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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
If the interviewee of an article published in a reliable source makes a claim that another reliable source contradicts, how do you determine which is considered more reliable for Wiki purposes? In such an instance, would the subject's claim be trumped because it is, after all, only what they say? Or would the subject's claim fall under the assumption that the source fact-checked it and both sources could be equally valid? Mbinebri talk ← 01:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Banned user Nrcprm2026 is not permitted to edit. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It would be a good idea to wikilink the terms "secondary source", "primary source", and "tertiary source" in the section pertaining to them, as is done in WP:V. They are specialized terms of art with which most new editors are unfamiliar. Just putting them in boldface doesn't help at all. 71.198.176.22 ( talk) 03:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
|
We have this: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."
Newspaper blogs often get very little editorial supervision or checking. I work at a newspaper, so I'm not pulling this out of thin air.
I suggest changing the sentence, along this line: "News site blogs may be acceptable as sources, as long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write." Or even leaving off the "News site" and starting with "Blogs may be acceptable ..."
Tangentially, I'm wondering:
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.
"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.
It's relatively easy to create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media are largely not acceptable.
In this context, "self-published" means material not subject to full editorial control. Typical examples include books published by a vanity press, personal websites, open wikis, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, and Twitter tweets.
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.
Yes, no, maybe? Maurreen ( talk) 12:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Blogs are a type of publishing format. They are not inherently reliable or unreliable. For the purpose of Wikipedia editing, determination of a blog's reliability is largely based on the relevance and professional standing of the writer.
Blogs are a type of publishing format. They are not inherently reliable or unreliable. For the purpose of Wikipedia editing, determination of a blog's reliability is largely based on the relevance and professional standing of the writer.
The presence of editorial oversight also tends to enhance the reliability of a blog, although it is not an absolute prerequisite of the blog being considered a reliable source. The level of editorial oversight is not always obvious.
It's not clear why Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Types of sources was changed from "Some types of sources". The section covers only scholarly work and news organizations. General books, for example, are not included. Maurreen ( talk) 11:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
It appears that Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources is all repeated from Wikipedia:Verifiability. I think such duplication is unwise. Maurreen ( talk) 11:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
An academic journal I am wanting to use cites TheFreeDictonary which is known to be user-generated and furthermore the item he quoted no longer exists. How should I go about using this because the info for quotations doesn't really deal with RSes quoting unreliable sources. 陣 内 Jinnai 01:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I reverted to the previously agreed on version. The version I reverted from appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the change that had been agreed on. That change was not major nor did it indicate that blogs had more reliability. Maurreen ( talk) 18:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I do like Maurreen's phrase "Personal blogs by non-experts are never acceptable sources for anything but their author", though I can see conflicts down the line with people claiming they are experts. How do we draw a line?
More troublesome, though, is how to handle blogs that purport to have interviews. These are very easy to fake — particularly with deceased people.
I know many times I've seen blogs by people I personally recognize and trust, and whose material I would like to cite — but those people aren't necessarily published authorities whose expertise would be recognizable to anyone but a niche of fellow hobbyists, for example. The policy that we can cite blogs published under the auspices of newspapers and magazines (including webzines, such as Salon) is limiting, but it draws an unambiguous line. I don't know offhand how to move that unambiguous line, but I caution against any vagueness in this particular policy — I don't write about politics or religion, for example, but I can foresee small but like-minded groups claiming their fellow members as "expert" bloggers in order to push exteme agendas that vetted sources with editorial oversight generally cannot. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 02:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Current wording:
"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.
Proposed wording:
Personal blogs by nonexperts are only acceptable as sources for information about their author. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources. For more information on blogs, see WP:SPS and WP:SOURCES.
OK? Maurreen ( talk) 11:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Logical Fuzz has advised me to take this issue here in hope of resolving this dilemma. I have provided James Van Der Beek's own Twitter account ( it is linked through his own official web site) as a source for his Dutch ancestry. There he twitted that he is of Dutch ancestry by writing; That's it! I must have been channelling my Dutch ancestry!. However, my entry was deleted with explanation that "Twitter is not a reliable source for biographical content (or any content for that matter)." So, I don't understand why the official twitter account is not a reliable source for biographical content, especially when official web site has the link to that same twitter account? Isn't something that subject writes on his official twitter account, the most reliable source that you can get? Why is it OK to use Twitter account as a reliable source on the Twitter's Wiki page, and it is not a reliable source to be used on the James Van Der Beek's Wiki page? I really don't get it. So if some journalist(let's say from New York Post) reads the James Van Der Beek's Twitter account where he claims his Dutch ancestry with the words I cited, and he uses that in the article that he is writing about him, and that article is being published, then that would be a reliable source by Wiki standards? Can I get some comments on that? Thank you! -- Eversman ( talk) 16:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion it should be a reliable source/only in such exception/, although I am not a fan o twitt accounts to be used as a source. But in this case it is no brainier, his surname is Dutch and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be used as a source in a simplified and obvious thing like this. -- Bbrezic ( talk) 01:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I had posted this at the the OR talk page, and I got directed here. I was wondering: should we put somewhere in WP:Identifying reliable sources that this isn't a requirement to blindly acknowledge every reliable-looking source as such? For example, I've seen videos of newscasts from normally reputable sources that are obviously skewed and/or fake. That way, if, say, someone uses a video from a Chinese news network to "prove" the massacres at Tiananmen Squre didn't happen (just an example), it can be removed despite being from a "reliable source". Basically, a statement like, "This does not require editors to stop using their heads when looking at sources. If a document, photograph, or video purports to be from a reliable source, but is an obvious fake, or the source's coverage is blatantly skewed so as to constitute a fringe opinion despite claiming otherwise, its removal on those grounds would not constitute a violation". Or would this lead to excessive wiki-lawyering, and/or is this covered by IAR already? I bring this up because I've seen a few blatant fakes (mostly videos) in I/P topics get removed with that rationale, and the removal is hotly contested as being OR, (things like "saying it looks edited and fake is OR" when the video is clearly fake to amateur eyes). The Blade of the Northern Lights ( talk) 19:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Sounds related to the post above this as well... The Blade of the Northern Lights ( talk) 19:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a misconception among editors that when a reliable source says something then it can be forced into an article even if it's obviously wrong. The most extreme examples are of course when it concerns Wikipedia:
