ebooksgratis.com

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive11 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Encyclopedia of Earth

The only problem that I see with it is that this guideline states that "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking." (bolding is mine)... Encycl. of Earth seems to be another wiki. Blueboar 02:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

National Vanguard and Adelaide Institute; +David Duke & Ernst Zündel

Are those neo-nazi/holocaust deniers quotable? After the discussion here last July [1] I had the understanding that they were only notable if quoted by reliable sources, (e.g.David Duke's "views would be regarded as noteworthy if reliable sources quoted them, in which case the publication, not Duke, is our source".)

However, there has been/is an editwar over at Naeim Giladi about wheather to include references to National Vanguard and Adelaide Institute sites (and they are, IMO, possibly less important/well known/noteable than David Duke). Some editors argue that WP:RS does not apply here. Does anybody here have any advice about this? Regards, Huldra 08:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with quoting either of these sources if it is appropriate within the context of an article, say if it was about Vanguard or a member of Vanguard or an event in which Vanguard participated. I would suggst that Vanguard is not a RS but I'm not familiar enough with the Adelaide Institute to really say one way or the other. For example you could say that Vanguard has claimed/said "Blah blah blah" but you could not put forth "blah blah blah" as in an in text fact and then source Vanguard. See the difference? NeoFreak 15:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your reply. However, I´m not sure it address my specific issue. I raised the question last July here: [2], and then I got the reply "David Duke's views would be regarded as noteworthy if reliable sources quoted them, in which case the publication, not Duke, is our source." This sounds sensible to me. However, take a look at Israel Shahak and Use by Neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers. Now, no " reliable source" (say; E.U. Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia, Anti-Defamation League, Stephen Roth Institute, American Jewish Committee, Southern Poverty Law Center, Political Research Associates,) have found it important enough to note the "praise" by these "widely acknowledged extremist views". Still, some editors now insist that we refer directly to them. Basically, I see it as both Poisoning the well and a violation against WP:RS. And possibly a violation against WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and, (for Naeim Giladi), a violation of WP:BLP. And it is most certainly not in accordance with what I was told last July here:[3], Regards, Huldra 18:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Descriptive Points about the topic

"Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic." Can anyone give me a real example of this, like a specific primary source and what it can be used for and not? Sethie 03:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Provide a direct quote from the source, with quote marks, and an inline citation, and you're fine. Once you start paraphrasing or otherwise "adding value" to the quote, you're venturing into a gray area. Wjhonson 16:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Defining "Reliable"

I was wondering if I could get some clarification there. Reliable should not necessarily equal anything other than the npov presentation of a second hand source in my opinion, no matter what it is. Just H 19:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In an academic sense, which Wikipedia purports to aspire to, the article needs to present a NPOV assessment of the available evidence. Reliability per se applies to the supporting material for the article and each instance of evidence need not be NPOV in its own right. Where there are conflicting views of a topic then one must assess reliability with respect to the authority which the source offers to the article. Reliability is not the only aspect of providing a NPOV treatment but becomes part of a wider whole.
I think you're looking at two levels of granularity in the statement (given that it's not phrased as a question) and I'm not sure what your point is. If I haven't clarified can you be more specific about what you're after.
ALR 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how or why Wikipedia would want to purport to that. Wikipedia is the "fast food" of information on the internet: cheap and quick. Academic grade research would be correlative to filet mignon. If you can get filet mignon at fast food speed and prices, fantastic; but if you limit yourself to those standards and you can't attain them, you go away from the knowledge drive through hungry.
Just because something isn't "top quality" doesn't mean it can't be presented honestly and impartially with the reader taking in its importance as is. Just H 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not really sure what your point is. If you're just having a bitch about guidelines then fair enough, feel free.ALR 22:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Forget it. I guess none of the policies or guidelines really matter that much anyway. They don't seem to be enforced very uniformly, and whenver there's an arbitrary rule, that leads to trouble. Just H 01:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

When is a blog RS?

I have been involved in a disagreement on the MEMRI page, and one of the most contentious issues has been about the applicability of the statement on the RS page that "For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

The page under dispute has been organized with history and information at the start, followed by a "Praise" and "Criticism" section. Those sections quote various writers, researchers or journalists, who have written either positive or negative things about MEMRI.

The disputed "Criticism" is by a well-known Professor of History (who has written many books including several arabic translations in addition to many scholarly articles) who also maintains a blog. There is no dispute that the quote is accurately taken from his blog, or that the blog is really his.

This is the statement in question, which has been inserted and reverted at least thirty times because of claims that it violates RS: Professor of Modern Middle East History at the University of Michigan Juan Cole accused MEMRI of "cleverly cherry-pick[ing] the vast Arabic press, which serves 300 million people, for the most extreme and objectionable articles and editorials"[1]

Notice that there is no claim that Cole is right - it is simply a statement that he made this criticism of the organization. And in fact there is a similar but opposite claim by a different scholar in the Praise section, which balances this claim in the Criticism section. So my question is whether this should be barred from inclusion in a list of criticism of this organization because the quote is from Cole's weblog? (Believe it or not this question has consumed pages of argument and counter-argument).

Isn't it sufficient to use a blog when it is being used only to show that a well-known scholar has made a statement on that blog? Would it be necessary (as some have argued) for a newspaper to quote that statement before it could be indirectly-quoted in WP? Is it even necessary to consider that he is writing in his field of expertise? And finally, would it be possible to clarify this in the RS page?

Sorry if I'm intruding (I'm new here), but I am hoping those of you who have been contributing edits here for some time could comment (hopefully this won't attract any stalkers).

