newspaper veering too far towards publishing material the government considered classified, would be stopped in its tracks. So as much as organs such as the Guardian and New York Times etc are very often good sources, there's no blanket statement that they are always reliable, any more than there's a blanket statement that the Chinese press is unreliable. I would oppose the change suggested as far too general, fraught with problems about what constitutes "authoritarian", and also a rule creep. Let's instead keep the time-honoured system of analyzing sources case-by-case, in the context of what it is they're supporting. — Amakuru ( talk) 06:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Any newspaper veering too far towards publishing material the government considered classified, would be stopped in its tracks.Well, not necessarily: cf. The Pentagon Papers. Government might want to stop the source in its tracks, but whether officialdom succeeds depends on what government, what judicial system, and what source; also, what era. U.S. papers did regularly self-censor at govt request during WWII, but much less frequently since then. DonFB ( talk) 08:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
In the "Statements of opinion" section above the list of sources which shouldn't be used "unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material" includes tweets. Does that mean someone's verified tweets are acceptable sources in an article about the tweets' author? My question is prompted by "Tucker has blogged in opposition to social distancing measures and face masks, framing them as subservience to "arbitrary and ignorant authority".[24]" in the last paragraph of an article section on Jeffrey Tucker [1] where the reference is to an article where the author mentions a hyperlinked tweet which only refers to masks. In my view it would be preferable to replace "blogged" with "tweeted" and direct references to Tucker's social distancing [2] and mask [3] tweets instead of the secondary source.
If correct would it be OK to reference the tweets as I have here or in a different way? Mcljlm ( talk) 13:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
References
I feel like the section context matters need more information and gives more clarification in what it means when it says reliable depending on the context. I don't know the section comes off as vague. CycoMa ( talk) 17:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, for such an important concept there is little or nothing on it in its section. A good explanation might be something like: The strength of provided sourcing is also determined by the expertise and objectivity of the provided source with respect to the item which cited it.North8000 ( talk) 20:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:RSOPINION contains some somewhat unusual language that seems intended to summarize the relevant part of
WP:BLP but doesn't quite say the same thing. RSOPINION says Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person
, giving the impression that this is an exhaustive list (and that otherwise generally unreliable sources can therefore be used as sources for BLP-sensitive opinion about living people, provided it is presented as an opinion.)
WP:BLP, however, is much more broad, saying contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion
(and making no exception for opinion.) Therefore, I suggest that the list in RSOPINION be amended to read Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs, tweets, or other unreliable or low-quality sources as a source for material about a living person
or words to that effect, making it clear that opinions about living people must be cited to high-quality sources. --
Aquillion (
talk)
03:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Srich32977 changed a phrase in WP:RSOPINION long ago with edit summary = "Statements of opinion: improve syntax": from "mainstream newspapers" to "sources recognized as reliable". That is not a syntax change. I can't find a talk page discussion. Unless there was one that I missed, there should be consensus for this change. I oppose it. Any other support/oppose opinions? 01:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The discography of Todrick Hall has errors. There was an original version of provincial life that has been replaced will Beauty and the Beats. But there is NO mention of the first. It seems someone is trying to erase that piece of art by Mr. Hall. What happened to that video? It’s been completely replaced with the newer lgbtq version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.6.143 ( talk) 13:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Concretely, the statement
is WRONG. The policy strictly divides sources on reliable, questionable, SPS,, and Wikipedia's mirrors. The criteria of placement of a source in one of those categories are purely contextless. that means, e.g. some source that fit SPS criteria can never be considered "reliable" per WP:V. However, it may be appropriate in some context (and the policy explains that context). The policy doesn't say "in this context, SPS are deemed reliable", it says "SPS are always questionable, but in some situations they can be used". I think this answer should be removed as directly contradicting to WP:V, and some other answer should be added.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 21:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I've added in the original question and the "No, " part of the answer. It would seem a bit perverse to argue about text that says context matters, and then quote it out of context. -- Colin° Talk 09:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
As noted, at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#WP:V vs WP:NPOV there is a twisted over-long discussion trying to explain what some believe WP:V means, while avoiding what WP:V says. There are repeated claims that WP:V is "contextless", and that certain sources are always reliable (or unreliable) per WP:V regardless of what we might be using them for. It is claimed that it is only thanks to other policies (like NPOV or OR) that we are prevented from using them. No amount of examples to the contrary, or quoting WP:V seems to matter.