But I have been going through other similar situations recently:
Part of the problem is that even some admins think "verifiability, not truth" means we must report claims from reliable sources even if we all know they are false. For some reason "verifiability, not truth" is all that everybody remembers; the word "threshold" is not getting any attention. It may be time for a very clear reminder that verifiability is just our way of approximating truth, so using it to support lies and misrepresentations in article space is a perversion. Hans Adler 22:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that for some reason in Wikipedia TRUþ is a four-letter word. Just look at how it is normally used in conversations:
I can understand the sociological forces that have caused "truth" to become a word with almost completely negative associations on Wikipedia. But it's time to do something against it. An encyclopedia that holds contempt for the truth is undesirable. Hans Adler 11:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
You can have POV pushers show up at any article, and use any policy, regardless of how it's written, to support their edits. And of course, one man's "POV pushers" are another man's "Truth Seekers". All we can do is write reasonable policies and guidelines, and hope that common sense will prevail. There is no way to legislate common sense, and as I noted above, in my own 4+ year experience here, I have yet to find a single article where the content policies failed to produce a reasonable result. Contentious issues will be harder and will take longer to nail down, but that's life. Crum375 ( talk) 00:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
"I have yet to find a single article where the content policies failed to produce a reasonable result." – That's not the problem. Eventually we always get the right solution. Well, almost always. The "verifiability, not truth" meme that is being exploited here, by insisting that the truth doesn't actually matter even when it's really obvious, is not in place so that we get our articles right, it's there to make the process more efficient. It's there so we waste less time arguing against the crackpots. But it has been overdone recently, and now I have to waste incredible amounts of time arguing against the "it doesn't matter whether it's reasonable, it's verifiable!" POV pushers.
The underlying policy says we can't say something if it's not verifiable, even if it's true. There is a strong consensus for that and nobody wants to change it, obviously. Its fundamentalist interpretation, that we can say something that is verifiable even if it's obviously not true, has come up in part as a misunderstanding and in part as a time-saver when arguing with fringers. ("No, I needn't prove to you that the relativity theory is true, because it doesn't even matter.") But it's only a time-saver in some situations, and in others it's an immense time sink. We need to get the balance right. Hans Adler 12:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The most important technique in the real world for evaluating whether a source can be relied on or not is to look at the overlap of what it says and what you are fully knowledgeable about. If there is enough such overlap and it gets that part basically right, then it's probably reliable. If it doesn't it is probably not. "No, you can't do that" is the kind of thing that is convenient to say to an astrology fan or new age freak or perpetuum mobile inventor who tries to use this technique to shoot down an obviously reliable physics book. It is not an adequate response if a New York Times article claims that Jimbo was the almighty ruler of Wikipedia, but has been deposed now, which is sure to lead to huge chaos; or that William M. Connolley has blocked 2,000 editors simply for disagreeing with him about climate change; or that Sam Blacketer committed vandalism on the article of a political opponent. It may be a thousand times the New York Times, but an article claiming such things obviously contains bullshit. Therefore everything it says needs to be taken with a pound of salt, and any attempts to "verify" the above bogus claims themselves with such an article should lead to an immediate block unless the editor seriously doesn't know it's false.
But we currently have a culture where editors can get away with putting stuff in articles that everybody knows to be false, merely by citing a source that obviously got something wrong or uses words in a different way, and then refusing to even talk about truth. They don't even need to claim that they believe that stuff. "No, I don't actually believe that the Moon is made of green cheese, but the following 20 philosophy books say it is the case [4], so it doesn't matter whether it's true, it's a significant POV." That's no way to write an encyclopedia. We are not playing Nomic here. Or rather, those who are here only for playing Nomic need to be shown the door. Hans Adler 00:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm no supporter of Greenpeace and the like- however, the whole idea of the Hvalur sinkings wasn't to inspire terror in people's hearts. It was to destroy a couple of whaling boats, and Greenpeace indeed had no intention of, and did not, harm a single person. To draw an example, you're probably familiar with the Boston Tea Party. Under your definition, those people are terrorists. However, that is obviously wrong, because what they did was dump thousands of pounds of tea into the Boston Harbor without harming anyone. It wasn't to terrorize the British, it was to dump their tea and protest the tax on it. The damage was astronomical, similar to the Hvalur sinkings. Similarly, Greenpeace sank two empty whaling ships to protest whaling. In addition, American law is totally irrelevant (by the way, "non-combatants" are humans, not structures, under American law- structures are a whole different entity), because this occurred in Iceland, and their definition of terrorism is different. Basically, the papers went on a smear campaign, and tried to distort it as such. That's why people need to be wary when looking through normally reliable sources. Read Hans Adler's definition of "verifiability, not truth", and you'll see why I got this idea. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( talk) 23:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC) By the way, you really should sign with four tildes. Also, if you want to debate that topic, go to the 1986 Hvalur sinkings talkpage and read Hans Adler's posts there; I think I'll head over there now myself.
I have been having a long standing problem in one BLP that statements from Opinion Pieces from large publications are given more credance than statements from news articles from smaller ones, including small city newspapers that definitely do have editors. To the extent that such factual or relatively neutral statements from these publications are consistently deleted as NOT WP:RS while biased opinion rants from major news publications are freely quoted. This has happened on the talk page consistently of the article and at least once at WP:RS Noticeboard. Does this article need to make it explicitly clear that opinion pieces do not trump factual news organization pieces, even if it is a relatively small news organization? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 17:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to write an article about Perdana College of Malaysia. Is the school's website not a reliable resource? What would constitute a reliable resource in this situation? Smithmd2 ( talk) 07:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Official sources are reliable, but blogs aren't. So would Game Freak's blog be considered a reliable source, or not? -- 75.25.103.109 ( talk) 16:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Currently, journalistic blogs by newspaper and magazine writers/editors are considered reliable sources, as they have oversight and professional standards and reputation.
Some editors propose allowing third-party personal blogs to be used as reliable sources.