Thanks! Cheers, Jgui 12:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS says regarding self-published sources - When a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications.. Professor Juan Cole most certainly fits that description. Without having read the article or talk it would appear to pass WP:RS. --Insider201283 14:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I would agree... with the caveat that this be included as Professor Cole's opinion and not stated as fact. Blueboar 16:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this particular kind of case is not specifically addressed in the guidelines. Surely a blog, at a particular point in time, can be a reliable source for information about the blog itself. As for the question of reliability why would the quote me any more or less reliable than if the person made the quote on a live television talk show? Do live television talk shows do fact checking? Why do we accept quotes from them? The "guidelines" give no clear criteria for determining reliability. The only reliablity issue would be that he could edit his blog entry, but the blog as it exists on a particular date would still be a reliable source concerning what the guy did or didn't say. Is the professor himself a reliable source on anything? That is a separate question that is not related to whether his opinion is on a blog or a live television talk show. --Gbleem 14:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you could reasonably state along the lines of Cole has stated in his weblog dated x and viewed on date y that...... The main issue with blogs from authorities in a topic is that the blog itself doesn't have assured persistence. It can be modified after it's been referenced, so you need to identify when it was used to support the argument. All that assumes that you can demonstrate that Cole is an authority on the topic that he's talking about so the view has any ore weight than the bloke at the end of the bar in my local pub.ALR 14:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. To respond back in order:
Insider - When this was first discussed I quoted the exact same statement that you quote above, but this was ignored. Unfortunately the quoted statement that these "may" be acceptable, is in my opinion not strong enough since it leads down a rat-hole of claims and counter-claims. What is needed, in my opinion, is a statement that these ARE acceptable. After all, in what situations would they not be, assuming it is an authentic blog from the indicated researcher? Isn't a blog maintained by the researcher, actually a very GOOD source for their statements on a given subject?
The problem is less to do with the authors statement, but the inherent lack of reliability in the medium being quoted. The reaosn that the guideline as it currently stands makes few hard and fast statements on reliability is because the concept is meaningless without context. You can't just make statements that $stuff is/ is not reliable, you have to understand why it's being used in the way that it is.
The secondary aspect is how representative the content is, subject to how disputed the topic being discussed in the blog entry is. It's a personal opinion, nothing more.ALR 08:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you that these would be requirements as well. So how about explicitely stating these requirements; the sentence could be When a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these will be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and so long as the material is representive of their opinions and has not been subject to quote-mining. The example under discussion would easily pass this test - can you think of any other requirements that would be needed? Jgui 01:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Blueboar has given you an appropriate form of words to use, can I just suggest you live with that now. You've now got a position which at least two of the contributors to RS agree is reasonable.
As to the rest, look at the background to the current form of the guideline. There are no hard and fast rules about reliability, in fact I disagree with the current structure which gives a bye to scholarly sources (whatever the hel that means) but those who revert any attempt to change it also refuse to engage in discussion on the subject. I don't believe that any sources should be allowed to be used without a level of rigour, hence may is appropriate. If we allow sourcing without rigour then we risk arguments trying to get a source considered for a free pass rather than considering it from a holistic perspective.
ALR 08:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Blueboar - Do you agree that stating it as I did, that he "accused" them (the full statement is in my question) makes it clearly opinion and not fact (the fact, taken from his personal mouthpiece blog, is that he stated it - the opinion, which is what he wrote in his blog, is what he stated)?
Not quite. "Accused" is POV ... I would change it to something like: According to Jan Cole, Professor of Modern Middle East History at the University of Michigan, MEMRI has a tendancy to "cleverly cherry-pick the vast Arabic press, which serves 300 million people, for the most extreme and objectionable articles and editorials" <ref name=Osama>[http://www.juancole.com/2004/11/bin-ladens-audio-threat-to-states.html Bin Laden's Audio: Threat to States?], Professor Juan Cole Informed Comment blog, November 2 2004 - accessed on 1/08/07</ref> This would make it clear that this is his oppinion, and puts any POV into Cole's comments where it belongs. Blueboar 13:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion, I will make that change. Jgui 01:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Gbleem and ALR - In this case there is no question of whether he stated this, and the reliability of the statement having been made is not disputed so timestamping it should not be needed. But as to the second point you both raise, does it even matter whether he is an authority on what he is talking about? (He certainly is in my opinion and the opinion of most, but when dealing with one with a highly POV approach, such as we are, this can turn into a long and fruitless discussion). Shouldn't it be enough, given the fact that this is being used in a list of "Complaints" about an organization (and not in a list of facts about the organization), that this distinguished professor has indeed made the cited "complaint"? The whole section of "Complaints" is balanced by a whole section of "Praise", which is what makes it overall NPOV (although by their nature each of the "Complaints" and "Praise" could arguably be individually POV).
Time referencing is important in this case because blog entries can change in time. If the blog entry is the only evidence which you have then you need to make clear at what point in time you used it. If you're able to say that there is no question then you must have other, independdent, corroboration? If you have no corroboration then a week later when the blog has changed or been deleted then there is a question.
Expertise is also important in presenting a NPOV discussion of a topic. Throwing lots of low expertise points at a discussion doesn't create balance, indeed it can create imbalance and probably doesn't meet the spirit of NPOV even if you do achieve the letter. Lots of Fred the bigot type comments about how these dirty furriners coming here, taking our jobs etc, etc doesn't meaningfully balance an economic analysis of economic migration from the CBI or IoD.
Context.
ALR 08:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify one of my statements which was misleading. My statement about the "highly POV approach" was referring not at all to Cole (which I believe you assumed given your comments), but to a WP editor that is trying to impose a much higher standard for inclusion of this statement than I think can possibly be justified. I think that as a tenured professor of Modern Middle East studies, who daily reads the Middle East press in its native languages, and who has even published books translating some of their literature into English, that Cole is eminently qualified to comment on the validitity of translations of a particular translation service (MEMRI) in a non POV manner. But the obstacles that one of the other editors are raising are things such as that he is an expert on "history" only, and not on "modern media" and therefore is not qualified to comment??? I find this to be clearly absurd - but I don't want to spend my life in an edit war with this editor and am looking for a simple argument to apply.
Furthermore, these arguments are not countering an economic analysis from the CBI - they are countering positive statements of support from the like of Thomas Friedman (is he even able to read Arabic?) and a congressman who certainly reads no Arabic. So the arguments on the other side are significantly more uninformed than those of Cole could be argued to be. And I think it is FINE to have POV arguments in sections titled "Praise" and "Criticism". Indeed this is the whole reason to set these sections up - that there is genuine disagreement about the quality of something and no fully independent source set up to objectively judge the quality. So it has to be resolved by stating that some people support it (and you list those people and specify their praise), and some people do not (and you list those people and specify their criticisms). Because these sections by their nature are designed to argue a point of view (which is countered by a section with the opposite point of view), I think it is fine to have a lower "reliable source" test. Do you see where I'm coming from?
Some blogs are scrupulous about not modifying previously posted information over time, and Cole's blog is one of them. But his whole article was reprinted by another blog site (and portions of it were widely reported in the press, although not the exact quote that is being used). So in this case I think I'm fine with the timestamping, although I certainly get your concern. Jgui 01:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Cheers Jgui 08:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the source certainly seems to be reliable and it seems to be an appropriate use of a blog, particularly if there's another cite providing the contrasting POV. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Reuters and AP

In articles on actual events people cite Reuters and AP all the time and refer to yahoo news or newspapers websites where the original news feed of Reuters/AP is showing up. It should be pointed out that those sources are not reliable therefore, since they're gone for good after 60 days went by. --213.155.224.232 19:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is covered under the header of persistence of the source, but it could be that clarity is required around the use of media feeds.ALR 20:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
There are services that archive those feeds such as Lexis-Nexis. Not everyone has access but a good library should have a subscription. Therefore, citing the feed should IMHO be considered a persistant source with the link to a website viewed as a convienience link. --Selket 00:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that while a media (such as a newspaper or Yahoo) might use AP or Reuters as a source and cite them as such, they often rewrite, cut out or otherwise change the original Reuters/AP news feed. So, if there is reason to suspect, one should be careful with assuming that all articles/news cited as Reuters/AP are in their original form. Cheers Osli73 18:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dictionaries as tertiary sources

Are dictionaries considered reliable? I say that the main ones are. The question is whether they are "tertiary sources" or whether they are themselves independent scholarly works. WP:RS is being discussed on Talk:Marriage to this effect. MPS 22:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The OED is a secondary source by any standards. It quotes primary sources, showing where they agree and differ. Wjhonson 19:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
To some extent it depends on the dictionary and the edition... Dr. Johnson's dictionary of the 1600 - 1700s could probably count as a primary source. I agree with Wjhonson that the OED should be considered a secondary source. And many modern dictionaries (especially those on-line) are tertiary in that they simply copy other dictionaries. As to how reliable... except a few obviously biased ones ("The Neo-Nazi Dictionary" would probably be an example if it exists) I would say they are reliable. Blueboar 20:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-published sources: three questions

Sorry this is a bit long, but I have three questions regarding self-published sources relating to the article Nick Baker (chef). Actually, the article appears to be misnamed - Baker is notable for being a convicted drug smuggler. I hope the answers to these questions could help clarify some of the guidelines.

1. Baker's supporters are trying to suppress two source articles that are critical of Baker and his support group on the grounds that they are self-published. In the first article the publisher of Metropolis (Japanese magazine), who originally supported Baker's trial, wrote an editorial about why he no longer supports the case. [4]

I have a third-party source that says Mr Devlin withdrew his support[5], but that article does not say why. Baker's supporters say that the Metropolis article cannot be used as a source to say why he withdrew his support as it is self-published.

Would something like "In September 2004, Mark Devlin, publisher of Metropolis, withdrew his support from the campaign to free Baker [6]. Devlin claimed that he withdrew his support after he learned that Baker came to Japan two months before his arrest [7]" be acceptable, even if the second source is self-published?

When a prominent supporter of a cause reverses position, do you think notablility trumps self-published source?

2. Baker's supporters also say that a follow-up feature article in Metropolis about the case[8], also in part critical of Baker, cannot be used as Metropolis is published by Devlin.

For some persperctive, Metropolis is Japan's largest distribution English-language magazine. It has published over 500 features and hundreds of editorials and interviews over the past 13 years. Because a publisher has taken a position for or against a cause, does it mean that any articles he publishes about that cause cannot be used as a Wikipedia source?

The problem is compounded because the article is a follow-up to the case, when other media had lost interest, so there are no other secondary sources, and Baker's supporters have removed all primary information from their site that was used as research for the article (for example they have removed a statement that said he had been to Japan two months before his arrest, and removed letters from Baker's MP expressing doubts about the case).

Is it right that an article that has important claims about the case is being blocked by Baker's supporters as being self-published? Is there a way to include those claims or create an exception?

