![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 9 |
Let's discuss the entry for the Bible, removed at Special:Diff/930241923:
Source | Status ( legend) |
Discussions | Uses | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
List | Last | Summary | |||
Bible |
![]() |
1 2 3 |
![]() 2018 |
The Bible is a WP:PRIMARY religious source that has been unfavourably compared to "a load of crap". A few editors consider the source usable in some cases. Its analysis by Wikipedia editors is prohibited by the policy on original research. |
1
![]() ![]() |
The above summary is needlessly inflammatory, and I think we can do better before including it into the list. — Newslinger talk 04:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
The Bible is a primary historical source document, and should only be used on that basis. It says X, that doesn't mean we can say that X is true, but is verifiable that the Bible says X and that fact can be included in relevant articles. You can't interpret a primary source: "This bit says X and that bit says says Y, therefore Z" is not acceptable; "This says X and that says Y" is broadly acceptable. However, you shouldn't need to doyour own exegesis. Every part of the Bible has been the subject of detailed study by experts. If there's a particular historical event that interests you, experts will have written about it, explaining its context and meaning in minute detail. The works of those experts should be the references for anything other than simply repeating or paraphrasing or summarising what the Bible says. In this the Bible is no different from any other primary historical source. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The Bible, is at best, a primary source. I would not be surprised if there was not at least a book written on every single passage in the Bible. Just cite those if you want to mention the Biblical account of things. NW Talk 19:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Mr X 🖋 13:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)The Bible is a WP:PRIMARY source only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes and in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Analysis of biblical content by Wikipedia editors is prohibited original research."
Content that interprets or summarizes biblical passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of religious studies) and attributed when appropriate.
Source | Status ( legend) |
Discussions | Uses | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
List | Last | Summary | |||
Bible and every other holy book | 1 2 3 |
![]() 2018 |
The Bible is a WP:PRIMARY source only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes and in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Analysis of biblical content by Wikipedia editors is prohibited original research. Content that interprets or summarizes biblical passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of religious studies) and attributed when appropriate. Original research performed by Wikipedia editors upon holy books is prohibited by website policy. All claims about holy books have to be sourced to secondary scholarly sources. |
1
![]() ![]() |
Source | Status ( legend) |
Discussions | Uses | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
List | Last | Summary | |||
Scriptural texts such as the Bible | 1 2 3 4 |
![]() 2018 |
Scriptural texts, such as the Bible, Qur'an, and Vedas, are primary sources only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes and in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of religious studies) and attributed when appropriate. Analysis of biblical content by Wikipedia editors is prohibited by the Wikipedia policy regarding original research. |
Any objections to this? Neutrality talk 20:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Source | Status ( legend) |
Discussions | Uses | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
List | Last | Summary | |||
Scriptural texts ( Bible, Quran) |
![]() |
1 2 3 4 |
![]() 2018 |
The Bible and Quran, as scriptural texts, are primary sources only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes and in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of religious studies) and attributed when appropriate. Analysis of scriptural content by Wikipedia editors is prohibited by the Wikipedia policy regarding original research. | — |
-- Neutrality talk 17:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
id
to the row, and added an em dash to the "Uses" column to be consistent with
WP:RSP § Wikidata transcluded statements. (
See diff for details.) —
Newslinger
talk
17:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)ZiaLater, I noticed your update of the perennial sources list and wondered if this wording should be tweaked:
This does not mean One America News Network can no longer be used, but it should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as a primary source when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary.
I believe this is incorrect. An unreliable source, especially a deprecated one, can only be used in its own article to document its own positions and opinions, and even then only if it is not "unduly self-serving".
With that one exception, all content in our articles must be exclusively sourced using RS. In that connection, if a RS mentions OANN's views, then the RS can be used anywhere to document their views, but we still cannot use OANN directly as the source.
WP:Fringe and WP:Undue weight apply here:
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. (Bolding added)
Therefore, I suggest the wording above be replaced with something like this:
This means that OANN can never be used as a source outside of its own article. Its views are generally so false, fringe, and have so little weight that they can only be documented elsewhere by using a RS that mentions them. It is the RS which gives them weight enough for single-use mention in that situation.
Both left- and right-wing opinions should be documented here because they can vary a lot without being so extreme that they become counterfactual. "Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts." By contrast, falsehoods simply have no weight here, and they only get mentioned when RS do so, and then only when it's necessary to do so. Generally, they should be ignored.
This is often the only way we are allowed to deal with conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, etc. These things are unfortunately part of the "sum total of human knowledge" we are required to document here, but only if they have enough weight to be noticed by RS. If that happens, we can use the RS to document them. Because Trump is so "factually challenged", this is our de facto way of dealing with many of his statements because, as the legendary User:MjolnirPants (04:57, 2 October 2018) has stated: "The president is possibly the single most unreliable source for any claim of fact ever to grace the pages of WP."
I believe that other listings of deprecated sources should be accompanied by such wording. Does that make sense? -- BullRangifer ( talk) 21:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Now that the Quackwatch RfC has been closed, we need to determine whether the source's status should be changed. I've updated the description to settle all of the things that were marked as "(disputed)", but the wording may need to be improved. — Newslinger talk 16:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I had a look for inaccuracies myself hoping to decide if the ban on them as a reputable source (when sources that deliberately mislead the US public leading up to the war in Iraq and similar were still treated as such) and found none. The opposition to them seems opinion based on inaccurate assumptions at best.
I believe in revealing my biases so I'm an old 70%ish white guy who remembers what the Democratic party used to be before Bill Clinton and the [neocon]/[neoliberal] (same thing) [third way] alliance.
WikiLeaks was loved for exposing corruption until it was "centrist" corruption and I think there is a strong possibility that those most opposing it's inclusion in this site are being paid to do so.
I am aware of my biases however, and wait with baited breath for actual examples of WikiLeaks "getting it wrong." They should exist if the negative reputation is more than the results of a coordinated smear campaign. ~~ TheGrinningViking ( talk) 18:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
The current summary says: "Some editors consider The Sun usable for uncontroversial sports reporting, although more reliable sources are recommended."
The actual RFC doesn't say that at all - there's a line in the analysis "I also note that many have noted that any uncontroversial information which can be sourced to the Sun (sports score-lines et al) can almost-always be sourced to another source of repute." The comments in the RFC include:
That's the only mention of sports.
I note this because some editors seem to think that line in the RSP summary means it's a green-rated sure fire RS as long as the subject matter vaguely relates to sports. (There was a long row about this that ended up at WP:ARCA a short time ago.) And that's not what the summary, nor the comments in the RFC, said or meant - David Gerard ( talk) 20:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
a sizeable minority at the RfC thought that the Sun is OK for opinion etcI don't see that present at all in the RFC text - there's nothing in it to support that as a summary either. What are you thinking of here? - David Gerard ( talk) 13:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
The tabloid Sun was first published on 17 November 1969, with a front page headlined "HORSE DOPE SENSATION", an ephemeral "exclusive".And read on from there. It hasn't improved - David Gerard ( talk) 09:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Can you at least allow The Sun to remain as source for old articles like SummerSlam (2009). At that time it was very reliable, and it had been considered that way for 10 years. It has been cited unreliable in recent time so it should not be used for recent articles. But removing all the information from the older articles destroys the quality of the articles and some of the articles you removed the Sun as a source from had broken links, you do not do any thing about broken links. Are administrators supposed to start calling sources unreliable anytime they want? Just saying, I respect your decision, but please take into account the quality of the older articles which are affected by removing the Sun as source and their recent unreliability is not associated with the Sun being considered an extremely reliable source back in 2009, and the contents were the 2009 contents of the Sun not the present day "unreliable Sun's" contents. Dilbaggg ( talk) 17:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Just a reminder: since this talk page only receives a fraction of the pageviews as the noticeboard, discussions on this page aren't factored into the list entries. If any editor wishes to introduce new arguments, WP:RSN is the correct venue where those arguments can be thoroughly examined by the community.
Responding to
David Gerard's original question: I think the sentence in the entry's summary ("Some editors consider The Sun usable for uncontroversial sports reporting, although more reliable sources are recommended."
) is an acceptable interpretation of the bullet point in the RfC's closing summary ("I also note that many have noted that any uncontroversial information which can be sourced to the Sun (sports score-lines et al) can almost-always be sourced to another source of repute."
) However, it's debatable whether the sentence needs to be in the entry. Over 50 editors commented in the survey section of the RfC, while only 2 editors made positive remarks about The Sun's sport coverage. —
Newslinger
talk
16:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
This is an excellent RS and resource:
The insular right wing of the media ecosystem creates positive feedbacks for bias-confirming statements as a central feature of its normal operation. The rest of the media ecosystem comprises sites diverse enough in their political orientation, organizational culture, business model, and reputational needs to create impedance in the network. This system resists and corrects falsehood as its normal operation, even though, like all systems, it also occasionally fails, sometimes spectacularly.