Should these be allowed? If so, under what guidelines, and what standards should be implemented to help insure accuracy and credibility? - Tenebrae ( talk) 14:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment This RFC is flawed, because it seems to imply that a local consensus in a guideline page can trump an overriding policy. In the case of WP:IRS, WP:SOURCES is the governing policy, and this guideline page is only an explanation of that policy. As this guideline already says (bold added): "In the event of a contradiction between this page and a Wikipedia policy, the policy takes priority, and this page should be updated to reflect it." The specific issue of blogs is covered in detail in WP:SOURCES, and any change in that policy has to be made on that page, not here. Crum375 ( talk) 15:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
There are at least a couple of problems here.
Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion reads: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. It also reads There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source. What if a negative opinion piece says "Mr. X has said '[some outrageous statement].'" Or "MS. X has [done some outrageous thing]." Under what circumstances can it be used?
I used to think it was OK, but having read the above, and heard from an admin that opinion writers can't just throw "facts" around, I now have to wonder if it is indeed something that needs to be addressed in this policy article. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 04:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
<back>Looking at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion again, I can see the the possible confusion arises (in my mind and perhaps in others) because first paragraph deals only with Opinion pieces by WP:RS. The next two talk about blogs in WP:RS publications and "Self-published blogs." But there is no clear statement that blogs in WP:RS have to be edited or that "self-published" blogs might include blogs on WP:RS. So I think that clarifying that point in one or both paragraphs would be very helpful. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 03:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been wondering for a while about the status of columns by named writers in the "broadsheet" UK newspapers (Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent). A lot of the time these are essays advancing a point of view, but I don't think it is possible to dismiss their reliability on that account alone. The writers frequently cite facts to support their position, and I would think that these facts are checked in much the same way as facts across the newspaper as a whole. Given the UK's strict libel laws they are of course checked for libel. And sometimes these writers actually undertake some reportage. And some of the columnists are or have been academics, e.g. Timothy Garton Ash. Does anyone else think that some further nuance should be given to the "only reliable for the author's own opinion" formula in these cases? Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
In the modern internet world, surely blogs should be counted just as much as published sources (which are, in fact, usually opinions themselves), or at least the factual parts of what they're suggesting should be counted? Perhaps a "unreliable source" tag should be counted in, to allow for facts to be placed in articles whilst a reliable source is found?
An example is the current Inheritance Cycle page. The criticism article was cut down simply due to lack of "reliable sources", despite the fact that many of the sources were quoting directly from the books in question. The factual evidence of the sources is unquestionable, so why should they not be counted as reliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.114.70 ( talk) 08:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC) -- 77.97.114.70 ( talk) 08:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Discussion about reliable sources. Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Deep Atlantic Blue ( talk) 05:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I am starting this up because of a recent discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sinodefence.com and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#navweaps.com. If a source does not seem to be meet WP:SPS, but is cited by multiple (10+) reliable sources does that not also show the the reliability of the source in question? Yoenit ( talk) 19:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
In the last paragraph of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper), after the first sentence, insert:
-- RexxS ( talk) 21:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
An MFA is a terminal degree much as a PhD is, and at many research institutions, the MFA theses are bound and inserted in the library for research next to the PhD dissertations. Furthermore, what about a thesis or dissertation written by the subject of the article, who is alive and therefore the article is a living biography? Jmorganferry ( talk) 22:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)jmorganferry Jmorganferry ( talk) 22:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
There has been a constant vandalization of Novak Djokovic page, where his parents origin is being constantly removed. Anonymous user claims that the links I have provided are not reliable. First link is from Croatian daily newspaper Slobodna Dalmacija which was founded and continuously is published in Split since 1943, Novak Djokovic gave that interview to the reporter of Slobodna Dalmacija, Davor Burazin, on July 30, 2006. In that inteview he said; "I da mi je majka Hrvatica, iako je rođena u Beogradu, jer su svi njezini iz Vinkovaca i tamo imam puno rodbine. Tata je Crnogorac, a ja... ("And that my mother is Croatian, although she was born in Belgrade, because all of hers are from Vinkovci and there I have a lot of relatives. Dad is a Montenegrin, and I ......")" Second link is from another Croatian newspaper Jutarnji list which was was launched in April 1998, and in that link it says; "S obzirom na majku Hrvaticu, vjerujem da ima uvjete za hrvatsko državljanstvo. Ako se odluči na taj korak, Đoković je dobrodošao - rekao je predsjednik Hrvatskog teniskog saveza. ("With regards to his mother being a Croat, I believe he has conditions for a Croatian citizenship. If he decides to make that step, Djokovic is welcomed - said the president of Croatian Tennis Federation")". So I am asking, are those links reliable or not, because it seems to me that this thing is about constant national pest, Serbian in this issue. I am warning that the anonymous user hasn't provided not a single evidence that his father is not Montenegrin and that his mother is not Croatian. Help please, Thank You. With regards-- Eversman ( talk) 19:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I had this originally on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard but someone told be this is a better place. So here it goes...
"Self published" appears to be a popular hammer used to slam a source. We need to exercise caution, and we will need to exercise it more. The following is based on more than 30 years in the media and publishing business:
1.) It may come as a shock that many established publishing houses engage in "vanity publishing" - for a price. That price used to be high, but is getting lower as established publishing houses get in trouble. However, it has been going on for a long time. Decades ago, I started writing books as a ghostwriter for famous industry figures. Their books were published with very reputable publishing houses. They went on sale. But large numbers were bought by the company. Unless you know about it, you'll never know.
2.) It seems like ebooks might finally be here. This significantly lowers the monetary threshold for publishing, but it does not necessarily lower their quality. Quality won't necessarily be raised either. Game changers such as Desktop Publishing, or Desktop video had been vilified as destructors of quality, but eventually, things settled down, and we lived with it. If eBooks make publishing houses as obsolete as DTP made typesetters, we may have to live with increasing numbers of "self published" books, or books that are "published" by Amazon or "iPad Publishing."
3.) The trust in the "editorial oversight" of major publishing houses and media outlets is touching, but often undeserved. The lack of a published "editorial oversight" policy doesn't mean that there is none. Likewise, the existence of a published "editorial oversight" policy doesn't mean that it is observed. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 16:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Likewise previously written, but this seems to be a better place.