3. The third part of this question is regarding statements made by a person on their own website in defense of another persons claims. Baker's mother made a statement that Mr Devlin was a spammer[9], and Devlin responded that he wasn't[10]. As both of these claims are published on each person's respective site, they would appear to be self-published, but surely they should be included in the article as each claim is verifiably from the person involved?

Without this self-published information, the article has no hint of the controversy surrounding the case and gives a distorted pro-Baker view of the case. Any advice appreciated.Sparkzilla 06:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The reliable sources guideline is just a guideline. In this case I would say Devlin is a reliable source. The guideline needs to be changed to reflect these common cases that pop up. Next we won't be able to include anything the President Of The United States puts on Whitehouse.gov because it's self published. --Gbleem 12:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I made a change to the guideline to clarify that the self publishing rule is not a trump card. Hopefully changing the paragraph about editorial oversite and "self-published" sources will get through to those who can't read the whole page. This does not mean that I think Devlin is a reliable source. It just means you have to consider other factors. --Gbleem 13:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
What other factors are important? Would it be fair to say that the inclusion of self-published information can be defended by saying the source is notable?Sparkzilla 00:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I've rejerted your changes. The point of the guideline is that it's taken as a holistic review of the supporting material, your edits also didn't fit with the stylistic flow of the section. There is already a get out of jail free card at the top of the article, it doesn't need an extra one every second line.ALR 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
As discussed above, it's reasonable to use the sources to demonstrate that a level of dispute exists. You just can't use them as reliable sources about the subject. Look at the discussion with respect to MEMRI and use of Blogs, it's quite straightforward to word things appropriately.ALR 18:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't seem to locate the MEMRI item in the archives. Could you elaborate? I already have a reliable third-party source that states that a dispute exists. I am asking whether supporting facts about the dispute (and that are negative to the subject) that are not in the third-party source should be allowed. In particular the second Metropolis feature.
The three questions again:
1.When a prominent supporter of a cause reverses position, do you think notablility trumps self-published source? And do you think their (self-published) reasons should be allowed onto the page?
2. Should an article that has important claims about the case be used as a source even though the publisher is a critic of the case?
3. Are clarification statements (and their supporting claims) made on a personal website usable as sources? Sparkzilla 00:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Discussion of MEMRI is two discussions up on this page (not yet in archives)
As to the three questions... 1) Sometimes. 2) Usually. 3) Sometimes.
As they relate to the specific article in question... 1) yes, 2) yes, and 3) yes
Blueboar 01:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I would be grateful to learn whether the opinion here would be the same based on this interpretation of the self-published source in question?
Sparkzilla describes the publication as "Japan's largest distribution English-language magazine" in fact, it is a free advertising-driven magazine, relying of it's income upon Japanese and Japan-based businesses. It is the ONLY free-paper registered with Japan's Audit Bureau of Circulation - by default making it the grand-sounding largest distribution.
Sparkzilla has been unable to demonstrate that the publisher, Mr Devlin, nor the journalist in the other defamatory article are well-known in the journalistic field or indeed published in ANY reliable 3rd-party sources. Devlin himself doesn't even describe himself as a journalist. Neither can it be shown that the authors are experts, nor have any particular prominence or notability in the field of the article subject.
The campaign has many prominent supporters, including a Baroness, 6 Euro M.P.s, 2 members of the British Parliament, human rights groups and experts in the field. Does being the publisher of a free magazine in and of itself make one notable or prominent, and is it not necessary to establish this prominence or notability?
Of all the many media articles, since criticism of the case can only be found in Devlin's own publications, is it correct to represent them as reliable sources? Sorry to take up authoritative editors time. David Lyons 05:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The facts: Metropolis [11] is a free weekly magazine for Tokyo's international community. It is the largest English distribution magazine in Japan (as anyone who lives here knows). It is the only one that has its distribution certified by Japan's Audit Bureau of Circulation for 30,000 copies/week (120,000 copies/month). The magazine has been going for 12 years and currently publishes betwen 64 and 80 pages a week, some two-thirds of which are editorial. The magazine has published over 500 feature stories, hundreds of original celebrity interviews, hundreds of supporting features on arts, entertainment, travel, fashion and community and hundreds of editorials on all aspects of life in Japan. A archive of features can be found at http://metropolis.co.jp/tokyo/recent/archive_home.asp
In addition the articles about Baker were also published on Japan Today [12]], which is the world's largest site for discussion of Japan-related news and issues.
Baker's supporters were very happy when the magazine and websites publicized their cause. After the magazine turned against them, due to their misrepresentation of the facts of the case, they have are now trying to discredit the same source and its publisher. Sparkzilla 07:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Change to a criteria based guideline.

This guideline is very convoluted. It gives reasons why certain kinds of sources such as blogs and newsgroup posts should be rejected and seems unclear to me on whether there are exceptions or not. (It seems to me that when someone says they are rejecting a source because it is not from a reliable source there is often a better reason to reject it than the fact that it's self published or from the Internet.) Other parts of the guide seem to suggest there are exceptions.

Mostly the guide is divided by kinds of sources. Blog, wiki, newspaper, TV show, book, DVD etc. These distinctions are becoming less relevant as more items are published on multiple media.

To say a newspaper is a better source than an email mailing list as a blanket statement is wrong. When it comes to my life in an airplane I'll go with the concensus of experienced engineers on my rotary aviation engine mailing list before I would use information about aircraft engines from an article in my local newspaper written by a guy with a journalism degree. The only difference between a self published source and one published by a company is the creation of a company and that just means you registered with the proper authority.

If I start a publishing company, call myself an editor, and publish the contents of the rotary engine mailing list in a book does it suddenly become more reliable information?

Editorial oversight depends on how rigorous it is and if the editors know anything about the topic. Even well respected peer reviewed journals have printed retractions. Most wikipedians know about the comparisons of Wikipedia to EB. Even EB makes mistakes. My citation of an NPR story on the Avacado page got rejected because it was wrong.

I'm not saying we should open the flood gates and let everything in. I'm saying that we need to judge all sources using the the same logical set of criteria. The same criteria I use to judge my local newspaper article on rotary engines should be the same criteria I use to judge rotary engine information I find on my rotary engine mailing list. If we select logical criteria most blogs and other internet sources will still be rejected and most published sources will still be accepted, but we will have a good reason for letting in or rejecting each one. --Gbleem 14:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.
On a related note, I have yet to see this page actually used to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. It is invariably used by wikilawyers seeking to remove content from articles that they don't personally like. — Omegatron 14:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