Search that page for various websites and sources. Try Fox. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 17:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I changed the Vox entry to remove "It is often considered a partisan source, particularly regarding American politics." which is not supported by the three linked discussions. - Mr X 🖋 13:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
There have been quite a few discussion on The New American (TNA) as a RS (a surprising number compared to the number of remaining uses of the source), and I'm interested in seeing whether it would make sense to make some general statement about it through either the RSN/P or some other method. Discussions so far:
- 2009 RSN conversation: This came clearly to the idea that, at minimum, TNA is a POV source, and every member except one agreed that the source could only be used for statements about the John Birch Society. (5 users)
- 2010 RSN conversation: Unrelated conversation that wound up talking about RS. Every user but one (the same one from the 2009 conversation) who made a comment on the RS determination agreed that TNA is not an RS based on extremist views. (~10 users)
- 2010 RSN conversation: Three users argue for non-RS, and one (the same supporter from the previous conversations) argues for limited usage (4 users)
- 2012 RSN conversation: One user doesn't make a clear statement, one says "at minimum POV," and one says not a RS regarding anything except the John Birch Society(3 users)
- 2014 RSN conversation: Several users say it must be sourced as POV or opinion piece. Two state that it is inadmissible, since it makes false claims. (~5 users)
- 2016 RSN conversation: Off-hand mention that TNA is not RS (mostly about another source). No one disputes the idea that it's non-RS (3 users)
This seems to be pretty consistent opinions: a minority who argue for POV status at a minimum, and a majority who argue that it should not be RS.
I'm new to this territory, so I'm unsure of the next steps. Any recommendations on what the best next step is? Thanks! Jusadi ( talk) 03:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
ToThAc, it's a bit weird having a source listed as a green- rated subject-area RS that also excludes a whole group of writers on the site - surely that would be yellow at best - and does it connote notability? - David Gerard ( talk) 10:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Because the fields of video game journalism, research, criticism, and commentary are relatively new compared to similar coverage of traditional media, traditional means of sourcing can be somewhat rare.which is uncomfortably close to an ill-sourced area trying to create a special carveout for itself - though the rest of the essay does try to set out sensible ways to judge gaming sources - David Gerard ( talk) 19:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
On Unix it used to be never go anywhere without your aliases, on enwiki it apparently is never add sources on a BLP without checking WP:RS/P first. Minor difficulty, tons of details at the top of the page only relevant for editors of this project age, the all important A…Z index for users (read/only) should be shown near the top before the details. – 84.46.52.173 ( talk) 15:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Zero Hedge Permanently Suspended From Twitter for ‘Harassment’
Zero Hedge should be deprecated completely. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 20:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Here's the original Buzzfeed article: [2].
I've argued in the past that Zero Hedge can be shown, in reliable sources, to have an avid and notable following, and should at the least be usable with attribution [3]. Perhaps that remains true.
I must say that the referenced ZH article [4] seems to me beyond the pale. Bats are major carriers for pathogens, coronavirus included, and southern China has long struggled with epidemics due to population density, tropical climate, and other factors. Pointing at a researcher who studies these things and accusing them of starting an epidemic is awful and dangerous, since people are dying, clearly upset, and will have difficulty evaluating the veracity of the ZH allegations.
All this said, I don't think we would ever use ZH as a source of fact, even without this event. Instead, it would be used with attribution, as notable for its own opinion and the attention people give the blog. Given this, I don't think deprecating ZH would help readers or Wikipedia. I'm sorry to have to argue this, but outrage is probably the last thing that will lead to good policy. - Darouet ( talk) 20:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
There's no entry on this list, despite the fact that it's one of the major news sources for one of the largest countries in the world. On RSN many editors seem to think it's reliable. Is there enough consensus or should an RFC be started on it? Thanks. b uidh e 16:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I noticed just now [21] that we have more than I thought of these, WP:BREITBART, WP:WND etc. Should we try to include these as Shortcuts-boxes in the list? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Source |
---|
Ancestry.com |
Breitbart News |
Daily Mail (
MailOnline) (2017 RfC) (This page) |
Seems a generally good idea, although I'd want to see a fuller mockup before giving my thumbs up. And only have the obvious shortcuts use, not obscure ones like WP:RSPDM. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Pinging participants David Gerard MrX Headbomb ToThAc (I'm told IP:s can't be pinged).
It's been a few days, and I'm reading the comments as being neutral to positive to MrX suggestion. I'm ok with them implementing it, it can always be reverted at need. If they want to do a fuller mockup per Headbomb's request that's ok too. Is it best to use wikitext or should a new template be created? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 06:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
This worked out really well. Thank you all for putting this together! — Newslinger talk 13:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is new, and I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
White House press releases from the Trump WH should be deprecated. They are no better, and sometimes worse, than RT and Breitbart. We must base all of our content on RS. Notability (Trump and the WH are obviously notable) does not confer reliability, and Trump and Stephen Miller are remarkably notable sources of bottomless misinformation and propaganda.
To include the WH POV, we must do it by citing independent RS which mention the WH POV, just as we are supposed to do when documenting misinformation found in other unreliable sources. We must not use the unreliable source as our reference....ever, with ONE exception, in their own biography. Then self-ref is allowed, even of blacklisted sources, and even then with caveats.
I subscribe to myriad RS, as well as the WH newsletter (not RS), and it's no better than the worst unreliable sources. It is propaganda straight from the source. I sometimes wonder (
) if some of it is dictated straight from Putin's press officer. We know that Trump shares highly classified info and enemies lists with Putin (and other dictators), and that he obeys Putin, including choice of Secretary of State, so why not? --
BullRangifer (
talk)
18:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
The addition of "Scriptural texts", which I think was a good idea, was unusual for this page since it's more a group of sources. Based on that, would an entry for obituaries be helpful? It pops up now and then: [27]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Kind of a pain to scroll all the way down just to figure out what grey/yellow/etc. means. Test123Bug ( talk) 20:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
There is a request for comment on adding generally reliable sources from the perennial sources list to the CAPTCHA whitelist, which allows new and anonymous users to cite them in articles without needing to solve a CAPTCHA. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Adding generally reliable sources to the CAPTCHA whitelist. — Newslinger talk 19:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Does anybody have a reliable source for the claim, that Wikileaks is not reliable? I can provide you with links to erroneous publications in the New York Times and the Guardian. Can anybody show a flawed publication on Wikileaks? — Raphael1 18:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
WikiLeaks is held to the same standards as any other source (the
verifiability policy and the
reliable sources guideline). There is
consensus in the past noticeboard discussions that WikiLeaks does not adequately authenticate its documents, which causes it to fail both
WP:V and
WP:RS. See
discussion #4 for an example of a WikiLeaks document that was rejected by editors due to its questionable provenance. Note that the
"burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material"
, which means that an editor who wants to cite a WikiLeaks document needs to establish that it is authentic, instead of simply asking other editors to disprove the same. WikiLeaks was last discussed in 2018, so feel free to start a new discussion on the
reliable sources noticeboard if you believe the consensus has changed. —
Newslinger
talk
20:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger Are you trying to take me for a ride? An editor, who wants to cite a Wikileaks document cannot do so, because whenever one uses a reference to Wikileaks, a Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Wikileaks banner comes up, that that tells you this reference is prohibited. There is currently no way to add a reference to Wikileaks, even if one can provide evidence for the authenticity of the document. -- Raphael1 21:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger And what does the Jehova's Witnesses letter have to do with Wikileaks? It has never been published there, has it? -- Raphael1 21:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
You're right in that the Jehovah's Witnesses letter discussion should not have been listed in the WikiLeaks entry, and I've removed it. Please refer to " Is a document from Wikileaks reliable?" (2018), the most recent discussion, for another example. — Newslinger talk 21:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
In the past 30 days, the perennial sources list ( 27,448 pageviews) has accrued more pageviews than the reliable sources noticeboard ( 26,094 pageviews). Thank you all for contributing to this page, and for participating in the noticeboard discussions that make this list possible! — Newslinger talk 22:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I apologize if this is only tangentially related: I wanted to bring this up here since it will likely be of interest to some watchers, and the nature of this grant means it could support projects related to either supporting or building off of our perennial sources list. The WikiConference North America User Group has partnered with the Credibility Coalition, MisinfoCon, and Hacks/Hackers to create the WikiCred grants program. This initiative offers microgrants ranging between $250 and $10,000 to individuals and teams to create and pilot projects on supporting credibility on the internet in relation to Wikimedia projects and the movement. Applications are accepted on a rolling basis. The first deadline to receive funding is April 6th.
In particular for perennial sources, I think there is good potential to develop tools around it, such as structuring the data, or building bots/tools that can perform widescale analysis of source usage across Wikipedia that includes perennial source data. If anyone has any ideas, I encourage you to comment below. If you have any questions, feel free to fill out the form on the site, or drop me an email or message on my talk page. Thanks, ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 08:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing this, SuperHamster! I would encourage anyone who is interested in building scripts, bots, and other tools for Wikipedia from the data in this list to apply. It's a great opportunity to help improve article reliability, and it's a rare chance to get compensated for some of your work on Wikipedia without taking a job with the Wikimedia Foundation. I would apply myself, but have privacy concerns that prevent me from doing so. — Newslinger talk 23:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Denver's 9News is running a fascinating experiment to simulate what people would see on their social media feeds if they followed only left, only right, and only center stories. They based their selections on the news source ratings of the Media Bias Chart. (Source: Vanessa Otero)
BullRangifer ( talk) 16:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
At the moment in the list it's written "The Independent, a British newspaper, is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information. In March 2016, the publication discontinued its print edition to become an online newspaper; some editors advise caution for articles published after this date."