WP:OR states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
Generally, it is a good concept. Like many good concepts, it has its limits. Let me give you an example. I could state on Wikipedia that Volkswagen is the world's largest auto manufacturer. After all, the Guardian said so: "Volkswagen-Porsche has overtaken Toyota to become the world's largest car manufacturer as the German group benefits from state-backed stimulus packages around the globe." And so said an untold number of media outlets that copied the story. Just a few days ago, the myth was spotted in the wild in Taiwan.
Guess what: All wrong, from top to bottom. The IHS Global Insight research company cited was wrong. Numbers off by several millions. Porsche wasn't a part of Volkswagen in 2009, they still aren't. IHS miscounted both Volkswagen and Toyota numbers. A gaffe of the first order. Now if someone would go to the trouble of reading the 2009 annual reports of Toyota, GM, and Volkswagen, it would become clear that not only was Volkswagen far removed from the number one spot in 2009. They weren't even the world's second largest automaker in 2009, as other supposedly reliable sources consistently claimed. According to WP:OR ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"), combining three sources (gosh, even primary sources) would be a cardinal sin, and VW would still be #1, because sloppy Guardian said so. Thankfully, I have a work-around at my disposition. Now, anybody can quote the truth without violating WP:OR. Many don't have this opportunity.
(Of course, the Snopes-worthy story made it into WP, and I stomped it out. Thankfully, the editors of Volkswagen, Toyota, and General Motors were in a lenient mood and accepted the prima facie evidence. With a more fundamentalist approach, all three articles would still contain blatant lies.)
The reliable sources are getting increasingly unreliable (because the Internet kills magazines, newspapers, and budgets.} One cribs from the other. In my work (I cover the auto industry), I find nearly daily cases of blatant mis-reporting. Run-away Toyotas killed 89 people? Sure, the NHTSA and just about every paper said so. Guess what: They were and are wrong. Anybody could have done this research, using a publicly available database (as long as they don't use WP to publish the obviously synthesized findings.) Now, it's too late, because in the wake of the reports the NHTSA closed major portions of the database.
Wikipedia is the go to source for many people around the globe. A lot of them take the content as gospel. It is sad that truth takes a backseat to notoriety. I'm not talking about the truth of whether there is a god or not. I'm talking about 2 + 3 + 5 = 10 and not 8, as erroneously stated somewhere by a calculus-challenged editor. I'm talking about the evaporation of common sense. Maybe that's also the reason why Wikipedia is getting a bad name. In any case, the vaunted rules and regs of WP are inconstantly and selectively enforced. A lot of articles have no sources at all and are unmitigated original research. As long as nobody complains, no problem. Too often, discussions about rules and regs are a proxy war for clashing ideologies.
I'm a trained journalist. The first thing that had been drummed into me was: Go straight to the source. Cross check your sources. If something is printed somewhere, check again. These days, it has become far too easy to prove the so-called reliable sources wrong. According to WP:OR, I can't do that. I can happily continue citing patently false statements, as long as they are written somewhere. If I want to refute the statements, I must wait until someone does it somewhere else. Or I must refute it myself first in a Reputable Source and then quote myself. I hate quoting myself.
PS: Wikipedia is full of lists with entries that are referenced to multiple sources, and that derive a ranking. If "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" would be taken verbatim (and all too often, it is) then all these lists must be put up against the wall and shot. You think that's exaggerating? Recently, I wrote that a newspaper published seven articles about the same topic on one day. I referenced the seven articles. It was vilified as Original Research. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 17:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The China mention referred to this:
According to The New York Times, which provided extensive coverage of the events at Foxconn and Honda, after initial nationwide coverage of the strikes media coverage of the strikes by Chinese media was severely restricted, "After a brief flurry of coverage in the Chinese news media, coverage of the strikes has been all but silenced by government censors."[19] Restriction of local press coverage was also reported by The Financial Times[24] On June 18, 2010, following the NYT's report, China Daily published seven articles (3 of them rewrites/reposts) dealing with the strikes and worker relations.[25][26][27][28][29][30][31]
That was called OR. The "broad coverage" was before. I stated that the strikes had broad coverage. That was edited. I added a link to a Google search that showed it. Shot down. Then I added links to articles about the strikes from the preceding days. Shot down, reason: OR. Finally, I found an article in People's Daily that talked about a "widely-reported mass labor strike." That was legit. Facts don't count. But if the paper of the CCP says it, it's ok. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 21:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, suddenly Original Research or unsourced are not a valid reason for deletion? We must have different versions of Wikipedia. My version reads:
"Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page): [...]
The first sentence in WP:OR reads (emphasis theirs): "Wikipedia does not publish original research.' The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources." That makes an unreferenced article that is solely based on WP:OR "not suitable for an encyclopedia." The other alternative this leaves me is to delete the "offending section," i.e. the whole list. There are more of these lists. I reiterate my impression that WP:OR and WP:UNSOURCED are inconsistently, possibly selectively enforced, as proven by this simple experiment. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 10:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I know where to find the statistical yearbook, I'm in Beijing, I just send someone to the library. I wish, all other editors would be as understanding as you. I had a hell of a time establishing the official count of 22 million for Beijing. Even after giving two very reliable sources, the (government-owned) China Daily, and the National Population and Family Planning Commission of China, the information was mercilessly removed. I had to compromise, remove it from the lede and banish the number into "Demographics." There was a HUGE edit war over "After Chongqing[80] and before Shanghai,[81] Beijing is the second largest of the four direct-controlled municipalities of the People's Republic of China." Of course I was asked for a quote from a RS for that. Mere comparisons of numbers were not accepted - until, after dogged reverts, I received help, and common sense prevailed. Fundamentalists call this Original Research. However, even I refuse a telephone number of where to buy a statistical yearbook as a proper source for a number. If that would set a precedence, we could simply source everything at Amazon.com -- BsBsBs ( talk) 14:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to nitpick, but the BBC claims the Mount Everest stands a mere 8,848 meters tall. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 14:11, 22 June 2010 (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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
If the interviewee of an article published in a reliable source makes a claim that another reliable source contradicts, how do you determine which is considered more reliable for Wiki purposes? In such an instance, would the subject's claim be trumped because it is, after all, only what they say? Or would the subject's claim fall under the assumption that the source fact-checked it and both sources could be equally valid? Mbinebri talk ← 01:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Banned user Nrcprm2026 is not permitted to edit. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It would be a good idea to wikilink the terms "secondary source", "primary source", and "tertiary source" in the section pertaining to them, as is done in WP:V. They are specialized terms of art with which most new editors are unfamiliar. Just putting them in boldface doesn't help at all. 71.198.176.22 ( talk) 03:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
|
We have this: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."