It is ignored that both WP:V and WP:RS mention context ( WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). It is ignored that for a publication to be considered a "source" it must be cited by article text (or at least proposed as such for statements that may or may not be in final polished form). WP:V mentions "source" over 200 times and WP:RS over 300 times. We don't have policy & guideline on "Reliable publications", we have them on "sources". It is ignored that publications are complex beasts with multiple kinds of articles and even within articles there are multiple kinds of statements. It is ignored that WP:V frequently mentions "content" and "material [in Wikimedia namespace]" and "citing" and isn't just some discussion about the quality of publications in the abstract. I don't think it is useful for that discussion to spill over onto other pages. I actually think participants should stop and go clear their heads of it for a while in order to get a fresh perspective.
For what it is worth, this "WRONG" faq entry was added in 2011. Some humility about a considering that a major guideline FAQ was wrong for 10 years might be justified I think. Surely a more appropriate reaction on finding this long-lived FAQ entry is to reconsider one's position, rather than assume nobody else on Wikipedia has spotted this glaring mistake for a decade. -- Colin° Talk 09:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Reliable sources has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
ERIC CLAPTON LIVE HISTORY book. By Christian Larsen and Marc Roberty says Clapton started using the Stratocaster as his main guitar in 1975. The Stratocaster use should be changed from end of 1969 to 1975. 1969 Eric Clapton only played Gibson Les Paul.
Change year of starting using Stratocaster till 1970 and as his main guitar till 1975. At the end of 1969 He did not use Fender Stratocaster but a Gibson Les Paul. The part written about Stratocaster is completely innacurate.
PaulM1234a (
talk)
12:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Reliable sources has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The page looks outdated. Several sources and credits are missing. I see this with many artists. That's why I'd like to update it. Seandahna ( talk) 21:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Is there a list of sources that are considered reliable/unreliable somewhere? I seem to remember seeing that in the past week and I can't find it again.
Other question: if I do find this list, is Broadway World on it, and if not, can it be added? The link I reference in that sentence shows that anyone can use the site as a press release-type thing, and they'll just publish it. So probably not great for establishing notability. In my opinion. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 01:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this is a reliable source but want to ask here. The website has an official-sounding name, but it turns out there is no Worcester Herald newspaper. It was founded in 2014, and has been dormant since 2019. Going to their Facebook page reveal a ton of links to http://blog.flyorh.com/ - The "Worcester Airport Blog". What say you? Fred Zepelin ( talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
At first glance I thought it was related to Deadline Hollywood. It isn't. Appears to be its own thing in Scotland. It's being used as a source on an article up for deletion and I dug into the site a little [3] and found people can just submit and/or pay for "stories" to appear on the website. So I should remove that reference that uses that as a source, right? Fred Zepelin ( talk) 23:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Have attempted to insert this text, and was instantly reverted by another editor (not surprised, as the popular dogmatism about never using unreliable sources is almost chronic in Wikipedia -- to the point of substantially undermining the validity, thoroughness, relevance and usefulness of articles.)
Here, for all to bash, is my suggested revision to the section on "Context matters." Before dismissing cavalierly, or dogmatically, please think through, carefully, consider it seriously, and comment respectfully:
The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.
In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.
Conversely, a major, but otherwise-unreliable, source -- if cited merely to establish notoriety of a topic -- is appropriate.
For instance, while the London Daily Mail, or the Xinhua News Agency would not normally be considered a WP:RS on the substance of a topic, noting the article subject's mention in those major-but-questionable sources may be relevant for establishing WP:NOTABILITY (extensive publicity in major venues, however unreliable they may be, nevertheless implicitly creates conspicuousness, and thus public consciousness, and thus notability), or it may be relevant as an example of a significant publicity event related to the topic, so long as the truthfulness of that publicity is appropriately debunked or validated with a regular reliable source.