This is not exactly true, they didn't discontinue printing, they changed to a tabloid format with a lower case "i" for Independent without spelling it. And are still printing except in a lot lower quantities. Govvy ( talk) 10:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I think i should be considered separately, especially since it was acquired by Daily Mail and General Trust in November 2019. — Newslinger talk 23:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to add an entry for i if you can find at least two significant noticeboard discussions per the inclusion criteria, but it will almost certainly be challenging because "i" is very hard to search for. — Newslinger talk 07:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Two discussions on WikiLeaks ( RSP entry) were recently archived. The main objection to WikiLeaks is that it is a primary source, which means that it should be used with caution, and only to supplement information in reliable secondary sources. There is disagreement on whether WikiLeaks adequately authenticates its content. WikiLeaks is currently classified as "generally unreliable". Should WikiLeaks be reclassified as "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" to be more in line with primary sources like Hansard ( RSP entry)? — Newslinger talk 03:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The website's entry attributes a "far-left bias" to it. However, Daily Kos says: "Daily Kos is a group blog and internet forum focused on center-left politics, the Democratic Party and center-left liberal American politics." It provides zero indication for a "far-left bias" of its content. Rather, it mentions the website endorsing Hillary Clinton, who is far from being a left-wing radical.
Given that American conservatives and right-wingers in general keep spreading propaganda decrying US liberalism, and centrist or centre-left politics in general, as "far left", socialist, communist, Marxist, radical or extremist, which is ridiculously out of touch with the facts, political science and the rest of the world, I smell a rat here. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 13:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
One way to avoid disputes around contentious labels is to use the phrase "
biased or opinionated"
, instead. The phrase can optionally be qualified (e.g. "
biased or opinionated for politics"
) for a reduction in scope. —
Newslinger
talk
13:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The forbes contributors section description is currently somewhat out of line with current policy WP:SPS / WP:BLPSPS. We should probably expand it slightly to clarify this matter. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 18:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Is there any information of Sky News being a reliable source? Just want to ask, when it isn't mentioned in the article. However, this page proves that it is indeed a trusted news source like for BBC News. Bryn89 ( talk) 17:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Is there any support for assigning a new rating "commentary/opinion" for sources that are mainstream and have a good reputation but offer exculsively opinion and analysis, without any purely news/non-opinion pieces, so their entire output would be handled by WP:RSOPINION? I am thinking it would be a good designation for sources such as Foreign Policy, Reason.com, New Statesman, or New Republic ( RSP entry). This new rating would apply only to commentary with a good reputation for facts; commentary sources that have a reputation for fake news (such as Quadrant ( RSP entry)), would be rated "generally unreliable". b uidh e 04:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
It'd be nice if the header row of the table stayed on screen, even as you scroll down, similar to what happens at Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data. Does anyone know how to do that? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 00:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
position: sticky;
CSS value for this. I tried to implement this here (using the style sheet at
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/styles.css), but was unsuccessful. The main problem was that anchor links (e.g.
WP:RSP#Associated Press) still made the entry flush with the top of the browser window, which caused the entry to be covered up by the header. Also, the sticky header worked on Firefox (desktop), but I wasn't able to get it to work on Chrome (desktop),
the mobile site, or the mobile app before I noticed the anchor link issue. —
Newslinger
talk
13:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)I think the the wording of the inclusion criteria ( WP:RSPCRITERIA)
For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions that mention the source's reliability, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two participants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three participants for all other discussions.
should be tightened to:
For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions that mention the source's reliability, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two
qualifyingparticipants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than threequalifyingparticipants for all other discussions.Qualifying participants are editors who make at least one comment on the source's reliability.
The revised criteria would exclude long discussions about other sources from being considered "significant discussions" if they do not mention the source in question. For example, the listed discussions from the former entry for The Spectator are reproduced below:
Discussions 2–4 are problematic because they are not about The Spectator, and each features only one editor who briefly mentions The Spectator. While this technically satisfies the current wording in WP:RSPCRITERIA, I do not think this is consistent with the intent of the original discussion on the inclusion criteria. The proposed new wording would exclude discussions 2–4 altogether.
I've already removed the entry for The Spectator in Special:Diff/952666985, but am just realizing the wording issue now. — Newslinger talk 11:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
A Semantic Scholar collaborator has become active on cite template related pages, e.g. User talk:Citation bot/Archive_21#Request to add link to Semantic Scholar s2cid when an open access link is not available. I don't know if that opens an opportunity on learning more about the copyright situation of some of Semantic Scholar's content (which is an issue if I understand the explanation in the RSP listing for this source correctly). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 16:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the Daily Mail - some felt a proposed changed needed nailing down with an RFC - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Discussion_on_WP:RSPDM - David Gerard ( talk) 10:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Per discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#NPR, please change NPR to green with the following text:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Can we get CGTN added to the list now that the discussion has closed? We have a clear census of general unreliability [31]. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 14:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not experienced with editing this page. Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#Omigosh,_are_Cheatsheet.com_and_WeGotThisCovered.com_reliable? and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_290#WeGotThisCovered.com_is_unreliable, can someone add WeGotThisCovered as unreliable and reviewed in 2019 and 2020? Scrooge200 ( talk) 02:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger, I don't see that the discussions about the Jezebel site concluded with consensus that it's generally unreliable. The discussions are saying that it is better used for statements of opinions rather than facts. So it's a WP:WIKIVOICE matter.
No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 01:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
How does this look to you? Since the most recent discussion was back in 2016, a new noticeboard discussion to gauge the current consensus is also an option.There is no consensus on the reliability of Jezebel. Most editors believe that Jezebel is biased or opinionated, and that its claims should be attributed. Jezebel should not be used for contentious claims, especially ones about living persons.
@ Feminist: As the original author of the Jezebel entry, do you have any comments? — Newslinger talk 18:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Can I ask why prominent authors who has written for Daily Telegraph, The Independent, INews, London Evening Standard, etc ones who have also written for Daily Mail. Why are we deleting their cites from Daily Mail, when they have clearly been vetted by other News organisations. There is this blatant disregard of vetting the citations especially from David Gerard who is systematically not reviewing Daily Mail cites, is running a blanket ban and removing all of them without review for date, authorship, straight up quotation, etc. It's is stated that Daily Mail citations are not a ban, yet someone seems to think it is. I've noticed a lot of edgyness from other editors around this recently, I feel we need to review not who the paper is, but the authorship, who wrote the piece is just as important and that is being completely disregarded here. I don't understand why you delete that journalists cites for the Daily Mail and not all the other newspapers. It's bizarre to me that people are not noticing this. Govvy ( talk) 22:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
On the Reliable sources/Perennial sources list, can there be a column for Bias?
Bias is completely separate from reliability, as a site can be biased, but still reliable.
Many sources mention the bias in their description. For example:
Some editors perceive FOX News to be a biased source whereas others do not; neither affects reliability of the source.
Or
Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed.
I feel like this should have it's own column since there are many good organizations that rate the bias of media, and these sources generally mirror the Wikipedia consensus, but provide more detail:
Even something simple like "Strong Right," "Lean Right," "Mostly Center," "Lean Left," "Strong Left."
I am personally not in favor of including specific bias labels (e.g. "left-wing", "right-wing") here, since it leads to disputes like this one. However, mentioning the area in which a source is biased (e.g. " biased or opinionated for politics") or whether a source is affiliated with another entity (e.g. an advocacy organization) is generally accepted if editors mentioned the aspect in the linked discussions. — Newslinger talk 14:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
If multiple reliable sources describe something differently, editors have to reconcile all of the descriptions in a proportional manner. This reconciliation is done regardless of whether the reliable sources are perceived to be biased. Talk:Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery/Archive 2 § Jogging versus running was resolved by excluding both running and jogging from the article's lead section. — Newslinger talk 09:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
This is also why I am not in favor of highlighting the direction of bias. Consider One America News Network, which has a talk page full of arguments on whether it should be labeled as "conservative", "right-wing", or "far-right". If we prominently feature specific bias descriptors on this list, the same disputes will surface here. WP:BIASED makes it clear that biased sources are acceptable on Wikipedia. While sources with a stronger level of bias tend to be less reliable, we evaluate reliability independently of bias, and accept all sources that meet the threshold set by the reliable sources guideline. — Newslinger talk 01:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
FYI.
"they should be treated as a part of a foreign intelligence service."
EXECUTIVE SESSION
PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WASHINGTON, D.C.
INTERVIEW OF: JAKE SULLIVAN (bolding added)
MR. HECK: I would very much appreciate it if you had additional ideas about necessary elements that might enable that path forward. I want to ask you as well about RT. It's come in for some controversy. You may or may not have noticed the capitol press corps gave them the boot I think.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yeah.
MR. HECK: As I am told, they are still accredited for attendance at WhiteHouse, Defense, and State Department briefings. Insofar as, on the one hand, this is heavily anchored in the First Amendment society. On the other hand, we are dealing with a propaganda arm of the state which is obviously engaged in practices that are antithetical to our best interests. Would you take any action with respect to RT?
MR. SULLIVAN: My take on RT is that, as long as it remains an integrated element of this multifaceted warfare campaign that the ICA laid out - and they talked about RT specifically in there -- then it is not just like other state TV services from other countries. lt is an offensive weapon as part -
MR, HECK: And what do we do?