Newspaper blogs often get very little editorial supervision or checking. I work at a newspaper, so I'm not pulling this out of thin air.
I suggest changing the sentence, along this line: "News site blogs may be acceptable as sources, as long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write." Or even leaving off the "News site" and starting with "Blogs may be acceptable ..."
Tangentially, I'm wondering:
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.
"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.
It's relatively easy to create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media are largely not acceptable.
In this context, "self-published" means material not subject to full editorial control. Typical examples include books published by a vanity press, personal websites, open wikis, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, and Twitter tweets.
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.
Yes, no, maybe? Maurreen ( talk) 12:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Blogs are a type of publishing format. They are not inherently reliable or unreliable. For the purpose of Wikipedia editing, determination of a blog's reliability is largely based on the relevance and professional standing of the writer.
Blogs are a type of publishing format. They are not inherently reliable or unreliable. For the purpose of Wikipedia editing, determination of a blog's reliability is largely based on the relevance and professional standing of the writer.
The presence of editorial oversight also tends to enhance the reliability of a blog, although it is not an absolute prerequisite of the blog being considered a reliable source. The level of editorial oversight is not always obvious.
It's not clear why Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Types of sources was changed from "Some types of sources". The section covers only scholarly work and news organizations. General books, for example, are not included. Maurreen ( talk) 11:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
It appears that Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources is all repeated from Wikipedia:Verifiability. I think such duplication is unwise. Maurreen ( talk) 11:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
An academic journal I am wanting to use cites TheFreeDictonary which is known to be user-generated and furthermore the item he quoted no longer exists. How should I go about using this because the info for quotations doesn't really deal with RSes quoting unreliable sources. 陣 内 Jinnai 01:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I reverted to the previously agreed on version. The version I reverted from appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the change that had been agreed on. That change was not major nor did it indicate that blogs had more reliability. Maurreen ( talk) 18:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I do like Maurreen's phrase "Personal blogs by non-experts are never acceptable sources for anything but their author", though I can see conflicts down the line with people claiming they are experts. How do we draw a line?
More troublesome, though, is how to handle blogs that purport to have interviews. These are very easy to fake — particularly with deceased people.
I know many times I've seen blogs by people I personally recognize and trust, and whose material I would like to cite — but those people aren't necessarily published authorities whose expertise would be recognizable to anyone but a niche of fellow hobbyists, for example. The policy that we can cite blogs published under the auspices of newspapers and magazines (including webzines, such as Salon) is limiting, but it draws an unambiguous line. I don't know offhand how to move that unambiguous line, but I caution against any vagueness in this particular policy — I don't write about politics or religion, for example, but I can foresee small but like-minded groups claiming their fellow members as "expert" bloggers in order to push exteme agendas that vetted sources with editorial oversight generally cannot. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 02:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Current wording:
"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.
Proposed wording:
Personal blogs by nonexperts are only acceptable as sources for information about their author. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources. For more information on blogs, see WP:SPS and WP:SOURCES.
OK? Maurreen ( talk) 11:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Logical Fuzz has advised me to take this issue here in hope of resolving this dilemma. I have provided James Van Der Beek's own Twitter account ( it is linked through his own official web site) as a source for his Dutch ancestry. There he twitted that he is of Dutch ancestry by writing; That's it! I must have been channelling my Dutch ancestry!. However, my entry was deleted with explanation that "Twitter is not a reliable source for biographical content (or any content for that matter)." So, I don't understand why the official twitter account is not a reliable source for biographical content, especially when official web site has the link to that same twitter account? Isn't something that subject writes on his official twitter account, the most reliable source that you can get? Why is it OK to use Twitter account as a reliable source on the Twitter's Wiki page, and it is not a reliable source to be used on the James Van Der Beek's Wiki page? I really don't get it. So if some journalist(let's say from New York Post) reads the James Van Der Beek's Twitter account where he claims his Dutch ancestry with the words I cited, and he uses that in the article that he is writing about him, and that article is being published, then that would be a reliable source by Wiki standards? Can I get some comments on that? Thank you! -- Eversman ( talk) 16:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion it should be a reliable source/only in such exception/, although I am not a fan o twitt accounts to be used as a source. But in this case it is no brainier, his surname is Dutch and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be used as a source in a simplified and obvious thing like this. -- Bbrezic ( talk) 01:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I had posted this at the the OR talk page, and I got directed here. I was wondering: should we put somewhere in WP:Identifying reliable sources that this isn't a requirement to blindly acknowledge every reliable-looking source as such? For example, I've seen videos of newscasts from normally reputable sources that are obviously skewed and/or fake. That way, if, say, someone uses a video from a Chinese news network to "prove" the massacres at Tiananmen Squre didn't happen (just an example), it can be removed despite being from a "reliable source". Basically, a statement like, "This does not require editors to stop using their heads when looking at sources. If a document, photograph, or video purports to be from a reliable source, but is an obvious fake, or the source's coverage is blatantly skewed so as to constitute a fringe opinion despite claiming otherwise, its removal on those grounds would not constitute a violation". Or would this lead to excessive wiki-lawyering, and/or is this covered by IAR already? I bring this up because I've seen a few blatant fakes (mostly videos) in I/P topics get removed with that rationale, and the removal is hotly contested as being OR, (things like "saying it looks edited and fake is OR" when the video is clearly fake to amateur eyes). The Blade of the Northern Lights ( talk) 19:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Sounds related to the post above this as well... The Blade of the Northern Lights ( talk) 19:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a misconception among editors that when a reliable source says something then it can be forced into an article even if it's obviously wrong. The most extreme examples are of course when it concerns Wikipedia:
