Discuss sources on the
reliable sources noticeboard To discuss the reliability of a source, please start or join a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard ( WP:RSN). Discussions on the noticeboard will be added to this list. This talk page is for discussing the maintenance of the list itself, and arguments posted here will not be taken into consideration. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Reliable sources/Perennial sources page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 28 days |
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Would anyone please add CBS News to the list of sources? I want to know if it's reliable or not, and information about its reliability. Ar Colorado ( talk) 14:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Like at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_431#Daily_Sabah_reliable_sources?. Are we for it or against it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
The above mentioned website has been marked as an unreliable source by an editor. Just wanted to know whether the community feels the same or if it can be used as I found no other source to verify Karlie Kloss' ancestry on the web. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc ( talk) 13:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I ran across this in a reference. The source seems to be definitely self-published, and flowpaper.com seems like a place where you can self-publish something and make it appear like it's a source for Wikipedia. Wanted to check here first and see if anyone else has the same opinion. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 14:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Is Sportskeeda a reliable source for citing? They do pick up a lot of sports news that doesn't always make the mainstream news. 75.86.0.60 ( talk) 12:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Sportskeeda is considered generally unreliable due to a consensus that there is little or no editorial oversight over the website's content, which is largely user-written.Hemiauchenia ( talk) 14:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
There is a problem in this day and age that people have lost faith in public and private institutions. They don't know who to trust. I would hope that Wikipedia aspired to be nonpartisan but this list was sad for me to take a look at. There is a blatant left wing bias. You're perfectly credulous about CNN and MSNBC which don't even employ conservatives. Meanwhile you don't even consider Fox News nor National Review to be legitimate news sources. This pervasive bias trickles down to ALL political hot button articles I've seen. I'd heard conservative friends say that Wikipedia wasn't worth looking at anymore and I didn't believe it. Now I'm thinking twice. 67.150.98.177 ( talk) 06:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I've recently started editing Chinese-related articles and noticed a lot of Chinese editors using Baidu Baijiahao or Toutiao urls as cited sources,which are deprecated sources on Chinese Wikipedia as they are aggregator sources of both mainstream and self-published news. Is it possible to add these sources on the list here or at least tag these edits so we can keep track of them? NoCringe ( talk) 10:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
As requested by @
Instantwatym, I am opening up a discussion about the inclusion of GQ which I removed yesterday. Also pinging @
Horse Eye's Back: since they reverted Instantwatym.
The entry was added by @
I'm tla back in
Feburary citing
this 2016 discussion and
this one in 2019 and makes the declaration There is strong consensus that GQ, including its international editions, is generally reliable
. The discussion in 2016 was about
this article published by GQ UK. There were three participants, the filer and two others. One of the participants in the discussion stated This is a bit of a red herring. The
disputed source for the Generation Snowflake article is not GQ itself but an opinion piece published by the magazine.
The third participant made a general statement about editorials in general, not GQ so I do not think that discussion meets
WP:RSPCRITERIA.
The 2019 discussion was well attended so that one does meet the criteria but it was also regarding GQ UK based on the GQ articles discussed. Neither discussion included international editions and note some international editions are published
under a license (*Published under license
) so under different ownership and editorial oversight. (Will add a notice at RSN about this discussion).
S0091 (
talk) 17:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment This isn't a discussion about GQ's reliability. That should take place at RSN. This discussion is to determine if it meets WP:RSPCRITERIA which states:
For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, 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 qualifying participants for RSN 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.
Currently, there is only one discussion at RSN that perhaps meets the criteria to include GQ UK. S0091 ( talk) 13:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Comment I'm tla the editor who added the entry, is now CU blocked. S0091 ( talk) 17:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
This page takes a very long time to load because the size is too big to be loaded. I think this page should be divided into alphabets (A-Z). - GogoLion ( talk) 09:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Why is Al Jazeera English, a news site wholly owned by the Qatari royal family, considered to be a trustworthy news site. It is fair to question the motivations of government owned media in producing their news stories, particularly when that government is a semi-authoritarian monarchy with limited transparency and a poor human rights record. Recommend downgrading the trustworthiness of this entity - otherwise we run the risk of spreading Qatari propaganda masked as "news" HonestEditor51 ( talk) 02:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Could someone please add this 2023 RFC on Venezuelanalysis to the chart? Thanks in advance, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Is it a creditable source? I did not see it on the list. Mikiko609 ( talk) 19:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Mentioning a preference of using a source without a paywall versus a source with a paywall should be added with a link to the term. Thoughts? Twillisjr ( talk) 23:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
A discussion came up on
Talk:Katherine Maher about whether TED talks (from ted.com or youtube) are valid
RS —it's not listed on
RSP. My gut says "no".
What's your take?
Tonymetz
💬 02:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
}}
moved to WP:RSN |
I suggest adding this as a subject under Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Categories. Text, based on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2019#Local_sources,_again:
"Local news" is hard to define, use your best judgement. WP:Notability (organizations and companies) has subject-specific guidance at WP:AUD.