MR. SULLIVAN: -- a campaign. I would be open to -- I hadn't thought about the concept of denying them accreditation at the White House and Defense. I would want to think about it. I would put that on the table. I would generally put on the table sort of saying they shouldn't be regulated as a traditional media entity; they should be treated as a part of a foreign intelligence service. And what are the policy implications of that exactly? I am not sure. I don't know, but it's something I would take a hard look at. And I don't think you have to go down the road of saying the same thing about every TV station around the world that's owned by a government. You look to the one that has actually played a role as a particular tool in a campaign against the United States.
Valjean ( talk) 01:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
There is a request for comment on the first sentence of Wikipedia:Deprecated sources § Acceptable uses of deprecated sources. If you are interested, please participate at WT:DEPS § RfC: Acceptable uses of deprecated sources. — Newslinger talk 13:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Reason (magazine) now has two qualifying RSN discussions: 1 2. The publication should probably be added to the RSP list, though I am not sure whether it should be concluded as "generally reliable" or "no consensus". feminist | wear a mask, protect everyone 05:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Guy Macon's description from discussion #2 is fine, but I would make a few adjustments to exclude the direction of bias (libertarian) and include a mention of due weight from discussion #1.
Source | Status ( legend) |
Discussions | Uses | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
List | Last | Summary | |||
Reason |
![]() |
1 2 |
2020 |
There is consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinions. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight. |
1
![]() ![]() |
Source | Status ( legend) |
Discussions | Uses | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
List | Last | Summary | |||
Reason |
![]() |
1 2 |
2020 |
There is consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight. |
1
![]() ![]() |
Does this look good to you? — Newslinger talk 02:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Previous discussion: /Archive 1#The Hill (newspaper) added as generally reliable
The Hill ( RSP entry) includes this:
The publication's contributor pieces, labeled in their bylines, receive minimal editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources.
I participated in one discussions about The Hill, as did User:Feminist, who wrote this entry. At the time, I researched the subject some more and found this article in CJR by Lawrence Lanahan, who is described as "Baltimore-based freelance journalist". I was going to post additional comment rebutting the claim that contributor pieces are self-published, but the discussion was moved into archive by a bot before I finished my comment.
Anyway, CJR wrote about The Hill's contributor model in 2014 and said The Hill has one editor who "oversees the 200 writers in the network, and gives a light edit to the incoming copy. And because The Hill, given its subject matter, vets contributors for potential conflicts, much of the editor's work takes place before one word is typed."
I'm not sure there was a consensus to include "and should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources"
and the statement is just not accurate, because
WP:SPS applies to sources that typically lack any editorial oversight.
I'm also not a fan of saying "receive minimal editorial oversight"
. Sure, that is at least partly accurate, but same applies to the vast majority of op-eds and editorials, including those published in respectable newspapers. For instance, the entry for The Wall Street Journal says: "Use
WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces."
While I did not review any archived discussions about WSJ, I'm pretty sure that if WSJ op-eds and editorials were to be discussed now, many editors would say those have minimal editorial oversight.
How about changing The Hill entry to something like this:
The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. Use WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces and contributor pieces, labeled in their bylines.
Many thanks. Politrukki ( talk) 08:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing the Columbia Journalism Review report. While I still don't think The Hill's contributors are vetted as well as the publication's staff writers, the fact that The Hill only publishes 5–8 contributor posts per day compared to its 45 editorial staff members (as of 2014) distances The Hill contributors from Forbes.com contributors. Unlike Forbes.com, The Hill appears to use contributors only for opinion columns.
Since this is information not found in the past discussions, do you mind creating a new discussion on the noticeboard that focuses on The Hill contributors? As an aside, I note that some of the past discussions in the entry do not meet the current inclusion criteria, and should be delisted. — Newslinger talk 00:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Significance of listed discussions in The Hill's entry
|
---|
|
Comments regarding The Hill contributors in significant listed discussions
|
---|
|
The inclusion criteria currently allows entries for all sources that have been evaluated in an RfC or the required number of significant discussions. Historically, sources that are non-notable (i.e. ones that do not have a Wikipedia article or redirect) and sources that are excessively niche in scope (e.g. standalone books) have been excluded from the list even if they meet the criteria.
With the recent RfC authorization in WP:RSNRFC, we can expect to see many more non-notable sources that meet the current inclusion criteria. Personally, I don't think entries like the one on three peerage websites ( discussion and RfC) are significant enough to be included in this list. If we included every self-published or user-generated website that is used incorrectly, the list would be too bloated and cumbersome to use efficiently.
To address this, I am proposing the addition of a notability requirement to the inclusion criteria. The proposed wording also considers RfCs with low participation ordinary discussions, and reorganizes the existing paragraph into list form:
Sources should meet both of the following requirements before being added to the list:
- The source's name must link to one of the following pages:
- An article about the source
- A redirect to an article closely related to the source. The article must not be a stand-alone list, disambiguation page, or set index article.
- The source must have been adequately discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard in at least one of the following ways:
- At least one uninterrupted request for comment (RfC) on the source's reliability. RfCs are interrupted if they are withdrawn, deleted, or prematurely archived or closed (excluding the snowball clause) before the standard seven-day period elapses. RfCs with low participation do not qualify for this criterion, and are considered ordinary discussions.
- At least two significant discussions that mention the source's reliability. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two qualifying participants for discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three qualifying participants for all other discussions. Qualifying participants are editors who make at least one comment on the source's reliability.
Suggestions for something more specific than "low participation" would be much appreciated.
Is this a reasonable revision, and does anyone have any other approaches? — Newslinger talk 03:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
What's wrong with the de facto inclusion criteria we have been using?
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Should the entry for Vox have a disclaimer along the lines of Some editors say that Vox is a
partisan source in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should also be
attributed
? Our article on
Vox does note Vox is a liberal-leaning American news and opinion website
also the last substantial discussion about it
here made mention of it as well.
PackMecEng (
talk)
15:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Some editors say that Vox is a partisan source in the field of politicsto the list. This part of PackMegEng's proposed addition is not controversial, having been noted in previous RSN discussions. Whether the latter part, regarding their opinion pieces, should be added as well, can continue to be discussed here. feminist | freedom isn't free 03:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Чому в списке только российские сайты и нет ни одного украинского, нет "радио свободы"? Пфе. Ya unikum ( talk) 19:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Why are there only Russian sites on the list and no Ukrainian sites, no "radio freedom"? Pfft.
This site is defunct, and is now a redirect to AXS. Are we keeping it on the list in case someone digs through the Wayback Machine? -- Zanimum ( talk) 02:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Although I have been around for four years, this page was brought to my attention by User:Philip Cross. I admit I am wet behind the ears. Whose brain-fart was it to ram all of the western corporate media into the reliable pile and all detractors such as RT/Press TV in the "unreliable" pile? -- Coldtrack ( talk) 21:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
All right. Question 1 - how does alleged "independence of editorial judgement or ability to think or write freely" mean that those who possess this can be "relied upon". Surely the ability to "write or think freely" would give one the freedom to tell lies, right? If not - what stops him? Similarly question 2 - if a news network happens to report a certain government's position, how does this mean that the source is "unreliable"? Is someone claiming that it is impossible for a government to be right? In particular, a government not favourable to the west. Question 3 - who demonstrated that Russian media promotes so-called "falsehoods" and so-called "conspiracy theories". Question 4 - what the hell does anyone mean "egregious western corporatists (Breitbart, The Sun, The Mail, et al.", this bundle says NOTHING that the so-called "reliable" sources don't regurgitate san evidence. -- Coldtrack ( talk) 18:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Grandpallama - The "answer to the question" I have been provided does not cut the mustard. The mantra that is being regurgitated over and over (ie. CNN and the BBC are so-called "independent" news organizations. PressTV and RT are "state propaganda" et al) is a distinction without a difference. I responded to that here
[34], and to date nobody has demonstrated even one fraction why one is reliable and the other isn't. To be honest, any fair-minded observer is able to see that the so-called "reliability criteria" is framed specifically to single out the sources which please the architects of this project. You would really have to think that the reader is stupid if one is "independent" when he writes for Rupert Murdoch, or that the BBC is "reliable" while Press TV is "unreliable" on the so-called "rectitudes" of the White Helmets or the so-called "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" when the BBC make no secret of the fact that what they report from Syria adduces those two headsprings. In other words, the "unreliable" sources call them terrorists, and the "reliable" cartel present them as the "cuddly band of non-dangerous fanatics dedicated to saving lives". Result: The White Helmets are good people and not bad, because they say they are. Circular reasoning (see
begging the question). As regards where I saw that the majority in the west don't trust their media may have been from a corporate source ultimately, and I think it was, but I spotted it on Twitter a month or so ago. When I find it, I'll post it to your talk. If it were acknowledged on RT it would more likely have been on an op-ed (you know, the ones who write what THEY want and not what the Kremlin tells them) and would likely have been an acknowledgement more than a leading news headline. But then what would it matter if it were RT when nobody has ever provided me with a reason to disbelieve them. --
Coldtrack (
talk)
18:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
|
The section about public contributions is quite out of date: they haven't allowed that for over a decade. (Saying that as someone who contributed three articles, and was in the process of writing another when they shut the process down.) -- Zanimum ( talk) 02:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Given that The Times is only second to The Daily Mail when it comes to upheld complaints by IPSO should it still be considered a reliable source? 80.47.137.128 ( talk) 01:49, 23 June 2020 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 9 |
Let's discuss the entry for the Bible, removed at Special:Diff/930241923:
Source | Status ( legend) |
Discussions | Uses | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
List | Last | Summary | |||
Bible |
![]() |
1 2 3 |
![]() 2018 |
The Bible is a WP:PRIMARY religious source that has been unfavourably compared to "a load of crap". A few editors consider the source usable in some cases. Its analysis by Wikipedia editors is prohibited by the policy on original research. |
1
![]() ![]() |
The above summary is needlessly inflammatory, and I think we can do better before including it into the list. — Newslinger talk 04:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
The Bible is a primary historical source document, and should only be used on that basis. It says X, that doesn't mean we can say that X is true, but is verifiable that the Bible says X and that fact can be included in relevant articles. You can't interpret a primary source: "This bit says X and that bit says says Y, therefore Z" is not acceptable; "This says X and that says Y" is broadly acceptable. However, you shouldn't need to doyour own exegesis. Every part of the Bible has been the subject of detailed study by experts. If there's a particular historical event that interests you, experts will have written about it, explaining its context and meaning in minute detail. The works of those experts should be the references for anything other than simply repeating or paraphrasing or summarising what the Bible says. In this the Bible is no different from any other primary historical source. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The Bible, is at best, a primary source. I would not be surprised if there was not at least a book written on every single passage in the Bible. Just cite those if you want to mention the Biblical account of things. NW Talk 19:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Mr X 🖋 13:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)The Bible is a WP:PRIMARY source only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes and in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Analysis of biblical content by Wikipedia editors is prohibited original research."