But I have been going through other similar situations recently:
Part of the problem is that even some admins think "verifiability, not truth" means we must report claims from reliable sources even if we all know they are false. For some reason "verifiability, not truth" is all that everybody remembers; the word "threshold" is not getting any attention. It may be time for a very clear reminder that verifiability is just our way of approximating truth, so using it to support lies and misrepresentations in article space is a perversion. Hans Adler 22:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that for some reason in Wikipedia TRUþ is a four-letter word. Just look at how it is normally used in conversations:
I can understand the sociological forces that have caused "truth" to become a word with almost completely negative associations on Wikipedia. But it's time to do something against it. An encyclopedia that holds contempt for the truth is undesirable. Hans Adler 11:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
You can have POV pushers show up at any article, and use any policy, regardless of how it's written, to support their edits. And of course, one man's "POV pushers" are another man's "Truth Seekers". All we can do is write reasonable policies and guidelines, and hope that common sense will prevail. There is no way to legislate common sense, and as I noted above, in my own 4+ year experience here, I have yet to find a single article where the content policies failed to produce a reasonable result. Contentious issues will be harder and will take longer to nail down, but that's life. Crum375 ( talk) 00:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
"I have yet to find a single article where the content policies failed to produce a reasonable result." – That's not the problem. Eventually we always get the right solution. Well, almost always. The "verifiability, not truth" meme that is being exploited here, by insisting that the truth doesn't actually matter even when it's really obvious, is not in place so that we get our articles right, it's there to make the process more efficient. It's there so we waste less time arguing against the crackpots. But it has been overdone recently, and now I have to waste incredible amounts of time arguing against the "it doesn't matter whether it's reasonable, it's verifiable!" POV pushers.
The underlying policy says we can't say something if it's not verifiable, even if it's true. There is a strong consensus for that and nobody wants to change it, obviously. Its fundamentalist interpretation, that we can say something that is verifiable even if it's obviously not true, has come up in part as a misunderstanding and in part as a time-saver when arguing with fringers. ("No, I needn't prove to you that the relativity theory is true, because it doesn't even matter.") But it's only a time-saver in some situations, and in others it's an immense time sink. We need to get the balance right. Hans Adler 12:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The most important technique in the real world for evaluating whether a source can be relied on or not is to look at the overlap of what it says and what you are fully knowledgeable about. If there is enough such overlap and it gets that part basically right, then it's probably reliable. If it doesn't it is probably not. "No, you can't do that" is the kind of thing that is convenient to say to an astrology fan or new age freak or perpetuum mobile inventor who tries to use this technique to shoot down an obviously reliable physics book. It is not an adequate response if a New York Times article claims that Jimbo was the almighty ruler of Wikipedia, but has been deposed now, which is sure to lead to huge chaos; or that William M. Connolley has blocked 2,000 editors simply for disagreeing with him about climate change; or that Sam Blacketer committed vandalism on the article of a political opponent. It may be a thousand times the New York Times, but an article claiming such things obviously contains bullshit. Therefore everything it says needs to be taken with a pound of salt, and any attempts to "verify" the above bogus claims themselves with such an article should lead to an immediate block unless the editor seriously doesn't know it's false.
But we currently have a culture where editors can get away with putting stuff in articles that everybody knows to be false, merely by citing a source that obviously got something wrong or uses words in a different way, and then refusing to even talk about truth. They don't even need to claim that they believe that stuff. "No, I don't actually believe that the Moon is made of green cheese, but the following 20 philosophy books say it is the case [4], so it doesn't matter whether it's true, it's a significant POV." That's no way to write an encyclopedia. We are not playing Nomic here. Or rather, those who are here only for playing Nomic need to be shown the door. Hans Adler 00:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm no supporter of Greenpeace and the like- however, the whole idea of the Hvalur sinkings wasn't to inspire terror in people's hearts. It was to destroy a couple of whaling boats, and Greenpeace indeed had no intention of, and did not, harm a single person. To draw an example, you're probably familiar with the Boston Tea Party. Under your definition, those people are terrorists. However, that is obviously wrong, because what they did was dump thousands of pounds of tea into the Boston Harbor without harming anyone. It wasn't to terrorize the British, it was to dump their tea and protest the tax on it. The damage was astronomical, similar to the Hvalur sinkings. Similarly, Greenpeace sank two empty whaling ships to protest whaling. In addition, American law is totally irrelevant (by the way, "non-combatants" are humans, not structures, under American law- structures are a whole different entity), because this occurred in Iceland, and their definition of terrorism is different. Basically, the papers went on a smear campaign, and tried to distort it as such. That's why people need to be wary when looking through normally reliable sources. Read Hans Adler's definition of "verifiability, not truth", and you'll see why I got this idea. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( talk) 23:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC) By the way, you really should sign with four tildes. Also, if you want to debate that topic, go to the 1986 Hvalur sinkings talkpage and read Hans Adler's posts there; I think I'll head over there now myself.
I have been having a long standing problem in one BLP that statements from Opinion Pieces from large publications are given more credance than statements from news articles from smaller ones, including small city newspapers that definitely do have editors. To the extent that such factual or relatively neutral statements from these publications are consistently deleted as NOT WP:RS while biased opinion rants from major news publications are freely quoted. This has happened on the talk page consistently of the article and at least once at WP:RS Noticeboard. Does this article need to make it explicitly clear that opinion pieces do not trump factual news organization pieces, even if it is a relatively small news organization? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 17:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to write an article about Perdana College of Malaysia. Is the school's website not a reliable resource? What would constitute a reliable resource in this situation? Smithmd2 ( talk) 07:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Official sources are reliable, but blogs aren't. So would Game Freak's blog be considered a reliable source, or not? -- 75.25.103.109 ( talk) 16:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Currently, journalistic blogs by newspaper and magazine writers/editors are considered reliable sources, as they have oversight and professional standards and reputation.
Some editors propose allowing third-party personal blogs to be used as reliable sources.