The guideline suffers from an inherent tension between those who see reliability as a contextualised topic which requires consideration of the subject, the characteristics of the supporting material and how the supporting material is being used and those who like to simplify life into little tick boxes with a yes/ no answer. I'm in the former camp, but then I'm a knowledge management consultant working in the real world rather than academia.
As a result of that tension we had a guideline which turned into a bloated list of mutually contradictory specifics descending into increasingly detailed exception cases. Efforts to turn that into a slimmer, more useful guideline which could be used by a moderately well educated editor became undermined by efforts to introduce specific cases to ostensibly simplify things. Those simplifications lead to the discussions which you highlight as being flawed. They are flawed but the supporters of their inclusion now choose not to engage in discussion. Wiki-politics, doncha just love it.
I would suggest that the principles section in the early part of the guideline should be what's used by editors for discussion of sourcing. Taking a holistic view on the nature of a source allows one to judge it's reliability, considering; format, availability, authority etc. There is a bit of a problem with assuring identity in many cases and how representative a view actually is.
In terms of what you're suggesting, the criteria are there, but their value is significantly diluted by the fetish for specificity.
ALR 14:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if specificity is the right word. Criteria can be specific. I think maybe what people want are easy criteria like the checkboxes you mentioned. (Also, don't go lumping all the academics together.)--Gbleem 11:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
When the topic is information quality then the criteria can only be specific within a narrow coverage, the relative value of the various points varies according to the maturity and rate of change of the subject under consideration. To allude to my point below about Information Security, the pace of change is huge and there could be an argument for using a less stringent application of the guideline than in something such as the very mature extraction industry. Hence my preference for a flexible guideline which can be applied as required across a range of disciplines rather than a series of narrow sets of guidelines appropriate to topic areas which would be the inevitable result.
Whilst I agree that some would prefer that editorial thinking be taken away and be provided with a simple set of instructions, I'm not convinced that the route leads to high quality informaiton content in the encyclopedia. If we dumb down the process of what is essentially the creation of a knowledge product we commoditise and inevitably de-value it.
ALR 11:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
One problem is that the prohibition of blogs and other self-published sources comes from WP:V, which is a Wikipedia policy. We have to take policy into account writing guidelines. That said, there is a growing sense that this blaket prohibition is outdated, or at least incomplete ... That SOME blogs are acceptable and reliable, while others are not (at least for statements of opinion, if not statements of fact). However, there is still great debate over where to draw the line. It is an ongoing conversation and, as yet, no clear consensus has been established. Until such a consensus can be reached, we should follow policy and limit such sources.
I did a search of the policy page for blog and it mentions blogs once. It says, "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources," which is not a blanket statement. The policy also refers to this page. If you want to wait for a concensus then fine sit back and let me make some concensuseses. (What's the plural of consensus? Anyone, Anyone Bueller?, Bueller?) --Gbleem 11:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
THAT said... I think almost everyone agrees that such sources can be used when three specific conditions apply: 1) When the use of the source is not controvercial, and all editors to the article agree it is appropriate to use it. 2) When the source is being used to cite the opinion of the author, and is not being used to support a statement of fact. 3) When the author is a recognized expert in the subject matter.
My advice: if people object to the use of such a source, find out why they object ... often what is really being objected to is the the language and wording being used in the article, and not the source itself (for example, stating something as a fact backed by the source, as opposed to stating it as an opinion quoted from the source). State why you think the source is appropriate and be willing to compromise. But if there is stiff opposition to the source itself, don't use it. Blueboar 15:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I think usage of something like blogs does depends on how it's being used, and I'd be uncomfortable about blanket approval if the author is a recognised expert. Define recognised expert and how is that interpreted, at what point is ones expertise recognised? A CESG Listed Advisor (CLAS Consultant) is a recognised expert in the field of information security with an annual certification by CESG, but are we going to uncritically allow any old CLAS consultants blog to be used as a source? I'd hope not, get three of them in a room together and you've got four views on a problem.
I'm afraid I see it as part of the whole academia bias, just because someone is a professor doesn't make their espoused views accurate, but appropriately worded it can be used to demonstrate that it's a personal view espoused in the blog. The snag is that I'd see an uncontrolled usage as being interpreted by some to water down the citation requirement, rapidly turning blogs into reliable sources for whatever you wanted to say.
I have a more general concern about quality across Wikipedia, the guidelines are only really applied anything close to rigorously in contentious topics, where people are in violent agreement then we end up with extremely poor sourcing and support to arguments. but that's more a complete absence of information strategy in WP argument.
ALR 16:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-published articles on articles about themselves

I've been reviewing the article on Steven Hassan and I noticed that of 30 references, 24 of them are directly from his own website. Is it just me or does that raise a few flags re balance and/or notability? --Insider201283 15:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-published Editorial as a reliable source

I have searched through the project page but cannot seem to find a clear answer. Could one of the authorities here point me to the criterion that would make a self-published magazine editorial (which by definition makes it opinion) containing potentially libelous material used in a biography of a living person, a reliable source or not? Thank you kindly. David Lyons 17:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I would need more details to know if what you are talking about is an exception to the rule (and there are some) ... but in general the answer is "no" such sources are not considered reliable. You should probably pay close attention to WP:BLP. Blueboar 18:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Blueboar, David Lyons is referring to the "three questions" section above, where you answered that such content was acceptable.
The three questions again:
1.When a prominent supporter of a cause reverses position, do you think notablility trumps self-published source? And do you think their (self-published) reasons should be allowed onto the page?
2. Should an article that has important claims about the case be used as a source even though the publisher is a critic of the case?
3. Are clarification statements (and their supporting claims) made on a personal website usable as sources? :::Sparkzilla 00:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
As to the three questions... 1) Sometimes. 2) Usually. 3) Sometimes.
As they relate to the specific article in question... 1) yes, 2) yes, and 3) yes
Blueboar 01:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you clarify, and possibly have a look at the material in question (which has been fully cited) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Baker_%28chef%29#Criticism_of_Baker_and_the_Support_group Thank you. Sparkzilla 21:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah... I did not realize that we were still talking about the Metropolis editorial piece. This makes a difference. First, the source we are talking about is not "Self-Published" as we use the term. It is a print magazine (and a prominent one). Now, I do not think editorials should be used for citing statements of fact (especially in reguards to a living person), but they are certainly reliable for citing the opinion of the editor. Blueboar 23:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to harp on about this. Are they still reliable when they are not the opinion of the editor, but the publisher? Also, is an article and an opinion piece reliable when the including Wikipedia editor cannot show the authors (in this case, the Metropolis publisher in one article and a journalist in the other) are neither well-known experts a field related to the article topic - ie human rights, the Japanese criminal justice system et al, nor journalists with any articles in reliable 3rd-party publications? Thank you again for your time. David Lyons 00:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
You are going to have a hard time convincing anyone that the publisher of Japan's largest English-language magazine (with over 600 issues in a 12 year history), and the publisher of Japan's largest English news and current events discussion site is not 1. An expert on Japan-related issues 2. An expert on the Nick Baker case (Iris Baker confirms that he wrote a 30-page report on the case) and 3. A reliable source when giving his opinion that a support group that he worked with has misled him.
Also, please re-read question two above: Should an article that has important claims about the case be used as a source even though the publisher is a critic of the case? Answers: Usually, and as it relates to the specific article, yes. Sparkzilla 01:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What happens when two places say the opposite thing?

I've encountered two good examples of sources that are very much in conflict. In both cases, it is mostly websites (and sometimes an encyclopedia) versus a published book(s). One is German scientist Otto Wallach. The Jewish Encyclopedia as well as some other Jewish websites put him as being of Jewish origin. However, the publication Otto Wallach, 1847-1931 : Chemiker und Nobelpreistrager describe most of his and his family background and none are described to be Jewish. The book is the only one of its kind available to German resources. I have not found a book in English of Wallach. There are Lutherans and Catholics and others but no mention of Jewish relatives or converts from Judaism. Should Otto Wallach be continued to be categorized as a German Jew? What is the best way to go about solving this problem?

Along similar lines, a German mathematician Georg Cantor has many websites concluding him to be a German Jew, and even a few books, but several other books write "Cantor was not Jewish" so I am stumped as to what to do concerning these two Germans. The latter is looking to be very controversial judging from long arguments on the discussion pages but Wallach is a new conflict not dissected yet.

What to do? Should they be kept from the lists and categories because these conflicts exist? What can be judged as more reliable? Thank you.Mehmeda 00:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not up to us to determine if people are Jewish, Christian or Whatever... All we can do is report what other people say. State that there is debate on whether these men are Jewish or not. Present both sides of the debate in a NPOV manner, citing the sources (double check the websites, make sure that they are reliable, and not personal sites). As for the lists and categories... all of these should probably have a section for "debated" or something, where you can list people like this. Blueboar 14:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Age of publications and their reliablity