Content that interprets or summarizes biblical passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of religious studies) and attributed when appropriate.
Source | Status ( legend) |
Discussions | Uses | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
List | Last | Summary | |||
Bible and every other holy book | 1 2 3 |
![]() 2018 |
The Bible is a WP:PRIMARY source only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes and in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Analysis of biblical content by Wikipedia editors is prohibited original research. Content that interprets or summarizes biblical passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of religious studies) and attributed when appropriate. Original research performed by Wikipedia editors upon holy books is prohibited by website policy. All claims about holy books have to be sourced to secondary scholarly sources. |
1
![]() ![]() |
Source | Status ( legend) |
Discussions | Uses | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
List | Last | Summary | |||
Scriptural texts such as the Bible | 1 2 3 4 |
![]() 2018 |
Scriptural texts, such as the Bible, Qur'an, and Vedas, are primary sources only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes and in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of religious studies) and attributed when appropriate. Analysis of biblical content by Wikipedia editors is prohibited by the Wikipedia policy regarding original research. |
Any objections to this? Neutrality talk 20:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Source | Status ( legend) |
Discussions | Uses | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
List | Last | Summary | |||
Scriptural texts ( Bible, Quran) |
![]() |
1 2 3 4 |
![]() 2018 |
The Bible and Quran, as scriptural texts, are primary sources only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes and in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of religious studies) and attributed when appropriate. Analysis of scriptural content by Wikipedia editors is prohibited by the Wikipedia policy regarding original research. | — |
-- Neutrality talk 17:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
id
to the row, and added an em dash to the "Uses" column to be consistent with
WP:RSP § Wikidata transcluded statements. (
See diff for details.) —
Newslinger
talk
17:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)ZiaLater, I noticed your update of the perennial sources list and wondered if this wording should be tweaked:
This does not mean One America News Network can no longer be used, but it should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as a primary source when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary.
I believe this is incorrect. An unreliable source, especially a deprecated one, can only be used in its own article to document its own positions and opinions, and even then only if it is not "unduly self-serving".
With that one exception, all content in our articles must be exclusively sourced using RS. In that connection, if a RS mentions OANN's views, then the RS can be used anywhere to document their views, but we still cannot use OANN directly as the source.
WP:Fringe and WP:Undue weight apply here:
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. (Bolding added)
Therefore, I suggest the wording above be replaced with something like this:
This means that OANN can never be used as a source outside of its own article. Its views are generally so false, fringe, and have so little weight that they can only be documented elsewhere by using a RS that mentions them. It is the RS which gives them weight enough for single-use mention in that situation.
Both left- and right-wing opinions should be documented here because they can vary a lot without being so extreme that they become counterfactual. "Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts." By contrast, falsehoods simply have no weight here, and they only get mentioned when RS do so, and then only when it's necessary to do so. Generally, they should be ignored.
This is often the only way we are allowed to deal with conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, etc. These things are unfortunately part of the "sum total of human knowledge" we are required to document here, but only if they have enough weight to be noticed by RS. If that happens, we can use the RS to document them. Because Trump is so "factually challenged", this is our de facto way of dealing with many of his statements because, as the legendary User:MjolnirPants (04:57, 2 October 2018) has stated: "The president is possibly the single most unreliable source for any claim of fact ever to grace the pages of WP."
I believe that other listings of deprecated sources should be accompanied by such wording. Does that make sense? -- BullRangifer ( talk) 21:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Now that the Quackwatch RfC has been closed, we need to determine whether the source's status should be changed. I've updated the description to settle all of the things that were marked as "(disputed)", but the wording may need to be improved. — Newslinger talk 16:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I had a look for inaccuracies myself hoping to decide if the ban on them as a reputable source (when sources that deliberately mislead the US public leading up to the war in Iraq and similar were still treated as such) and found none. The opposition to them seems opinion based on inaccurate assumptions at best.
I believe in revealing my biases so I'm an old 70%ish white guy who remembers what the Democratic party used to be before Bill Clinton and the [neocon]/[neoliberal] (same thing) [third way] alliance.
WikiLeaks was loved for exposing corruption until it was "centrist" corruption and I think there is a strong possibility that those most opposing it's inclusion in this site are being paid to do so.
I am aware of my biases however, and wait with baited breath for actual examples of WikiLeaks "getting it wrong." They should exist if the negative reputation is more than the results of a coordinated smear campaign. ~~ TheGrinningViking ( talk) 18:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
The current summary says: "Some editors consider The Sun usable for uncontroversial sports reporting, although more reliable sources are recommended."
The actual RFC doesn't say that at all - there's a line in the analysis "I also note that many have noted that any uncontroversial information which can be sourced to the Sun (sports score-lines et al) can almost-always be sourced to another source of repute." The comments in the RFC include:
That's the only mention of sports.
I note this because some editors seem to think that line in the RSP summary means it's a green-rated sure fire RS as long as the subject matter vaguely relates to sports. (There was a long row about this that ended up at WP:ARCA a short time ago.) And that's not what the summary, nor the comments in the RFC, said or meant - David Gerard ( talk) 20:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
a sizeable minority at the RfC thought that the Sun is OK for opinion etcI don't see that present at all in the RFC text - there's nothing in it to support that as a summary either. What are you thinking of here? - David Gerard ( talk) 13:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
The tabloid Sun was first published on 17 November 1969, with a front page headlined "HORSE DOPE SENSATION", an ephemeral "exclusive".And read on from there. It hasn't improved - David Gerard ( talk) 09:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Can you at least allow The Sun to remain as source for old articles like SummerSlam (2009). At that time it was very reliable, and it had been considered that way for 10 years. It has been cited unreliable in recent time so it should not be used for recent articles. But removing all the information from the older articles destroys the quality of the articles and some of the articles you removed the Sun as a source from had broken links, you do not do any thing about broken links. Are administrators supposed to start calling sources unreliable anytime they want? Just saying, I respect your decision, but please take into account the quality of the older articles which are affected by removing the Sun as source and their recent unreliability is not associated with the Sun being considered an extremely reliable source back in 2009, and the contents were the 2009 contents of the Sun not the present day "unreliable Sun's" contents. Dilbaggg ( talk) 17:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Just a reminder: since this talk page only receives a fraction of the pageviews as the noticeboard, discussions on this page aren't factored into the list entries. If any editor wishes to introduce new arguments, WP:RSN is the correct venue where those arguments can be thoroughly examined by the community.
Responding to
David Gerard's original question: I think the sentence in the entry's summary ("Some editors consider The Sun usable for uncontroversial sports reporting, although more reliable sources are recommended."
) is an acceptable interpretation of the bullet point in the RfC's closing summary ("I also note that many have noted that any uncontroversial information which can be sourced to the Sun (sports score-lines et al) can almost-always be sourced to another source of repute."
) However, it's debatable whether the sentence needs to be in the entry. Over 50 editors commented in the survey section of the RfC, while only 2 editors made positive remarks about The Sun's sport coverage. —
Newslinger
talk
16:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
This is an excellent RS and resource:
The insular right wing of the media ecosystem creates positive feedbacks for bias-confirming statements as a central feature of its normal operation. The rest of the media ecosystem comprises sites diverse enough in their political orientation, organizational culture, business model, and reputational needs to create impedance in the network. This system resists and corrects falsehood as its normal operation, even though, like all systems, it also occasionally fails, sometimes spectacularly.
