![]() |
Essays Low‑impact ![]() | |||||||||
|
![]() | This page was nominated for deletion on 31 January 2015. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
FWIW IMDB is usually considered unreliable (as it is community generated) except in specific circumstances where the cites a reliable source (in some credits). Also; for biographies I recommend the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as a good source (mostly historical). Also JSTOR is good for academic material/topics.(ODNB and JSTOR would be examples of the very best sorts of sources) -- Errant ( chat!) 08:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
There are thousands of reliable sources
Really - who says so? Given that this essay forms one of the building blocks of Wikipedia editorial policy on source reliability, and itself receives numerous citations in disputes between Wikipedia editors about the reliability of UK newspapers such as the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror, it's ironic that not one reliable, academic source is cited in support of this assertion. Note in particular that the first eight suggested sources in this draft essay suggest what may be reliable (or not) mainstream media sources in the USA, UK, etc, for which no independent, reliable source is citied.
For UK and worldwide news: BBC News, The Guardian (London), (The Observer), The Times (London), The Daily Telegraph (London), The Independent (London), The Scotsman (Edinburgh), and their Sunday equivalents; generally avoid British tabloids such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Mirror and The Sun.
What is the basis for this list? Again, where are the reliable, academic sources to support this assertion? Why should Wikipedia editors generally avoid British tabloids (a printing format) rather than non-tabloids? Is the Times, partly owned by Rupert Murdoch, necessarily a more reliable source than the Times' stable mates, also partly owned by the same person? If so, then, again, cite the independent evidence that supports this assertion.
How in fact do we measure or assess the reliability (as opposed to the citability, prestige or influence) of a non-academic, mainstream, media source that publishes daily or even more often, always to a very tight deadline, and is not subject to pre-publication peer-review, or at least not in the same way that is an academic journal? Is the current reputation of the publication, or TV or radio broadcaster, the most important factor, or is the identity of the journalist a better guide? What role does the reputation of the news editor, or of the editor, or of the Editor in Chief play? What role here, if any, is played by the reputation of the owner for fairness, impartiality and detachment from the editorial process or disengagement from the national political process?
Does the fact that a journalist has won journalistic awards affect the likely reliability of what they write or broadcast?
Does the number of times that a journalist, editor, newspaper or broadcaster is sued successfully for libel affect their reliability? Sometimes damages awarded by the jury to a successful litigant in a libel case can be nominal, reflecting the jury's belief that, while libel was proven, the damage to to the litigant's reputation was very small. Should the damage to the litigant's reputation, reflected by the amount of damages awarded by the judge or jury, be taken into account when using libel cases to assess the reliability of journalists, editors, newspapers and broadcasters?
Should the number of successful complaints to a complaints body about a journalist, editor, newspaper or broadcaster be taken into account? The absolute number of successful complaints - or the proportion of actual complaints? Should circulation numbers and audience sizes be taken into account when comparing successful (or unsuccessful) complaint rates against newspapers and broadcasters? 124.186.93.5 ( talk) 08:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I concur with the above and with TBSchemer. In fact, seeing this list above for "worldwide news" made me cringe. Zezen ( talk) 22:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The list of suggested US and UK news sources mostly all share a left-wing bias, and some ( MSNBC for one) are rather extreme and overt in their bias. I tried adding one with a right-wing bias, Fox News (which happens to be the most-watched television news network in the United States), and it was reverted. Is there any reason beyond overt political bias to suggest left-wing sources while omitting and explicitly recommending against right-wing sources? TBSchemer ( talk) 01:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this diff, reputation among whom? What standard are you using to define reputation? All of the sources I added had received Pulitzer Prizes. For instance, why is the Orange County Register excluded and the Christian Science Monitor included? Also, I had removed PBS.org because it is mostly government-funded, and their reporting reflects this (a classic example of an unreliable type of source). TBSchemer ( talk) 00:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, I concur with TBSchemer that there must be a NOPV measure of reliability of a source (in short: academic research on "how often they lie") to be included here. Otherwise, this essay should read "it is contentious, so we do not list any". Zezen ( talk) 22:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I opened a discussion on this topic at Identifying reliable sources and invite your comments there as the issue is germane to both articles. Humanengr ( talk) 01:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The Guardian has now adopted the tabloid format. The recommendations are therefore internally contradictory.
As it happens, I read The Guardian online; but along with the adoption of a tabloid format, the editorial standards have plummeted, and I no longer consider The Guardian reliable. I am trying to wean myself off this horrible propaganda organ.