Are publications from pre-IIWW (1920s, for example) or even older (19th century) less reliable then modern ones? I think we should address those issues (for example, some time ago there was a large debate at Talk:Warsaw Uprising (1794)/Archive 1 about the fallacies of using 19th century Russian Empire source, which was eventually shown to contain quite a lot of false statements and a very POVed language.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is another case where there is no definitive answer. It will depend on the subject area and the specific topic. In some cases 19th and early 20th century sources are still considered definitive... in others they are outdated, superceded by more recent research. In your specific case, it sounds like there has been more recent scholarship that points out the errors of the earlier stuff. This does not mean that the older stuff is unreliable... but does make it less reliable. If some editors insist on including citations to the Russian Empire source, I would say it is OK to include it, but a paragraph would have to be included discussing where more recent scholarship has shown it to be wrong. As for the POV language... there is a difference between a source's POV language and an editor's POV language. Sources can be POV... editors should not be. Blueboar 17:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me chime in on this. I'm a historian in the real world, and one of my hot button issues is that people see nothing wrong with quoting a 19th century historian as an authority, without checking to find if their work has been superceded by late 20th and 21st century authors. If it were an article on astronomy or medicine, people wouldn't think of quoting outdated authors, but somehow there's an assumption that when writing history, an older source is somehow more authoritative. In a more cynical mood, I suspect people are more comfortable reading sources that confirm the POV they learned in school, and don't want to read recent research that challenges their beliefs. Maybe we need an Outdated sources template :) --SteveMcCluskey 00:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Blueboar: Editors generally are biased when there is room for bias. The hope is that they will recognise and try to write both sides, and work with any editors who have opposing biases. The editors are still biased, but it is hoped that the articles they write will eventually overcome that bias.
I do not know if modern authors have better information about what happened in history than historical authors. Something written at the time of the event is a primary source. In a primary source, the author knew what was going on, so in that sense it is more accurate. On the other hand, being involved, that same author probably has a strong bias, and see things from the perspective of the position they were in. In a worst case scenario, it could even have elements of propaganda. A later author has the opportunity to combine the viewpoints of the primary sources, and also get facts from other research. Of course, they do not have direct experience, so they can only be as accurate as their synthesis of the sources they look at. However, later authors are not immune from bias either, and will often end up on the side favoured in their time and place. My reccomendation is to treat anything known to be disagreed upon by multiple reliable sources as an opinion, not a fact.
— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 01:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In the real world, here we are at wikipedia. Here, at wikipedia, editors cite what they have. If what they have happens to be the Complete Peerage then they cite it. Granted that some of what it says has been superceded by better research, but it shouldn't really be wikipedians requirement to know or check that better research. Rather, it's the emergent property of mass-editing that does that. That is, another editor or another dozen come along, add their bits, modify something, and go on their way. The eventual result is an article like Anna Nicole Smith with 30 plus footnotes and a quite decent overview of her life, career and death. No one editor is responsible for it, we all are. Of course some articles are edited by a sole editor and perhaps aren't as good. But I certainly don't feel badly about creating an article from a 19th century work, or quoting one to enhance an article. Wjhonson 06:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Myspace

At the film article Iron Man, a user removed the usage of Myspace as a citation, saying that it was not a reliable source. Generally, I would agree, but the citation in question was a blog that belongs to the director, Jon Favreau. (The authenticity of the blog has been repeatedly confirmed.) I've also noticed that films have begun using Myspace, such as 300. Can Myspace be used as a reliable source if the blogger is confirmed as authentic? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Myspace has so many problems with authenticity that I think we need to say it is not a reliable source. This may change as time goes on, but for now... don't use it unless EVERYONE is agreed. The other problem is that blogs themselves are at least suspect, if not unreliable (the consensus is shifting to saying that some blogs may be reliable, but not yet firm.) So, I think you are out of luck on two counts. A blog on Myspace is currently still a double no-no. Blueboar 03:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all, the reason why blogs are generally not accepted as reliable sources is due to the likely amateur authorship of bloggers. Just because something is labeled a "blog" does not mean it should be dismissed entirely. Under Self-published sources, it says that blogs of people in their area of expertise (and have been credited as such) are generally acceptable. In this case, director Jon Favreau is authoritative in his field for the blog in question, as he is directing the film Iron Man. I am not suggesting that blog.myspace.com/hotchick112 should be acceptable for citing. There is a clear difference between an anonymous user sharing speculation and the credible reports by a director about his film. Why should a useful citation be dismissed just because it's a blog, and it's on MySpace? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Erik. MySpace is increasingly becoming a marketing tool and is essentially becoming a new form of press release. I may be wrong, but I believe noted comedian Dane Cook is a good example of an artist that uses this medium to communicate with his fans and gather an audience. Singer Darren Hayes does this as well. In the case of Hayes', there has been discussion about the using the source to support a trivia point that states "Hayes' frequently use MySpace to communicate with his fans." The blog is official and linked to at the artists' commercial website DarrenHayes.com. In addition, on of the entries of the blog at the myspace page states On November 19, Darren wrote on his myspace blog and among other things he said "I have become obsessed with MySpace...What am I going to do when I'm not recording and have to go out and earn a living?". That said, a few editors have removed the reference, stating that it violates policy. How does that make sense? I don't believe MySpace should be used as a source if it cites a random user, but if officiality can be confirmed, there is no reason it shouldn't be alowd. SERSeanCrane 05:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Erik. The problem is not Myspace (the venue). Anyone who is authoritative and otherwise a reputable source can publish on Myspace. The problem is the source, the author, and that it's a blog. Some blogs are pretty well researched, some are just daily blather, sometimes not substantiated with references. So each editor has to review each edit with judgement, not a policy but real thinking reasoning discerning judgement. Blitzing an EL just because a) it's on Myspace and b) it's a blog is IMHO bad judgement on two counts, you're using superficial criteria to make an evaluation. Review that linked-to material, then decide it's reliable. Clearly in the case of people who are involved with a subject (film director, band member) or a studio (30th century Fox's Myspace page on the Futurama movie), these are reputable, the trick is verifying that page is bona fide and note a spoof/hoax. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 07:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
the trick is verifying that page is bona fide and note a spoof/hoax. Given the registration process, identity assurance and absence of QA around myspace I'd say that really sums up the challenge of using it.ALR 07:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


I think you have two issues here, both of which make it difficult to baldly use Myspace without serious consideration of how you're going to represent what you're wanting to use from there. The first is that Myspace itself is being used as a marketing tool and as a result carries an inevitable bias. Marketing puff needs to be identified as such because it's inherently NPOV. The second point is that you want to use a blog, again that is subject to how you want to represent the information. Essentially you'd need to say in a blog dated xxxx, in the marketing puff for the film, yyyy said zzzz. Now that becomes quite clumsy.
Personally I would still steer clear of using it, particularly if there is something contetious that's being supported by it.
ALR 07:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's a challenge to verify whether blogs (on and off Myspace) are authentic. Wikipedia is not going to take a hit of false verifiability as a result of criteria-meeting Myspace blogs being cited in the relevant articles. I understand hesitation of using blogs and Myspace pages due to the general nature of unreliability, but there are definitely exceptions. If a film director said that the film was influenced by so-and-so in a blog entry, that should be acceptable for citation on the film's article. I agree with what David said; it should be about judgment calls. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I think if you look at pretty much every opinion I voice in this area you'll find that I suggest that it's a judgement call. Before posting this question did you actually read the guidance on this article page? All the material early in the article is about judgement, the latter stuff is risk averse bullsh!t put in by someone else because moving from hard rules to judgement was too much to bear. Read through the whole talk page and you'll see a number of examples of how these things could be cited whilst remaining compliant with the guideline. And fwiw assuring the authenticity of a blog is challenging for a number of the reasons outlined in the guideline, read and inwardly digest, then make an assessment and include the material in an appropriate manner if you think you can.ALR 08:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I brought up the specific issue because of the user mass-deleting citations of blog.myspace.com without looking at them closely. He was a prominent editor, and I had discussed the situation to him. He had been adamant on not supporting Myspace blogs as reliable sources. Thus, I had decided to bring it up here, though I did not take the time to review the talk page, and I apologize for the redundancy of this discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 08:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to apologise, you can get guidance here in how to apply the guideline, but if it comes down to it then you'll need to go through dispute resolution. Using sources appropriately isn't straightforward, particularly where there is a question over persistence, which is my biggest concern about myspace and blogs. It is achievable though. All the best with it.ALR 08:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Blogs can certainly be appropriate for things like the director of a film or TV show, that's pretty common. If the blog is a general one by the person, it should probably only be linked from their page. If the blog is soley about a particular topic (movie, etc) then I don't see any reason not to link it from that topic. Nowadays, there are plenty of official blogs and myspace pages for pop culture items, for example multiple blogs done by cast members of The Office. In many cases there's no question that they are official if they are linked from an official studio website or mentioned in advertising. As for POV/advertising, I think official blogs fall under the same criteria as other official sites. Obviously the official website for a product isn't going to have a neutral POV, but we still link to it because it's the official site. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It's now blacklisted on the spam filter. I'm not sure what to make of that; I found out when trying to reference an upcoming album's first single and track list that hasn't been announced anywhere but the musisican's myspace blog. Jkelly 18:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Altho it's difficult and looks absurd, you don't necessarily need to include an external link when making a citation to a website. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that a workaround to this Wikipedia-harmful policy is to only include most of the URL in the reference... remove the "http://" from the beginning of the URL, and then the blacklist filter will not be invoked. For example, to refer to Weird Al Yankovic's official blog, you could include this in your reference:
blog.myspace.com/weirdal
It's an annoyance to the reader to have to copy and paste the URL, but at least it lets you cite your reliable sources, even though Wikipedia tries to stand in your way of doing so. --ΨΦorg 11:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment (Blog as source for Barrington Hall graffiti)

An editor at Barrington Hall wants to include a small list of graffiti found at Barrington Hall. The information has been in the article for quite a while, but with no source. Fine... I made a request for a source for the information. Well, a source was provided: the sidebar of a blog started today, created only a short time before it was cited as a source.