Search that page for various websites and sources. Try Fox. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 17:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I changed the Vox entry to remove "It is often considered a partisan source, particularly regarding American politics." which is not supported by the three linked discussions. - Mr X 🖋 13:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
There have been quite a few discussion on The New American (TNA) as a RS (a surprising number compared to the number of remaining uses of the source), and I'm interested in seeing whether it would make sense to make some general statement about it through either the RSN/P or some other method. Discussions so far:
- 2009 RSN conversation: This came clearly to the idea that, at minimum, TNA is a POV source, and every member except one agreed that the source could only be used for statements about the John Birch Society. (5 users)
- 2010 RSN conversation: Unrelated conversation that wound up talking about RS. Every user but one (the same one from the 2009 conversation) who made a comment on the RS determination agreed that TNA is not an RS based on extremist views. (~10 users)
- 2010 RSN conversation: Three users argue for non-RS, and one (the same supporter from the previous conversations) argues for limited usage (4 users)
- 2012 RSN conversation: One user doesn't make a clear statement, one says "at minimum POV," and one says not a RS regarding anything except the John Birch Society(3 users)
- 2014 RSN conversation: Several users say it must be sourced as POV or opinion piece. Two state that it is inadmissible, since it makes false claims. (~5 users)
- 2016 RSN conversation: Off-hand mention that TNA is not RS (mostly about another source). No one disputes the idea that it's non-RS (3 users)
This seems to be pretty consistent opinions: a minority who argue for POV status at a minimum, and a majority who argue that it should not be RS.
I'm new to this territory, so I'm unsure of the next steps. Any recommendations on what the best next step is? Thanks! Jusadi ( talk) 03:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
ToThAc, it's a bit weird having a source listed as a green- rated subject-area RS that also excludes a whole group of writers on the site - surely that would be yellow at best - and does it connote notability? - David Gerard ( talk) 10:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Because the fields of video game journalism, research, criticism, and commentary are relatively new compared to similar coverage of traditional media, traditional means of sourcing can be somewhat rare.which is uncomfortably close to an ill-sourced area trying to create a special carveout for itself - though the rest of the essay does try to set out sensible ways to judge gaming sources - David Gerard ( talk) 19:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
On Unix it used to be never go anywhere without your aliases, on enwiki it apparently is never add sources on a BLP without checking WP:RS/P first. Minor difficulty, tons of details at the top of the page only relevant for editors of this project age, the all important A…Z index for users (read/only) should be shown near the top before the details. – 84.46.52.173 ( talk) 15:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Zero Hedge Permanently Suspended From Twitter for ‘Harassment’
Zero Hedge should be deprecated completely. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 20:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Here's the original Buzzfeed article: [2].
I've argued in the past that Zero Hedge can be shown, in reliable sources, to have an avid and notable following, and should at the least be usable with attribution [3]. Perhaps that remains true.
I must say that the referenced ZH article [4] seems to me beyond the pale. Bats are major carriers for pathogens, coronavirus included, and southern China has long struggled with epidemics due to population density, tropical climate, and other factors. Pointing at a researcher who studies these things and accusing them of starting an epidemic is awful and dangerous, since people are dying, clearly upset, and will have difficulty evaluating the veracity of the ZH allegations.
All this said, I don't think we would ever use ZH as a source of fact, even without this event. Instead, it would be used with attribution, as notable for its own opinion and the attention people give the blog. Given this, I don't think deprecating ZH would help readers or Wikipedia. I'm sorry to have to argue this, but outrage is probably the last thing that will lead to good policy. - Darouet ( talk) 20:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
There's no entry on this list, despite the fact that it's one of the major news sources for one of the largest countries in the world. On RSN many editors seem to think it's reliable. Is there enough consensus or should an RFC be started on it? Thanks. b uidh e 16:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I noticed just now [21] that we have more than I thought of these, WP:BREITBART, WP:WND etc. Should we try to include these as Shortcuts-boxes in the list? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Source |
---|
Ancestry.com |
Breitbart News |
Daily Mail (
MailOnline) (2017 RfC) (This page) |
Seems a generally good idea, although I'd want to see a fuller mockup before giving my thumbs up. And only have the obvious shortcuts use, not obscure ones like WP:RSPDM. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Pinging participants David Gerard MrX Headbomb ToThAc (I'm told IP:s can't be pinged).
It's been a few days, and I'm reading the comments as being neutral to positive to MrX suggestion. I'm ok with them implementing it, it can always be reverted at need. If they want to do a fuller mockup per Headbomb's request that's ok too. Is it best to use wikitext or should a new template be created? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 06:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
This worked out really well. Thank you all for putting this together! — Newslinger talk 13:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is new, and I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
White House press releases from the Trump WH should be deprecated. They are no better, and sometimes worse, than RT and Breitbart. We must base all of our content on RS. Notability (Trump and the WH are obviously notable) does not confer reliability, and Trump and Stephen Miller are remarkably notable sources of bottomless misinformation and propaganda.
To include the WH POV, we must do it by citing independent RS which mention the WH POV, just as we are supposed to do when documenting misinformation found in other unreliable sources. We must not use the unreliable source as our reference....ever, with ONE exception, in their own biography. Then self-ref is allowed, even of blacklisted sources, and even then with caveats.
I subscribe to myriad RS, as well as the WH newsletter (not RS), and it's no better than the worst unreliable sources. It is propaganda straight from the source. I sometimes wonder (
) if some of it is dictated straight from Putin's press officer. We know that Trump shares highly classified info and enemies lists with Putin (and other dictators), and that he obeys Putin, including choice of Secretary of State, so why not? --
BullRangifer (
talk)
18:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
The addition of "Scriptural texts", which I think was a good idea, was unusual for this page since it's more a group of sources. Based on that, would an entry for obituaries be helpful? It pops up now and then: [27]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Kind of a pain to scroll all the way down just to figure out what grey/yellow/etc. means. Test123Bug ( talk) 20:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
There is a request for comment on adding generally reliable sources from the perennial sources list to the CAPTCHA whitelist, which allows new and anonymous users to cite them in articles without needing to solve a CAPTCHA. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Adding generally reliable sources to the CAPTCHA whitelist. — Newslinger talk 19:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Does anybody have a reliable source for the claim, that Wikileaks is not reliable? I can provide you with links to erroneous publications in the New York Times and the Guardian. Can anybody show a flawed publication on Wikileaks? — Raphael1 18:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
WikiLeaks is held to the same standards as any other source (the
verifiability policy and the
reliable sources guideline). There is
consensus in the past noticeboard discussions that WikiLeaks does not adequately authenticate its documents, which causes it to fail both
WP:V and
WP:RS. See
discussion #4 for an example of a WikiLeaks document that was rejected by editors due to its questionable provenance. Note that the
"burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material"
, which means that an editor who wants to cite a WikiLeaks document needs to establish that it is authentic, instead of simply asking other editors to disprove the same. WikiLeaks was last discussed in 2018, so feel free to start a new discussion on the
reliable sources noticeboard if you believe the consensus has changed. —
Newslinger
talk
20:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger Are you trying to take me for a ride? An editor, who wants to cite a Wikileaks document cannot do so, because whenever one uses a reference to Wikileaks, a Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Wikileaks banner comes up, that that tells you this reference is prohibited. There is currently no way to add a reference to Wikileaks, even if one can provide evidence for the authenticity of the document. -- Raphael1 21:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger And what does the Jehova's Witnesses letter have to do with Wikileaks? It has never been published there, has it? -- Raphael1 21:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
You're right in that the Jehovah's Witnesses letter discussion should not have been listed in the WikiLeaks entry, and I've removed it. Please refer to " Is a document from Wikileaks reliable?" (2018), the most recent discussion, for another example. — Newslinger talk 21:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
In the past 30 days, the perennial sources list ( 27,448 pageviews) has accrued more pageviews than the reliable sources noticeboard ( 26,094 pageviews). Thank you all for contributing to this page, and for participating in the noticeboard discussions that make this list possible! — Newslinger talk 22:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I apologize if this is only tangentially related: I wanted to bring this up here since it will likely be of interest to some watchers, and the nature of this grant means it could support projects related to either supporting or building off of our perennial sources list. The WikiConference North America User Group has partnered with the Credibility Coalition, MisinfoCon, and Hacks/Hackers to create the WikiCred grants program. This initiative offers microgrants ranging between $250 and $10,000 to individuals and teams to create and pilot projects on supporting credibility on the internet in relation to Wikimedia projects and the movement. Applications are accepted on a rolling basis. The first deadline to receive funding is April 6th.
In particular for perennial sources, I think there is good potential to develop tools around it, such as structuring the data, or building bots/tools that can perform widescale analysis of source usage across Wikipedia that includes perennial source data. If anyone has any ideas, I encourage you to comment below. If you have any questions, feel free to fill out the form on the site, or drop me an email or message on my talk page. Thanks, ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 08:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing this, SuperHamster! I would encourage anyone who is interested in building scripts, bots, and other tools for Wikipedia from the data in this list to apply. It's a great opportunity to help improve article reliability, and it's a rare chance to get compensated for some of your work on Wikipedia without taking a job with the Wikimedia Foundation. I would apply myself, but have privacy concerns that prevent me from doing so. — Newslinger talk 23:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Denver's 9News is running a fascinating experiment to simulate what people would see on their social media feeds if they followed only left, only right, and only center stories. They based their selections on the news source ratings of the Media Bias Chart. (Source: Vanessa Otero)
BullRangifer ( talk) 16:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
At the moment in the list it's written "The Independent, a British newspaper, is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information. In March 2016, the publication discontinued its print edition to become an online newspaper; some editors advise caution for articles published after this date."