Similarly, while a source may not be reliable, it may be referenced as an example of the nature of an entity's own publications, or its official public position on a matter (for instance, an article in an unreliable tabloid newspaper may be logically cited as an example of that publication's style and content, in an article about that specific publication).
Likewise, a government entity's press release or official document is a relevant source to cite when pointing out that the agency has made a public declaration, or established a regulation or law, or ruled in a controversy.
Finally, an otherwise-unreliable source, though a primary source, is the logical principal source of information on entity's own assignment of awards or titles.
For instance, while an activist organization or employer may not be a reliable source on a given person, it is a reliable source (indeed, the foremost source) on whatever awards, recognition, office or job title they have accorded that individual. So such an otherwise-unreliable source is an appropriate reference for their own internal assignment of honors and titles to that person (though an echo of their announcement in a conventional reliable source is a wise supplement, when available).
This is particularly significant for current events, as an organization's or company's or agency's website is far more likely to accurately report the current title of a person (or the current person assigned that title) than "reliable" secondary sources, which often lag far behind personnel changes, or simply get it wrong, if they report it at all.
~ Penlite ( talk) 13:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Reliable sources: when not relevantrestates CONTEXTMATTERS. Regarding
Notoriety and publicity examples, there is simply no consensus that unreliable sources may be used to establish notability. I don't understand what
Examples of the source, itself, and its declarationsand
The source's own assignment of recognition and titlesmeans: these sources are not unreliable, they are just WP:PRIMARY. As for
Likewise, a government entity's press release or official document is a relevant source to cite when pointing out that the agency has... established a regulation or law, or ruled in a controversy., this seems to contradict WP:RSLAW § Original texts which, while not a guideline, expresses some form of consensus in this area. JBchrch talk 14:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
...which is somewhat awkward since this is the page discussing RS. Looks like a case of WP:EGG, but I am not sure. Cinadon 36 20:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
It also feels like making circles, since the phrase "reliable, published sources" links to a section where it starts as ===What counts as a reliable source=== {{further|Wikipedia:Reliable sources}} Cinadon 36 13:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability- and that policy links back to here. nothing really can be done here. Removing the link solves nothing in my opinion. Mvbaron ( talk) 12:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
guideline edits need consensus, of course they do (but see also WP:PGBOLD), hence you shouldn't reinstate a reverted edit just because you like it that way (= without consensus here). Also don't try to paint me as if I didn't care for policy, instead argue your case. My arguments are: (1) Removing the link is not an improvement. (2) removing the link doesn't solve the "circularity" issue. (3) the link is instead a good one, because it points to the relevant policy (guiding this guideline).
there would still be linking from WP:RS to WP:V.answers none of my points. -- Mvbaron ( talk) 15:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
The biggest issue as I see it @ Mvbaron: (thanks for jumping in btw) is not the circularity, but the confusion created since we are bluelinking the argument of the predicate, which is the exact subject of this page. Placement of an internal link indicates that the article/WP-page discussing Reliable Sources is a different one. See also bullet point #3 at MOS:LINKSTYLE. "Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead" See also examples at MOS:BOLDLEAD. As of the circularity, it is true that we can not avoid linking to policy page, and policy page linking to this one. But we can avoid creating the circularity through bluelinking the boldface phrase which is the real problem. My suggestion would be to remove the internal link at the first sentence and add a template just after the title, that would create a sentence like "This article is about the guideline, for RS are also discussed in Policy in page ___". There is no circularity problem this way, and yet the one page links to the other one. I think this would be an improvement. I hope other users will contribute to this discussion. This would be the best way to move forward. Cinadon 36 06:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
add a template just after the title ... like "This article is about the guideline, for RS are also discussed in Policy in page ___". That's perfect in my opinion. (Now I feel stupid pointlessly wasting time here when the solution was that easy) :) My only concern was the removal of the link to the policy from the lead alltogether. Thanks for making the effort and coming up with such a good solution. -- Mvbaron ( talk) 07:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)