Should these be allowed? If so, under what guidelines, and what standards should be implemented to help insure accuracy and credibility? - Tenebrae ( talk) 14:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment This RFC is flawed, because it seems to imply that a local consensus in a guideline page can trump an overriding policy. In the case of WP:IRS, WP:SOURCES is the governing policy, and this guideline page is only an explanation of that policy. As this guideline already says (bold added): "In the event of a contradiction between this page and a Wikipedia policy, the policy takes priority, and this page should be updated to reflect it." The specific issue of blogs is covered in detail in WP:SOURCES, and any change in that policy has to be made on that page, not here. Crum375 ( talk) 15:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
There are at least a couple of problems here.
Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion reads: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. It also reads There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source. What if a negative opinion piece says "Mr. X has said '[some outrageous statement].'" Or "MS. X has [done some outrageous thing]." Under what circumstances can it be used?
I used to think it was OK, but having read the above, and heard from an admin that opinion writers can't just throw "facts" around, I now have to wonder if it is indeed something that needs to be addressed in this policy article. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 04:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
<back>Looking at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion again, I can see the the possible confusion arises (in my mind and perhaps in others) because first paragraph deals only with Opinion pieces by WP:RS. The next two talk about blogs in WP:RS publications and "Self-published blogs." But there is no clear statement that blogs in WP:RS have to be edited or that "self-published" blogs might include blogs on WP:RS. So I think that clarifying that point in one or both paragraphs would be very helpful. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 03:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been wondering for a while about the status of columns by named writers in the "broadsheet" UK newspapers (Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent). A lot of the time these are essays advancing a point of view, but I don't think it is possible to dismiss their reliability on that account alone. The writers frequently cite facts to support their position, and I would think that these facts are checked in much the same way as facts across the newspaper as a whole. Given the UK's strict libel laws they are of course checked for libel. And sometimes these writers actually undertake some reportage. And some of the columnists are or have been academics, e.g. Timothy Garton Ash. Does anyone else think that some further nuance should be given to the "only reliable for the author's own opinion" formula in these cases? Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
In the modern internet world, surely blogs should be counted just as much as published sources (which are, in fact, usually opinions themselves), or at least the factual parts of what they're suggesting should be counted? Perhaps a "unreliable source" tag should be counted in, to allow for facts to be placed in articles whilst a reliable source is found?
An example is the current Inheritance Cycle page. The criticism article was cut down simply due to lack of "reliable sources", despite the fact that many of the sources were quoting directly from the books in question. The factual evidence of the sources is unquestionable, so why should they not be counted as reliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.114.70 ( talk) 08:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC) -- 77.97.114.70 ( talk) 08:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Discussion about reliable sources. Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Deep Atlantic Blue ( talk) 05:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I am starting this up because of a recent discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sinodefence.com and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#navweaps.com. If a source does not seem to be meet WP:SPS, but is cited by multiple (10+) reliable sources does that not also show the the reliability of the source in question? Yoenit ( talk) 19:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
In the last paragraph of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper), after the first sentence, insert:
-- RexxS ( talk) 21:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
An MFA is a terminal degree much as a PhD is, and at many research institutions, the MFA theses are bound and inserted in the library for research next to the PhD dissertations. Furthermore, what about a thesis or dissertation written by the subject of the article, who is alive and therefore the article is a living biography? Jmorganferry ( talk) 22:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)jmorganferry Jmorganferry ( talk) 22:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
There has been a constant vandalization of Novak Djokovic page, where his parents origin is being constantly removed. Anonymous user claims that the links I have provided are not reliable. First link is from Croatian daily newspaper Slobodna Dalmacija which was founded and continuously is published in Split since 1943, Novak Djokovic gave that interview to the reporter of Slobodna Dalmacija, Davor Burazin, on July 30, 2006. In that inteview he said; "I da mi je majka Hrvatica, iako je rođena u Beogradu, jer su svi njezini iz Vinkovaca i tamo imam puno rodbine. Tata je Crnogorac, a ja... ("And that my mother is Croatian, although she was born in Belgrade, because all of hers are from Vinkovci and there I have a lot of relatives. Dad is a Montenegrin, and I ......")" Second link is from another Croatian newspaper Jutarnji list which was was launched in April 1998, and in that link it says; "S obzirom na majku Hrvaticu, vjerujem da ima uvjete za hrvatsko državljanstvo. Ako se odluči na taj korak, Đoković je dobrodošao - rekao je predsjednik Hrvatskog teniskog saveza. ("With regards to his mother being a Croat, I believe he has conditions for a Croatian citizenship. If he decides to make that step, Djokovic is welcomed - said the president of Croatian Tennis Federation")". So I am asking, are those links reliable or not, because it seems to me that this thing is about constant national pest, Serbian in this issue. I am warning that the anonymous user hasn't provided not a single evidence that his father is not Montenegrin and that his mother is not Croatian. Help please, Thank You. With regards-- Eversman ( talk) 19:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I had this originally on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard but someone told be this is a better place. So here it goes...
"Self published" appears to be a popular hammer used to slam a source. We need to exercise caution, and we will need to exercise it more. The following is based on more than 30 years in the media and publishing business:
1.) It may come as a shock that many established publishing houses engage in "vanity publishing" - for a price. That price used to be high, but is getting lower as established publishing houses get in trouble. However, it has been going on for a long time. Decades ago, I started writing books as a ghostwriter for famous industry figures. Their books were published with very reputable publishing houses. They went on sale. But large numbers were bought by the company. Unless you know about it, you'll never know.
2.) It seems like ebooks might finally be here. This significantly lowers the monetary threshold for publishing, but it does not necessarily lower their quality. Quality won't necessarily be raised either. Game changers such as Desktop Publishing, or Desktop video had been vilified as destructors of quality, but eventually, things settled down, and we lived with it. If eBooks make publishing houses as obsolete as DTP made typesetters, we may have to live with increasing numbers of "self published" books, or books that are "published" by Amazon or "iPad Publishing."