This is not exactly true, they didn't discontinue printing, they changed to a tabloid format with a lower case "i" for Independent without spelling it. And are still printing except in a lot lower quantities. Govvy ( talk) 10:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I think i should be considered separately, especially since it was acquired by Daily Mail and General Trust in November 2019. — Newslinger talk 23:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to add an entry for i if you can find at least two significant noticeboard discussions per the inclusion criteria, but it will almost certainly be challenging because "i" is very hard to search for. — Newslinger talk 07:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Two discussions on WikiLeaks ( RSP entry) were recently archived. The main objection to WikiLeaks is that it is a primary source, which means that it should be used with caution, and only to supplement information in reliable secondary sources. There is disagreement on whether WikiLeaks adequately authenticates its content. WikiLeaks is currently classified as "generally unreliable". Should WikiLeaks be reclassified as "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" to be more in line with primary sources like Hansard ( RSP entry)? — Newslinger talk 03:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The website's entry attributes a "far-left bias" to it. However, Daily Kos says: "Daily Kos is a group blog and internet forum focused on center-left politics, the Democratic Party and center-left liberal American politics." It provides zero indication for a "far-left bias" of its content. Rather, it mentions the website endorsing Hillary Clinton, who is far from being a left-wing radical.
Given that American conservatives and right-wingers in general keep spreading propaganda decrying US liberalism, and centrist or centre-left politics in general, as "far left", socialist, communist, Marxist, radical or extremist, which is ridiculously out of touch with the facts, political science and the rest of the world, I smell a rat here. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 13:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
One way to avoid disputes around contentious labels is to use the phrase "
biased or opinionated"
, instead. The phrase can optionally be qualified (e.g. "
biased or opinionated for politics"
) for a reduction in scope. —
Newslinger
talk
13:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The forbes contributors section description is currently somewhat out of line with current policy WP:SPS / WP:BLPSPS. We should probably expand it slightly to clarify this matter. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 18:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Is there any information of Sky News being a reliable source? Just want to ask, when it isn't mentioned in the article. However, this page proves that it is indeed a trusted news source like for BBC News. Bryn89 ( talk) 17:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Is there any support for assigning a new rating "commentary/opinion" for sources that are mainstream and have a good reputation but offer exculsively opinion and analysis, without any purely news/non-opinion pieces, so their entire output would be handled by WP:RSOPINION? I am thinking it would be a good designation for sources such as Foreign Policy, Reason.com, New Statesman, or New Republic ( RSP entry). This new rating would apply only to commentary with a good reputation for facts; commentary sources that have a reputation for fake news (such as Quadrant ( RSP entry)), would be rated "generally unreliable". b uidh e 04:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
It'd be nice if the header row of the table stayed on screen, even as you scroll down, similar to what happens at Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data. Does anyone know how to do that? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 00:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
position: sticky;
CSS value for this. I tried to implement this here (using the style sheet at
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/styles.css), but was unsuccessful. The main problem was that anchor links (e.g.
WP:RSP#Associated Press) still made the entry flush with the top of the browser window, which caused the entry to be covered up by the header. Also, the sticky header worked on Firefox (desktop), but I wasn't able to get it to work on Chrome (desktop),
the mobile site, or the mobile app before I noticed the anchor link issue. —
Newslinger
talk
13:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)I think the the wording of the inclusion criteria ( WP:RSPCRITERIA)
For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions that mention the source's reliability, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two participants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three participants for all other discussions.
should be tightened to:
For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions that mention the source's reliability, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two
qualifyingparticipants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than threequalifyingparticipants for all other discussions.Qualifying participants are editors who make at least one comment on the source's reliability.
The revised criteria would exclude long discussions about other sources from being considered "significant discussions" if they do not mention the source in question. For example, the listed discussions from the former entry for The Spectator are reproduced below:
Discussions 2–4 are problematic because they are not about The Spectator, and each features only one editor who briefly mentions The Spectator. While this technically satisfies the current wording in WP:RSPCRITERIA, I do not think this is consistent with the intent of the original discussion on the inclusion criteria. The proposed new wording would exclude discussions 2–4 altogether.
I've already removed the entry for The Spectator in Special:Diff/952666985, but am just realizing the wording issue now. — Newslinger talk 11:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
A Semantic Scholar collaborator has become active on cite template related pages, e.g. User talk:Citation bot/Archive_21#Request to add link to Semantic Scholar s2cid when an open access link is not available. I don't know if that opens an opportunity on learning more about the copyright situation of some of Semantic Scholar's content (which is an issue if I understand the explanation in the RSP listing for this source correctly). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 16:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the Daily Mail - some felt a proposed changed needed nailing down with an RFC - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Discussion_on_WP:RSPDM - David Gerard ( talk) 10:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Per discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#NPR, please change NPR to green with the following text:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Can we get CGTN added to the list now that the discussion has closed? We have a clear census of general unreliability [31]. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 14:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not experienced with editing this page. Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#Omigosh,_are_Cheatsheet.com_and_WeGotThisCovered.com_reliable? and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_290#WeGotThisCovered.com_is_unreliable, can someone add WeGotThisCovered as unreliable and reviewed in 2019 and 2020? Scrooge200 ( talk) 02:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger, I don't see that the discussions about the Jezebel site concluded with consensus that it's generally unreliable. The discussions are saying that it is better used for statements of opinions rather than facts. So it's a WP:WIKIVOICE matter.
No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 01:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
How does this look to you? Since the most recent discussion was back in 2016, a new noticeboard discussion to gauge the current consensus is also an option.There is no consensus on the reliability of Jezebel. Most editors believe that Jezebel is biased or opinionated, and that its claims should be attributed. Jezebel should not be used for contentious claims, especially ones about living persons.
@ Feminist: As the original author of the Jezebel entry, do you have any comments? — Newslinger talk 18:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Can I ask why prominent authors who has written for Daily Telegraph, The Independent, INews, London Evening Standard, etc ones who have also written for Daily Mail. Why are we deleting their cites from Daily Mail, when they have clearly been vetted by other News organisations. There is this blatant disregard of vetting the citations especially from David Gerard who is systematically not reviewing Daily Mail cites, is running a blanket ban and removing all of them without review for date, authorship, straight up quotation, etc. It's is stated that Daily Mail citations are not a ban, yet someone seems to think it is. I've noticed a lot of edgyness from other editors around this recently, I feel we need to review not who the paper is, but the authorship, who wrote the piece is just as important and that is being completely disregarded here. I don't understand why you delete that journalists cites for the Daily Mail and not all the other newspapers. It's bizarre to me that people are not noticing this. Govvy ( talk) 22:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
On the Reliable sources/Perennial sources list, can there be a column for Bias?
Bias is completely separate from reliability, as a site can be biased, but still reliable.
Many sources mention the bias in their description. For example:
Some editors perceive FOX News to be a biased source whereas others do not; neither affects reliability of the source.
Or
Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed.
I feel like this should have it's own column since there are many good organizations that rate the bias of media, and these sources generally mirror the Wikipedia consensus, but provide more detail:
Even something simple like "Strong Right," "Lean Right," "Mostly Center," "Lean Left," "Strong Left."
I am personally not in favor of including specific bias labels (e.g. "left-wing", "right-wing") here, since it leads to disputes like this one. However, mentioning the area in which a source is biased (e.g. " biased or opinionated for politics") or whether a source is affiliated with another entity (e.g. an advocacy organization) is generally accepted if editors mentioned the aspect in the linked discussions. — Newslinger talk 14:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
If multiple reliable sources describe something differently, editors have to reconcile all of the descriptions in a proportional manner. This reconciliation is done regardless of whether the reliable sources are perceived to be biased. Talk:Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery/Archive 2 § Jogging versus running was resolved by excluding both running and jogging from the article's lead section. — Newslinger talk 09:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
This is also why I am not in favor of highlighting the direction of bias. Consider One America News Network, which has a talk page full of arguments on whether it should be labeled as "conservative", "right-wing", or "far-right". If we prominently feature specific bias descriptors on this list, the same disputes will surface here. WP:BIASED makes it clear that biased sources are acceptable on Wikipedia. While sources with a stronger level of bias tend to be less reliable, we evaluate reliability independently of bias, and accept all sources that meet the threshold set by the reliable sources guideline. — Newslinger talk 01:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
FYI.
"they should be treated as a part of a foreign intelligence service."
EXECUTIVE SESSION
PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WASHINGTON, D.C.
INTERVIEW OF: JAKE SULLIVAN (bolding added)
MR. HECK: I would very much appreciate it if you had additional ideas about necessary elements that might enable that path forward. I want to ask you as well about RT. It's come in for some controversy. You may or may not have noticed the capitol press corps gave them the boot I think.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yeah.
MR. HECK: As I am told, they are still accredited for attendance at WhiteHouse, Defense, and State Department briefings. Insofar as, on the one hand, this is heavily anchored in the First Amendment society. On the other hand, we are dealing with a propaganda arm of the state which is obviously engaged in practices that are antithetical to our best interests. Would you take any action with respect to RT?
MR. SULLIVAN: My take on RT is that, as long as it remains an integrated element of this multifaceted warfare campaign that the ICA laid out - and they talked about RT specifically in there -- then it is not just like other state TV services from other countries. lt is an offensive weapon as part -
MR, HECK: And what do we do?