I do not think The Guardian should any longer be considered RS. MrDemeanour ( talk) 13:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Essays Low‑impact ![]() | |||||||||
|
![]() | This page was nominated for deletion on 31 January 2015. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
FWIW IMDB is usually considered unreliable (as it is community generated) except in specific circumstances where the cites a reliable source (in some credits). Also; for biographies I recommend the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as a good source (mostly historical). Also JSTOR is good for academic material/topics.(ODNB and JSTOR would be examples of the very best sorts of sources) -- Errant ( chat!) 08:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
There are thousands of reliable sources
Really - who says so? Given that this essay forms one of the building blocks of Wikipedia editorial policy on source reliability, and itself receives numerous citations in disputes between Wikipedia editors about the reliability of UK newspapers such as the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror, it's ironic that not one reliable, academic source is cited in support of this assertion. Note in particular that the first eight suggested sources in this draft essay suggest what may be reliable (or not) mainstream media sources in the USA, UK, etc, for which no independent, reliable source is citied.
For UK and worldwide news: BBC News, The Guardian (London), (The Observer), The Times (London), The Daily Telegraph (London), The Independent (London), The Scotsman (Edinburgh), and their Sunday equivalents; generally avoid British tabloids such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Mirror and The Sun.
What is the basis for this list? Again, where are the reliable, academic sources to support this assertion? Why should Wikipedia editors generally avoid British tabloids (a printing format) rather than non-tabloids? Is the Times, partly owned by Rupert Murdoch, necessarily a more reliable source than the Times' stable mates, also partly owned by the same person? If so, then, again, cite the independent evidence that supports this assertion.
How in fact do we measure or assess the reliability (as opposed to the citability, prestige or influence) of a non-academic, mainstream, media source that publishes daily or even more often, always to a very tight deadline, and is not subject to pre-publication peer-review, or at least not in the same way that is an academic journal? Is the current reputation of the publication, or TV or radio broadcaster, the most important factor, or is the identity of the journalist a better guide? What role does the reputation of the news editor, or of the editor, or of the Editor in Chief play? What role here, if any, is played by the reputation of the owner for fairness, impartiality and detachment from the editorial process or disengagement from the national political process?
Does the fact that a journalist has won journalistic awards affect the likely reliability of what they write or broadcast?
Does the number of times that a journalist, editor, newspaper or broadcaster is sued successfully for libel affect their reliability? Sometimes damages awarded by the jury to a successful litigant in a libel case can be nominal, reflecting the jury's belief that, while libel was proven, the damage to to the litigant's reputation was very small. Should the damage to the litigant's reputation, reflected by the amount of damages awarded by the judge or jury, be taken into account when using libel cases to assess the reliability of journalists, editors, newspapers and broadcasters?
Should the number of successful complaints to a complaints body about a journalist, editor, newspaper or broadcaster be taken into account? The absolute number of successful complaints - or the proportion of actual complaints? Should circulation numbers and audience sizes be taken into account when comparing successful (or unsuccessful) complaint rates against newspapers and broadcasters? 124.186.93.5 ( talk) 08:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I concur with the above and with TBSchemer. In fact, seeing this list above for "worldwide news" made me cringe. Zezen ( talk) 22:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The list of suggested US and UK news sources mostly all share a left-wing bias, and some ( MSNBC for one) are rather extreme and overt in their bias. I tried adding one with a right-wing bias, Fox News (which happens to be the most-watched television news network in the United States), and it was reverted. Is there any reason beyond overt political bias to suggest left-wing sources while omitting and explicitly recommending against right-wing sources? TBSchemer ( talk) 01:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this diff, reputation among whom? What standard are you using to define reputation? All of the sources I added had received Pulitzer Prizes. For instance, why is the Orange County Register excluded and the Christian Science Monitor included? Also, I had removed PBS.org because it is mostly government-funded, and their reporting reflects this (a classic example of an unreliable type of source). TBSchemer ( talk) 00:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, I concur with TBSchemer that there must be a NOPV measure of reliability of a source (in short: academic research on "how often they lie") to be included here. Otherwise, this essay should read "it is contentious, so we do not list any". Zezen ( talk) 22:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I opened a discussion on this topic at Identifying reliable sources and invite your comments there as the issue is germane to both articles. Humanengr ( talk) 01:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The Guardian has now adopted the tabloid format. The recommendations are therefore internally contradictory.
As it happens, I read The Guardian online; but along with the adoption of a tabloid format, the editorial standards have plummeted, and I no longer consider The Guardian reliable. I am trying to wean myself off this horrible propaganda organ.
I do not think The Guardian should any longer be considered RS. MrDemeanour ( talk) 13:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)