Thoughts? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:RSP on
MondoWeiss says: Mondoweiss is a news website operated by the Center for Economic Research and Social Change (CERSC), an advocacy organization. There is no consensus on the reliability of Mondoweiss. Editors consider the site biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed.
I've consequently added attribution a few times, along the lines of "According to Ira Glunts, writing in
MondoWeiss,...."
Zero0000 has removed these, arguing as follows: It means that the authors of articles in MW should be attributed for their claims. It doesn't say "stuff in MW should be attributed to MW", it says that statements in MW "should be
attributed", which always means that opinions or claims should be attributed to whoever is giving the opinion or making the claim (note the meaning of "attributed" in the link). The only time it implies that MW as a magazine should be attributed for something is when the article at hand is when MW itself is the author (e.g. an editorial). Also, if MW was to be attributed it would have to be like "according to MW", which is not what you have been writing — what you have been writing is not an attribution at all per WP jargon but rather a part of the citation placed in the text against usual practice.
If this is right, it means that all the sources on RSP where there's consensus attribution is required, we don't actually have to attribute them in text (unless it's an unsigned editorial), but only their contributors. Is that how this is generally understood?
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 16:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
A discussion of MEMO is currently petering out at RSN. It has been discussed there four previous times - very briefly in 2012, in 2019, in great detail in 2021, and in passing later in 2021. Could anybody summarise these discussions and add to RSP please? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 16:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard.Schazjmd (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
MEE has been discussed five times at RSN: in 2015, in 2018, a second time in 2018, in 2021, and again shortly after that but rapidly abandoned. Can somebody read and summarise these discussions on RSP? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 16:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I saw that TED talks were just added to the RSP list [3]. Does it make sense to add a source that has only been discussed once? The same is true of a source like Sydney Morning Herald which lists only a single, short RSN discussion [4]. Many treat the RSP list as if it were a gold plated wikipedia assessment on a topic. That may be true in cases where we have had a long, well attended RfC (or RfCs). However, when we have just a single discussion, especially one without a RfC I would suggest we should keep such sources off the list. It made sense to establish the list to handle frequently discussed sources (how many times was Fox News discussed before the list was created). But does it really make sense to add a source that has only a brief RSN discussion? Is it reasonable to start trimming such sources from this list? Springee ( talk) 01:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Discuss sources on the
reliable sources noticeboard To discuss the reliability of a source, please start or join a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard ( WP:RSN). Discussions on the noticeboard will be added to this list. This talk page is for discussing the maintenance of the list itself, and arguments posted here will not be taken into consideration. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Reliable sources/Perennial sources page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 28 days |
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Would anyone please add CBS News to the list of sources? I want to know if it's reliable or not, and information about its reliability. Ar Colorado ( talk) 14:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Like at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_431#Daily_Sabah_reliable_sources?. Are we for it or against it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
The above mentioned website has been marked as an unreliable source by an editor. Just wanted to know whether the community feels the same or if it can be used as I found no other source to verify Karlie Kloss' ancestry on the web. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc ( talk) 13:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I ran across this in a reference. The source seems to be definitely self-published, and flowpaper.com seems like a place where you can self-publish something and make it appear like it's a source for Wikipedia. Wanted to check here first and see if anyone else has the same opinion. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 14:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Is Sportskeeda a reliable source for citing? They do pick up a lot of sports news that doesn't always make the mainstream news. 75.86.0.60 ( talk) 12:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Sportskeeda is considered generally unreliable due to a consensus that there is little or no editorial oversight over the website's content, which is largely user-written.Hemiauchenia ( talk) 14:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
There is a problem in this day and age that people have lost faith in public and private institutions. They don't know who to trust. I would hope that Wikipedia aspired to be nonpartisan but this list was sad for me to take a look at. There is a blatant left wing bias. You're perfectly credulous about CNN and MSNBC which don't even employ conservatives. Meanwhile you don't even consider Fox News nor National Review to be legitimate news sources. This pervasive bias trickles down to ALL political hot button articles I've seen. I'd heard conservative friends say that Wikipedia wasn't worth looking at anymore and I didn't believe it. Now I'm thinking twice. 67.150.98.177 ( talk) 06:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I've recently started editing Chinese-related articles and noticed a lot of Chinese editors using Baidu Baijiahao or Toutiao urls as cited sources,which are deprecated sources on Chinese Wikipedia as they are aggregator sources of both mainstream and self-published news. Is it possible to add these sources on the list here or at least tag these edits so we can keep track of them? NoCringe ( talk) 10:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
As requested by @
Instantwatym, I am opening up a discussion about the inclusion of GQ which I removed yesterday. Also pinging @
Horse Eye's Back: since they reverted Instantwatym.