The blog and the editor who wants to include it infer that it's owned by "Jane Dark," (apparently a journalist and blogger). However, (as of 1/15/07, 10:25PST) I'm not finding any note of it on Jane's blog.

My take on it is that the link is unreliable for a few reasons (in no particular order)...

  1. The blog may not actually be connected to Jane Dark
  2. It's a self-published source.
  3. If it is, Jane Dark isn't a recognised expert on 70s/80s Berkeley dorm graffiti. (Seems she primarily writes about music in the Village Voice)
  4. The timing and exact match nearly exact match to the list in the article suggests to me that the source of the information is wikipedia. (and wikipedia is not a reliable source)

I'd appreciate third/fourth opinions. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: Barrington Hall was not a "dorm." It is clearly identified in the article as a co-op, which was part of the University Students Cooperative Association, which is part of a national nonprofit organizaton of housing cooperatives. The fact that it was a co-op is perhaps its most defining characteristic, and is mentioned in the first sentence. All of the references clearly explain--and emphasize--the difference between a dorm and a co-op. (Dorms are managed; services are provided. Co-ops run themselves.)-Cindery 08:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • additional note: the article also clearly states that "graffiti was a tradition which began in the 80s" (hence there was no graffiti in the 70s for anyone to be an expert about...)
I invited J.Smith to learn more about the subject of the article by reading it, beginning with "notable residents." One of them is well-known as Jane Dark. The list, moreover (not that it matters) is not a complete match, as the following are not included at the Barrington Hall article:

"All across my nation, my people are dying. Dying to get stoned. Bong hits for Namibia."

and

"I think therefore I am. I'm punk therefore I slam. I'm pink therefore I'm Spam."

-Cindery 06:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindery, I do not appreciate your combative condescending tone. The burden of evidence is on you. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no opinion of your subjective assessment of my tone, but I do note that it is 1) your opinion 2) not AGF.-Cindery 07:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
If there is some way, for an arbitrary editor, to confirm that a blog is indeed owned by a person who is otherwise considered a reliable source, in their area of expertise, then yes it could be acceptable. Blogs are also acceptable, when writen by person x, in the article or articles about that person x themselves, or their body of work. In other words, there are "outs" if you will, which are described on RS and V. If the contention that Jane is herself a reliable source, and a journalist, and that the blog is owned by her, can be substantiated, that would bring you much closer to a useable source here. You're not there yet however. Wjhonson 07:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
This is included in the brief article about one of the people on the very short list of "notable Barrington residents": http://www.poets.org/poet.php/prmPID/240 Cindery 07:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's original research, it's not important, breaches the undue weight of the WP:NPOV policy and is unverifiable, since the source does not pre-date the inclusion on Wikipedia. The source used may have sourced from Wikipedia. Given those three policy breaches, remove it. Hiding Talk 10:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The source was a resident of Barrington Hall, and he is a "frequent contributor to the New York Times," and a prestigious poet. That makes him 1) the highest level of a reliable source in general, and 2) about Barrington Hall. As pointed out on Talk: Barrington Hall, it is completely irrelevant when it was published. It could be published in 2014, and from a reliable source who is also a reliable source about Barrington, it would still be completely valid--date of publication is totally irrelevant to RS. A documentary could be made, or article written, long after events occur--they generally are. As graffiti was a significant phenomenon in Barrington, it is highly relevant. Sorry, you're just wrong on all counts.-Cindery 11:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's certainly your opinion, but doesn't address the fact that the heading of the section violates WP:NOR, the source doesn't predate the information, and that fact is quite important, and it doesn't fit with our policy on writing from a WP:NPOV, since it presents this graffiti in the article with an undue weight. And please, let's not bandy about phrases such as "the highest level of a reliable source in general", otherwise I shall edit our article on the Moon to reflect the postings of the man in the moon. Sorry, policy is quite clear on all three counts. Hiding Talk 12:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the date of the blog, how do we know that that blog is really who it claims to be? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
How do you know it's not? (And frankly, why would anyone dispute such a thing, unless they were looking for unnecessary disputes?) I believe that Jane would certainly immediately complain if anyone impersonated www.janedark.com. My understanding of "jane's bonus sugar," is that it's a subpage maintained by Jane for interviewing Barringtonians, including himself, about the most important graffiti they recall, which can be added to--as initial interviews were not comprehensive. The problem here, I think, is that an editor who knows nothing about this subject, has no real interest in editing the article (and has a well-documented unrelated grudge) is frustrated that a Barringtonian is also a widely published journalist and author, with the ability to publish a blog as a reliable source at will. I think it's possible Jane Dark may have noticed the request for a source, and decided to provide one. And there's nothing wrong with that, as Jane is a widely published journalist, and is also an "expert" on the subject of Barrington. As a poet, Jane is an established authority on language (I recommend the essay on "language poetry,"called "The Rose of the Name," [13] also at poets.org). As a music journalist, Jane seems particularly fascinated by song lyrics and metrics. It seems obvious that Jane would also find graffiti interesting enough to write about, as it is a sort of curious hybrid of language poetry and pop song lyrics. And: flarf. But, any number of established writers could interview Barringtonians, including themselves, about the most significant graffiti they recall, and publish it tomorrow. Would you like the graffiti section to have 5, or 10, or 20 citations? I think that would be absurd; one is enough. But since these graffitos did exist and are recalled as significant by a large number of people (some of them members of the press, many with access to members of the press) I expect that a) it could happen b) it's likely to happen, from now until eternity. There's a lot of press about Barrington in the 80s, and all of it mentions graffiti. I'm not even sure that the specific graffitos in question are not already documented by the press.-Cindery 19:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question. How do you know it really is her blog? Particularly when it is brand new, with practically no content. Is it linked from janedark.com? How did you even find "jane's bonus sugar", or come to know what the intent of it is? While it's possible that the real Jane Dark may be aware of the article and may have posted info in an attempt to create a source, I don't see why she would start a brand new blog just for that instead of just doing it on her already existing blog. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Because I know Jane: [14]