MR. SULLIVAN: -- a campaign. I would be open to -- I hadn't thought about the concept of denying them accreditation at the White House and Defense. I would want to think about it. I would put that on the table. I would generally put on the table sort of saying they shouldn't be regulated as a traditional media entity; they should be treated as a part of a foreign intelligence service. And what are the policy implications of that exactly? I am not sure. I don't know, but it's something I would take a hard look at. And I don't think you have to go down the road of saying the same thing about every TV station around the world that's owned by a government. You look to the one that has actually played a role as a particular tool in a campaign against the United States.
Valjean ( talk) 01:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
There is a request for comment on the first sentence of Wikipedia:Deprecated sources § Acceptable uses of deprecated sources. If you are interested, please participate at WT:DEPS § RfC: Acceptable uses of deprecated sources. — Newslinger talk 13:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Reason (magazine) now has two qualifying RSN discussions: 1 2. The publication should probably be added to the RSP list, though I am not sure whether it should be concluded as "generally reliable" or "no consensus". feminist | wear a mask, protect everyone 05:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Guy Macon's description from discussion #2 is fine, but I would make a few adjustments to exclude the direction of bias (libertarian) and include a mention of due weight from discussion #1.
Source | Status ( legend) |
Discussions | Uses | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
List | Last | Summary | |||
Reason |
![]() |
1 2 |
2020 |
There is consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinions. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight. |
1
![]() ![]() |
Source | Status ( legend) |
Discussions | Uses | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
List | Last | Summary | |||
Reason |
![]() |
1 2 |
2020 |
There is consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight. |
1
![]() ![]() |
Does this look good to you? — Newslinger talk 02:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Previous discussion: /Archive 1#The Hill (newspaper) added as generally reliable
The Hill ( RSP entry) includes this:
The publication's contributor pieces, labeled in their bylines, receive minimal editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources.
I participated in one discussions about The Hill, as did User:Feminist, who wrote this entry. At the time, I researched the subject some more and found this article in CJR by Lawrence Lanahan, who is described as "Baltimore-based freelance journalist". I was going to post additional comment rebutting the claim that contributor pieces are self-published, but the discussion was moved into archive by a bot before I finished my comment.
Anyway, CJR wrote about The Hill's contributor model in 2014 and said The Hill has one editor who "oversees the 200 writers in the network, and gives a light edit to the incoming copy. And because The Hill, given its subject matter, vets contributors for potential conflicts, much of the editor's work takes place before one word is typed."
I'm not sure there was a consensus to include "and should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources"
and the statement is just not accurate, because
WP:SPS applies to sources that typically lack any editorial oversight.
I'm also not a fan of saying "receive minimal editorial oversight"
. Sure, that is at least partly accurate, but same applies to the vast majority of op-eds and editorials, including those published in respectable newspapers. For instance, the entry for The Wall Street Journal says: "Use
WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces."
While I did not review any archived discussions about WSJ, I'm pretty sure that if WSJ op-eds and editorials were to be discussed now, many editors would say those have minimal editorial oversight.
How about changing The Hill entry to something like this:
The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. Use WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces and contributor pieces, labeled in their bylines.
Many thanks. Politrukki ( talk) 08:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing the Columbia Journalism Review report. While I still don't think The Hill's contributors are vetted as well as the publication's staff writers, the fact that The Hill only publishes 5–8 contributor posts per day compared to its 45 editorial staff members (as of 2014) distances The Hill contributors from Forbes.com contributors. Unlike Forbes.com, The Hill appears to use contributors only for opinion columns.
Since this is information not found in the past discussions, do you mind creating a new discussion on the noticeboard that focuses on The Hill contributors? As an aside, I note that some of the past discussions in the entry do not meet the current inclusion criteria, and should be delisted. — Newslinger talk 00:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Significance of listed discussions in The Hill's entry
|
---|
|
Comments regarding The Hill contributors in significant listed discussions
|
---|
|
The inclusion criteria currently allows entries for all sources that have been evaluated in an RfC or the required number of significant discussions. Historically, sources that are non-notable (i.e. ones that do not have a Wikipedia article or redirect) and sources that are excessively niche in scope (e.g. standalone books) have been excluded from the list even if they meet the criteria.
With the recent RfC authorization in WP:RSNRFC, we can expect to see many more non-notable sources that meet the current inclusion criteria. Personally, I don't think entries like the one on three peerage websites ( discussion and RfC) are significant enough to be included in this list. If we included every self-published or user-generated website that is used incorrectly, the list would be too bloated and cumbersome to use efficiently.
To address this, I am proposing the addition of a notability requirement to the inclusion criteria. The proposed wording also considers RfCs with low participation ordinary discussions, and reorganizes the existing paragraph into list form:
Sources should meet both of the following requirements before being added to the list:
- The source's name must link to one of the following pages:
- An article about the source
- A redirect to an article closely related to the source. The article must not be a stand-alone list, disambiguation page, or set index article.
- The source must have been adequately discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard in at least one of the following ways:
- At least one uninterrupted request for comment (RfC) on the source's reliability. RfCs are interrupted if they are withdrawn, deleted, or prematurely archived or closed (excluding the snowball clause) before the standard seven-day period elapses. RfCs with low participation do not qualify for this criterion, and are considered ordinary discussions.
- At least two significant discussions that mention the source's reliability. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two qualifying participants for discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three qualifying participants for all other discussions. Qualifying participants are editors who make at least one comment on the source's reliability.
Suggestions for something more specific than "low participation" would be much appreciated.
Is this a reasonable revision, and does anyone have any other approaches? — Newslinger talk 03:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
What's wrong with the de facto inclusion criteria we have been using?
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Should the entry for Vox have a disclaimer along the lines of Some editors say that Vox is a
partisan source in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should also be
attributed
? Our article on
Vox does note Vox is a liberal-leaning American news and opinion website
also the last substantial discussion about it
here made mention of it as well.
PackMecEng (
talk)
15:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Some editors say that Vox is a partisan source in the field of politicsto the list. This part of PackMegEng's proposed addition is not controversial, having been noted in previous RSN discussions. Whether the latter part, regarding their opinion pieces, should be added as well, can continue to be discussed here. feminist | freedom isn't free 03:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Чому в списке только российские сайты и нет ни одного украинского, нет "радио свободы"? Пфе. Ya unikum ( talk) 19:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Why are there only Russian sites on the list and no Ukrainian sites, no "radio freedom"? Pfft.
This site is defunct, and is now a redirect to AXS. Are we keeping it on the list in case someone digs through the Wayback Machine? -- Zanimum ( talk) 02:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Although I have been around for four years, this page was brought to my attention by User:Philip Cross. I admit I am wet behind the ears. Whose brain-fart was it to ram all of the western corporate media into the reliable pile and all detractors such as RT/Press TV in the "unreliable" pile? -- Coldtrack ( talk) 21:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
All right. Question 1 - how does alleged "independence of editorial judgement or ability to think or write freely" mean that those who possess this can be "relied upon". Surely the ability to "write or think freely" would give one the freedom to tell lies, right? If not - what stops him? Similarly question 2 - if a news network happens to report a certain government's position, how does this mean that the source is "unreliable"? Is someone claiming that it is impossible for a government to be right? In particular, a government not favourable to the west. Question 3 - who demonstrated that Russian media promotes so-called "falsehoods" and so-called "conspiracy theories". Question 4 - what the hell does anyone mean "egregious western corporatists (Breitbart, The Sun, The Mail, et al.", this bundle says NOTHING that the so-called "reliable" sources don't regurgitate san evidence. -- Coldtrack ( talk) 18:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Grandpallama - The "answer to the question" I have been provided does not cut the mustard. The mantra that is being regurgitated over and over (ie. CNN and the BBC are so-called "independent" news organizations. PressTV and RT are "state propaganda" et al) is a distinction without a difference. I responded to that here
[34], and to date nobody has demonstrated even one fraction why one is reliable and the other isn't. To be honest, any fair-minded observer is able to see that the so-called "reliability criteria" is framed specifically to single out the sources which please the architects of this project. You would really have to think that the reader is stupid if one is "independent" when he writes for Rupert Murdoch, or that the BBC is "reliable" while Press TV is "unreliable" on the so-called "rectitudes" of the White Helmets or the so-called "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" when the BBC make no secret of the fact that what they report from Syria adduces those two headsprings. In other words, the "unreliable" sources call them terrorists, and the "reliable" cartel present them as the "cuddly band of non-dangerous fanatics dedicated to saving lives". Result: The White Helmets are good people and not bad, because they say they are. Circular reasoning (see
begging the question). As regards where I saw that the majority in the west don't trust their media may have been from a corporate source ultimately, and I think it was, but I spotted it on Twitter a month or so ago. When I find it, I'll post it to your talk. If it were acknowledged on RT it would more likely have been on an op-ed (you know, the ones who write what THEY want and not what the Kremlin tells them) and would likely have been an acknowledgement more than a leading news headline. But then what would it matter if it were RT when nobody has ever provided me with a reason to disbelieve them. --
Coldtrack (
talk)
18:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
|
The section about public contributions is quite out of date: they haven't allowed that for over a decade. (Saying that as someone who contributed three articles, and was in the process of writing another when they shut the process down.) -- Zanimum ( talk) 02:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Given that The Times is only second to The Daily Mail when it comes to upheld complaints by IPSO should it still be considered a reliable source? 80.47.137.128 ( talk) 01:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)