The entry was added by @
I'm tla back in
Feburary citing
this 2016 discussion and
this one in 2019 and makes the declaration There is strong consensus that GQ, including its international editions, is generally reliable
. The discussion in 2016 was about
this article published by GQ UK. There were three participants, the filer and two others. One of the participants in the discussion stated This is a bit of a red herring. The
disputed source for the Generation Snowflake article is not GQ itself but an opinion piece published by the magazine.
The third participant made a general statement about editorials in general, not GQ so I do not think that discussion meets
WP:RSPCRITERIA.
The 2019 discussion was well attended so that one does meet the criteria but it was also regarding GQ UK based on the GQ articles discussed. Neither discussion included international editions and note some international editions are published
under a license (*Published under license
) so under different ownership and editorial oversight. (Will add a notice at RSN about this discussion).
S0091 (
talk) 17:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment This isn't a discussion about GQ's reliability. That should take place at RSN. This discussion is to determine if it meets WP:RSPCRITERIA which states:
For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, 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 qualifying participants for RSN 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.
Currently, there is only one discussion at RSN that perhaps meets the criteria to include GQ UK. S0091 ( talk) 13:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Comment I'm tla the editor who added the entry, is now CU blocked. S0091 ( talk) 17:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
This page takes a very long time to load because the size is too big to be loaded. I think this page should be divided into alphabets (A-Z). - GogoLion ( talk) 09:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Why is Al Jazeera English, a news site wholly owned by the Qatari royal family, considered to be a trustworthy news site. It is fair to question the motivations of government owned media in producing their news stories, particularly when that government is a semi-authoritarian monarchy with limited transparency and a poor human rights record. Recommend downgrading the trustworthiness of this entity - otherwise we run the risk of spreading Qatari propaganda masked as "news" HonestEditor51 ( talk) 02:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Could someone please add this 2023 RFC on Venezuelanalysis to the chart? Thanks in advance, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Is it a creditable source? I did not see it on the list. Mikiko609 ( talk) 19:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Mentioning a preference of using a source without a paywall versus a source with a paywall should be added with a link to the term. Thoughts? Twillisjr ( talk) 23:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
A discussion came up on
Talk:Katherine Maher about whether TED talks (from ted.com or youtube) are valid
RS —it's not listed on
RSP. My gut says "no".
What's your take?
Tonymetz
💬 02:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
}}
moved to WP:RSN |
I suggest adding this as a subject under Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Categories. Text, based on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2019#Local_sources,_again:
"Local news" is hard to define, use your best judgement. WP:Notability (organizations and companies) has subject-specific guidance at WP:AUD.
Thoughts? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:RSP on
MondoWeiss says: Mondoweiss is a news website operated by the Center for Economic Research and Social Change (CERSC), an advocacy organization. There is no consensus on the reliability of Mondoweiss. Editors consider the site biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed.
I've consequently added attribution a few times, along the lines of "According to Ira Glunts, writing in
MondoWeiss,...."
Zero0000 has removed these, arguing as follows: It means that the authors of articles in MW should be attributed for their claims. It doesn't say "stuff in MW should be attributed to MW", it says that statements in MW "should be
attributed", which always means that opinions or claims should be attributed to whoever is giving the opinion or making the claim (note the meaning of "attributed" in the link). The only time it implies that MW as a magazine should be attributed for something is when the article at hand is when MW itself is the author (e.g. an editorial). Also, if MW was to be attributed it would have to be like "according to MW", which is not what you have been writing — what you have been writing is not an attribution at all per WP jargon but rather a part of the citation placed in the text against usual practice.
If this is right, it means that all the sources on RSP where there's consensus attribution is required, we don't actually have to attribute them in text (unless it's an unsigned editorial), but only their contributors. Is that how this is generally understood?
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 16:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
A discussion of MEMO is currently petering out at RSN. It has been discussed there four previous times - very briefly in 2012, in 2019, in great detail in 2021, and in passing later in 2021. Could anybody summarise these discussions and add to RSP please? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 16:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard.Schazjmd (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
MEE has been discussed five times at RSN: in 2015, in 2018, a second time in 2018, in 2021, and again shortly after that but rapidly abandoned. Can somebody read and summarise these discussions on RSP? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 16:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I saw that TED talks were just added to the RSP list [3]. Does it make sense to add a source that has only been discussed once? The same is true of a source like Sydney Morning Herald which lists only a single, short RSN discussion [4]. Many treat the RSP list as if it were a gold plated wikipedia assessment on a topic. That may be true in cases where we have had a long, well attended RfC (or RfCs). However, when we have just a single discussion, especially one without a RfC I would suggest we should keep such sources off the list. It made sense to establish the list to handle frequently discussed sources (how many times was Fox News discussed before the list was created). But does it really make sense to add a source that has only a brief RSN discussion? Is it reasonable to start trimming such sources from this list? Springee ( talk) 01:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)