First, I don't see where in that link there's any mention of Jane much less anything indicating you know Jane. Second, even if you do know her, your word isn't good enough to make it a reliable source. Third, if you know the person, you probably shouldn't be the one linking to her blog since that's a potential conflict of interest. Fourth, if you know her, it makes it look even more suspicious that this "source" appeared right when you happened to need it for an article you are obviously invested in. If you really do know this person, have her link to the new blog from her old one, that would at least confirm that the two are affiliated. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
(EC)OK, how do we know it's really his blog then? I'd feel a lot more comfortable with everything if janedark.com had some kind of official connection with this bonus sugar.
"Would you like the graffiti section to have 5, or 10, or 20 citations?" As many as it takes for it to pass WP:V.
Slightly related comment: Why does Joshua Clover's article not mention anything about Jane Dark? Your saying they are the same person, right? )http://www.flim.com/spareroom/joshua_clover_cynthia_kimball.html film.com seems to agree])---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
How about taking this conversion over to the talk pages of the relevant articles? Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 20:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. Also, you're not reading carefully, Milo. This is directly above: This is included in the brief article about one of the people on the very short list of "notable Barrington residents": http://www.poets.org/poet.php/prmPID/240 Cindery 07:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)-Cindery 20:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
So the point of linking that article was so that I'd know that Jane Dark is really Joshua Clover? That's pretty obscure. And it still is completely irrelevant in terms of demonstrating that the moresugar blog is the real deal. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not at all "obscure"--it's noted by the Academy of American Poets, in the JC article. It's also not obscure to anyone who has read the brief "notable Barrington residents" section of the brief Barrington article. I think you need grounds to contest that "bonus sugar" is an offshoot of "sugarhigh," and that you should bring it to the talkpage of the article.-Cindery 21:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I meant your way of trying to get a point across was obscure, not the page or the person. As far as I can tell it's still irrelevant in terms of determining whether that blog is a reliable source. And I have brought it up on the other talk page. I look forward to seeing some sort of evidence that the blog is real. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman, I made the request here because we were at an impasse and I wanted to solicit outside opinions. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
There was no "impasse"--J.Smith immediately brought this here after a brief exchange with me, without waiting for discussion at Barrington Hall, before any regular editors had an opportunity to join the discussion. He is not a regular editor at Barrington Hall, and ignored my friendly invitation to learn more about the subject.-Cindery 20:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Your "friendly inventation" came off as more like "fuck off, mind your own busness and stay out of my article untill your as smart as me." Thats why I brought it here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
J.S. -- Please assume the best of people. I can see you are angry, but usually I feel much better after a little fresh air and time to think. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 23:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I do assume the best in people. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Your translation of your own erroneous assumptions into a profane hypothetical quote isn't just a failure of AGF, it's an extreme example of compounded AGF failure.-Cindery 23:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, you've always treat me with contempt. You've insulted me multiple times. However, I'm trying to work with you on Barrington Hall... to provide a technical expertise to compliment your knowledge of the subject... but you keep blowing me off at every sugustion and recomendation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Try to remember to keep a cool head, and to comment on content, not the contributor. You're voicing a lot of false and unhelpful negative opinions. Maybe you should take a little break?-Cindery 00:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm cool as a cucumber. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I have never seen a cucumber take offense, or feel "insulted," by anything.-Cindery 01:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK folks... take it elsewhere. It is obvious that neither side in this little debate is willing to listen to what the other is saying, or to what we here have been saying. No point in continuing to argue. Blueboar 02:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition - self published only if the author's identity is certain

I'd like to propose an addition to "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." I suggest "...so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications and it is certain that the author actually wrote that material." As it stands right now, if someone put material online with an expert's name on it, this guideline could be interpreted as allowing it since it makes no mention of knowing whether the expert in question really wrote it (particularly in regard to things like blogs or message postings). --Milo H Minderbinder 22:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If someone put something online with an expert's name on it, I doubt it would be considered a "credible, third-party publication". Blueboar 23:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
"...so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications and there is no doubt that the expert is the one self-publishing the new material." Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 23:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I like that beter than my version. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Works for me too. Blueboar 23:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I donno, it seems like instruction creep to me. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The existing guideline says "When a well-known, professional researcher…or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material…" so the editor adding the material has some obligation to stablish that the reseacher or journalist has indeed published the material. The new wording would require certainty. But neither provides any definite guidance as to how thorough the editor must about who published the material. If no definite guidance is going to be added, I'd just leave the policy as it is.
I also think it may be just as well that there is no definite guidance, because I think it would be nearly impossible to anticipate every situation. --Gerry Ashton 23:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I agree. There is no way for Wikipedia to verify authorship of external websites. Common sense and the weight of available evidence --other sources, the author's uncontested claim to be the author--should determine assumptions about authorship identity, as only assumptions can be made. This would also pose a huge retroactive problem--how to verify the authorship identity of all blogs already cited in Wikipedia?-Cindery 23:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Even with material published by a reliable publishing house, we need to be certain that the material is actually published by that organization, we are using an accurate copy, that the author is properly identified and so on. This is just ordinary due diligence. If there is doubt about the origin of the source, then there is doubt about the premises on which any determination under this guideline can be made. If there is doubt about the premises, no conclusion based on those premises can be sound. This applies to all possible policies and guidelines, and even to IAR. Why make the point specifically here? Robert A.West (Talk) 23:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
But what about the case of an online blog of an expert? If it is not known to be their blog and have had a different blog in the past? In this situation, using the comments of those who don't support a change, it would mean that the blog would be acceptable to include so long as we trusted that editor - which is completely wrong and against our verifiability policy.
We need some form of qualification of that such as adding and it is beyond reasonable doubt that it is the expert publishing the material - this uses the wording of the law in the UK to help it - which whilst doesn't demand 100% proof, does require some form of evidence be available to show its authenticity can be traced.-Localzuk(talk) 00:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, what do you propose should be the standard for determing that an author is really an author? In the absence of any criteria, nobody is the author of their blog, if there is no established criteria by which to establish authorship. Since Wikipedia cannot "verify" the authorship of external sites, it seems that the default is already "weight of the evidence"?-Cindery 03:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, having some evidence to back up authorship for a website - such as another reliable source confirming it, or if an offline source then it coming from a publisher or having a way of confirming its authenticity.
Yes, the default as it stands is 'the weight of evidence' but as that stands it doesn't seem to be enough for some editors, such as yourself.-Localzuk(talk) 07:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, I agree that such an addition is unnecessary and already covered by RS and other policies. I don't agree that wikipedia can't know the authorship of a blog - if a blog is not self published, if it's published by a source we consider reliable, we can trust that the author credited wrote it. I'd say the same goes for blogs hosted on or linked from official sites. It's true that there are many blogs which we can't confirm the author...which is exactly why they can't be used as reliable sources. The burden of proof is on the source, if we don't know that it's reliable we can't use it. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm confused--all blogs are self-published. That's the definition of a blog. When you say "if it's published by a source we consider reliable," you mean an expert writing in his or her field, or a professional journalist, right? Can you give examples of "many blogs which we can't confirm the author"? It seems like you're saying that "if it's published by a source we consider reliable, we can trust that the author credited wrote it," but also "there are many blogs which we can't confirm the author"--which seems contradictory. Or when you say "there are many blogs which we can't confrim the author," are you referring to blogs not written by reliable sources?-Cindery 20:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm refering to blogs published by newspapers or other media outlets on their websites. If the New York Times publishes a blog by David Pogue, I consider the New York Times to be a reliable source and trust that it is actually written by David Pogue. We can be sure of the authorship of some blogs but not others. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
If the NYT or IFC publishes a blog, it's not self-published by the author: it's published by the NYT or IFC. The RS exception for self-published material is that the author has been published by credible third party publications, or is an expert in their field. -Cindery 20:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree with both of those statements...with the caveat that material that meets the self publishing exception still must meet the rest of RS - "the author has been published by credible third party publications" isn't a free pass to ignore the rest of the guideline. And if we're not certain of the authorship of material, we can't be sure that the author has been published by credible third party publications. I don't think editors ever have an obligation to include self published material as a source for an article, the guideline still advises against it and the exception only says that it's a possibility. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The guideline qualifies "may" specifically with "published by credible publications." I believe this serves to make a distinction between the 60 million unknown bloggers, and the slim minority who are professional journalists. If they identify themselves in their self-published material, they put their professional reps on the line--that's why they have a different level of credibility. But, what does this have to do with your proposed amendment regarding establishing identity?-Cindery 21:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I have already withdrawn my proposal for an addition since doubt about identity is already adequately covered. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Breaking down reliable sourcing