3.) The trust in the "editorial oversight" of major publishing houses and media outlets is touching, but often undeserved. The lack of a published "editorial oversight" policy doesn't mean that there is none. Likewise, the existence of a published "editorial oversight" policy doesn't mean that it is observed. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 16:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Likewise previously written, but this seems to be a better place.
WP:OR states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
Generally, it is a good concept. Like many good concepts, it has its limits. Let me give you an example. I could state on Wikipedia that Volkswagen is the world's largest auto manufacturer. After all, the Guardian said so: "Volkswagen-Porsche has overtaken Toyota to become the world's largest car manufacturer as the German group benefits from state-backed stimulus packages around the globe." And so said an untold number of media outlets that copied the story. Just a few days ago, the myth was spotted in the wild in Taiwan.
Guess what: All wrong, from top to bottom. The IHS Global Insight research company cited was wrong. Numbers off by several millions. Porsche wasn't a part of Volkswagen in 2009, they still aren't. IHS miscounted both Volkswagen and Toyota numbers. A gaffe of the first order. Now if someone would go to the trouble of reading the 2009 annual reports of Toyota, GM, and Volkswagen, it would become clear that not only was Volkswagen far removed from the number one spot in 2009. They weren't even the world's second largest automaker in 2009, as other supposedly reliable sources consistently claimed. According to WP:OR ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"), combining three sources (gosh, even primary sources) would be a cardinal sin, and VW would still be #1, because sloppy Guardian said so. Thankfully, I have a work-around at my disposition. Now, anybody can quote the truth without violating WP:OR. Many don't have this opportunity.
(Of course, the Snopes-worthy story made it into WP, and I stomped it out. Thankfully, the editors of Volkswagen, Toyota, and General Motors were in a lenient mood and accepted the prima facie evidence. With a more fundamentalist approach, all three articles would still contain blatant lies.)
The reliable sources are getting increasingly unreliable (because the Internet kills magazines, newspapers, and budgets.} One cribs from the other. In my work (I cover the auto industry), I find nearly daily cases of blatant mis-reporting. Run-away Toyotas killed 89 people? Sure, the NHTSA and just about every paper said so. Guess what: They were and are wrong. Anybody could have done this research, using a publicly available database (as long as they don't use WP to publish the obviously synthesized findings.) Now, it's too late, because in the wake of the reports the NHTSA closed major portions of the database.
Wikipedia is the go to source for many people around the globe. A lot of them take the content as gospel. It is sad that truth takes a backseat to notoriety. I'm not talking about the truth of whether there is a god or not. I'm talking about 2 + 3 + 5 = 10 and not 8, as erroneously stated somewhere by a calculus-challenged editor. I'm talking about the evaporation of common sense. Maybe that's also the reason why Wikipedia is getting a bad name. In any case, the vaunted rules and regs of WP are inconstantly and selectively enforced. A lot of articles have no sources at all and are unmitigated original research. As long as nobody complains, no problem. Too often, discussions about rules and regs are a proxy war for clashing ideologies.
I'm a trained journalist. The first thing that had been drummed into me was: Go straight to the source. Cross check your sources. If something is printed somewhere, check again. These days, it has become far too easy to prove the so-called reliable sources wrong. According to WP:OR, I can't do that. I can happily continue citing patently false statements, as long as they are written somewhere. If I want to refute the statements, I must wait until someone does it somewhere else. Or I must refute it myself first in a Reputable Source and then quote myself. I hate quoting myself.
PS: Wikipedia is full of lists with entries that are referenced to multiple sources, and that derive a ranking. If "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" would be taken verbatim (and all too often, it is) then all these lists must be put up against the wall and shot. You think that's exaggerating? Recently, I wrote that a newspaper published seven articles about the same topic on one day. I referenced the seven articles. It was vilified as Original Research. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 17:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The China mention referred to this:
According to The New York Times, which provided extensive coverage of the events at Foxconn and Honda, after initial nationwide coverage of the strikes media coverage of the strikes by Chinese media was severely restricted, "After a brief flurry of coverage in the Chinese news media, coverage of the strikes has been all but silenced by government censors."[19] Restriction of local press coverage was also reported by The Financial Times[24] On June 18, 2010, following the NYT's report, China Daily published seven articles (3 of them rewrites/reposts) dealing with the strikes and worker relations.[25][26][27][28][29][30][31]
That was called OR. The "broad coverage" was before. I stated that the strikes had broad coverage. That was edited. I added a link to a Google search that showed it. Shot down. Then I added links to articles about the strikes from the preceding days. Shot down, reason: OR. Finally, I found an article in People's Daily that talked about a "widely-reported mass labor strike." That was legit. Facts don't count. But if the paper of the CCP says it, it's ok. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 21:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, suddenly Original Research or unsourced are not a valid reason for deletion? We must have different versions of Wikipedia. My version reads:
"Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page): [...]
The first sentence in WP:OR reads (emphasis theirs): "Wikipedia does not publish original research.' The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources." That makes an unreferenced article that is solely based on WP:OR "not suitable for an encyclopedia." The other alternative this leaves me is to delete the "offending section," i.e. the whole list. There are more of these lists. I reiterate my impression that WP:OR and WP:UNSOURCED are inconsistently, possibly selectively enforced, as proven by this simple experiment. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 10:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I know where to find the statistical yearbook, I'm in Beijing, I just send someone to the library. I wish, all other editors would be as understanding as you. I had a hell of a time establishing the official count of 22 million for Beijing. Even after giving two very reliable sources, the (government-owned) China Daily, and the National Population and Family Planning Commission of China, the information was mercilessly removed. I had to compromise, remove it from the lede and banish the number into "Demographics." There was a HUGE edit war over "After Chongqing[80] and before Shanghai,[81] Beijing is the second largest of the four direct-controlled municipalities of the People's Republic of China." Of course I was asked for a quote from a RS for that. Mere comparisons of numbers were not accepted - until, after dogged reverts, I received help, and common sense prevailed. Fundamentalists call this Original Research. However, even I refuse a telephone number of where to buy a statistical yearbook as a proper source for a number. If that would set a precedence, we could simply source everything at Amazon.com -- BsBsBs ( talk) 14:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to nitpick, but the BBC claims the Mount Everest stands a mere 8,848 meters tall. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 14:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)