With some recent AfDs and discussion at the mailing list, we need to start talking about breaking apart this guideline into something more workable for specific subjects. For instance, what constitutes a "reliable source" for webcomics or music would not be the same as what would constitute a "reliable source" for history or science. If we're expecting our sourcing to reflect reality, we need to better judge our sources in the basis of what they're sourcing. Thus, it means that we need to not worry as much about self-published sources for certain types of entertainment, while being more aggressive regarding accurate and reliable sourcing for controversial and "academic" subjects. Initial thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-published sources on entertainment are, mostly, divided into self-serving publicity and poorly-written fancruft. Neither are likely to improve Wikipedia. Being less vigilant about sourcing for entertainment articles than for other articles makes sense only if one considers articles on popular culture unimportant. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Got evidence of that? I can think of a number of highly useful self-published sources for many entertainment mediums that are not considered "reliable" here, for example. Obviously, discussions on whether a source is viable/valuable would occur within the articles, as they do now - breaking things down to a clearer, more reasonable guideline for subjects would make that easier, instead of applying scientific standards to indie rock music articles, for instance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I disagree that "self published sources on entertainment are mostly divided into self-serving publicity and poorly-written fancruft." In the case of film, for example, the number of individual self-publishing legit critics who publish online has exploded exponentially in the last few years. Self-published film critcs are accredited by prestigious film festivals. (Press accreditation by top tier and even second tier film festivals is not a snap to obtain.) One of the best--if not the best--independent film magazines in the US is only self-published online, and is not a web version of a paper print publication. There are indie film blogs which self-publish multiple authors, like Reverse Shot. That's just one category under the "entertainment" umbrella. (There are at least 20 self-published film news blogs in NYC which "matter," and they matter more than weekly/monthly print pubs because they can publish daily, thanks to the economics of web publishing...)-Cindery 03:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Anybody remember Erich von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods? He presented "evidence" that many aspects our civilication were planted by ancient extraterrestrials. When he was called to task about some of his "evidence" being bogus, he (as nearly as I can remember) said it was a popular book written for entertainment purposes, and he couldn't be expected to uphold the standards of a scholarly publication.
My point is that if different standards are created for different fields, people can still try to peddle their trash by claiming the article belongs to one of the more lenient fields, rather than one of the stricter fields. --Gerry Ashton 05:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
But why would we be okay with using such a publication in that field for an article anyway? I'm not sure where you're coming from with this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Response to BDJ -- My evidence is thirty-odd years of experience with self-published materials, fifteen of them on the Web. Yes, there is good material out there, but it is embedded in a mass of dreck. There are existing exceptions for self-published material by professionals working in their own fields -- what is your evidence that the current policy/guidelines don't work? Robert A.West (Talk) 06:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Because, as it stands, self-published sources are not acceptable as a general rule. Some of the best news on entertainment subjects, for example, comes from blogs and self-published material these days. I was a history major in college, so I'm not completely inexperienced in research, and even with non-self-published reference material, a lot of it is "a mass of dreck." My point being is that reliable sourcing isn't a one-size-fits-all ideal, yet we continue to treat it as such. It can use a full overhaul to make sure we're using the proper sources on all articles instead of expecting that what's proper for an article on the Arctic Circle is proper for an article on the Arctic Monkeys. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Response to Cindery -- From what I see, Reverse Shot is not self-published. It has editors and a staff of writers, and even the blog entries appear to be from vetted contributors. You seem to be confusing web-published with self-published. The medium is not the key. Whether the material is subject to meaningful review and control is. Does someone other than the author, and with something to lose and with a decent reputation, stand behind the material? Is there someone who holds the author accountable? These are the questions, not whether there is a paper edition. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Well said! Can we make this explicit in the page because this issue is often confused in AfD debates. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 14:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I think trying to expand the rules every time we have a bit of controversy is not a good idea. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what's wrong with this page. — Omegatron 16:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The point is trying to end the controversy by making our reliable source guideline sensible, as opposed to a one-size-fits-all thing, when one-size-fits-all isn't beneficial. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
This page used to contain several subject specific comments and exceptions. They were a contant subject of debate and revision. Editors who kept adding and changing the guidelines to fit with their desires and interpretation of what was reliable. No consensus could be reached. We specifically moved away from this approach in the recent revision of the guideline. The idea was to get away from a "rules based" guideline and present a more broad sweep "advice based" one... ie to give advice that would help editors determine what constitutes a reliable source themselves. If the consensus of those who regularly edit articles relating to a particular subject area (science, history, pop-culture, etc.) is that a type of source should be considered reliable, then it should be... if not, then it should not be. That should be determined on the project pages for each discipline. Blueboar 16:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


Reverse Shot has no office, no factchecking staff, etc.--they "self-publish" themselves. They are all indie film professionals who don't publish elsewhere, for the most part. (And yet Reverse Shot is agreed to be a credible source, and is regularly cited by Filmmaker Magazine, Indiewire, etc.) But Reverse Shot was noted as an exception, because it has multiple parties/not a single person publishing. The Reeler would be an example of a self-published blog. And Anna Karenina's Sweater. Some of the film bloggers "launch" themselves into journalism via blogging, and on the way become credible sources via blogging. There are areas in entertainment publishing in which "the blogosphere" should be noted. Certainly no one who works in the media ignores "unknown" blogs--that's where big cheese editors of the slicks fish for new freshman freelancers, instead of perusing college newspapers. Blogs are now "clips." Gawker is an example of the "new" entertainment news blog--compare launch and staff of Gawker to Salon. Gawker was launched in an unknown's apartment on East 10th St, and quickly became news. The idea that they have a factchecking staff is pretty funny. Salon launched with venture capital and a Rolling Stone veteran, etc. In avant-garde poetry, the blogosphere rules. Note Jim Behrle (whose cartoons have now been published repeatedly by Gawker...) And Cahiers du Corey. I can't keep track of how entangled all the crosslinks between blogs in different entertainment fields are--that in itself is a phenomenon. (I think Jim and Corey only publish poetry elsewhere, not journalism.) I don't know much about webcomics, but I do know notable, ten year old strips self-publish online--like www.slowwave.com. There is no editor, no factchecker. That's completely new--the concept of an established self-published webcomic. I think badlydrawnjeff has a point that should be further discussed, at least. A great deal has changed in the last ten years in self-publishing, especially in "entertainment."-Cindery 20:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Cindery addresses several distinct issues. I'll try to answer in sequence.
  1. Manifestly, Reverse Shot has managers/editors who are selective about who writes and who don't write the majority of the material. It does not appear that the writers spend much time writing about their own stuff. That means that Reverse Shot does not fit the definition of self-published.
  2. Existence of a fact-checking staff is only one of the factors to consider, not a sine qua non. The fact that a source is regularly cited by unquestionably-reliable source strongly argues for its reliability. Where Reverse Shot falls is a question of fact that can't be worked out like a formula.
  3. I get that some bloggers are journalists-in-training. Wikipedia is not a journalistic scout -- we need to wait for the judgment of a "big cheese editor" to tell us which ones are good. Otherwise, we are just taking some Wikipedian's opinion about who is worthwhile.
  4. Self-publication of poetry or webcomix is beside the point, unless you want to use them as primary sources on articles about themselves, in which case there is no objection under current policy/guidelines.
  5. A great deal has changed in the past ten years. Mostly, it is now easier than ever for someone, anyone, to publish their ideas in a way that looks great. Some of the resulting stuff is terrific, some is terrible.
We need some way other than "I like this source" to determine which ones are which; otherwise, Badlydrawnjeff will add his favorite blogs, then Wellpaintedmike will come along and replace them with his favorite blogs, and both will claim that "everyone who counts knows these are the real blogs," and we will just get nowhere. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
What I think you're not addressing is the overall point that: something has changed, and Wiki RS guideline doesn't reflect that. In the case of The Reeler, for example, Van Airsdale was ackowledged as a reliable source in the industry as a blogger before he went to the Movie City News (but it is true that being considered a reliable source as a blogger, getting press accreditation, etc is what got him a gig at Movie City News). It's not just that the new editorial pool is blogs, but that the blogs ref/acknowledge each other and matter before print media acknowledges them --print media lags behind blogs in some respects. The way to check out the significance of a blog is to see what other blogs are saying about it, do they link to it, etc. (For The Reeler, the question would be is it linked by Indiewire.) If the blogger has a press pass, that means something. If the blog is linked by established blogs, that means something. The NYT mention of the guy's blog may come 2 years after he's left the blog to write for Movie City News: post facto. (I still don't think you completely get Reverse Shot--they would fail WP:RS because they're industry, not journalists. They don't publish in "credible third party publications." They're all "editors"--it's a self-publishing "collective" a group blog.) I'm happy to see that you've adjusted your bias from "they are mostly fancruft" to "some of the resulting stuff is terrific." I think the gray area that should be discussed more is how the blogs reference each other. In discerning a significant blog from an insignificant blog in "real life":-) linkage is key (as well as knowledge of the in subject and who writes about it.) There's also good writing and style, etc (which is why anyone would get a press pass, be linked by other more established blogs). I agree that questions of "good writing" and "style" (though discernible) are subjective/ILIKEIT for the purpose of a guideline--but I think the blogs referencing each other + "this arguably meets an industry standard" is not all that subjective. Wikipedia could choose not to acknowledge that, but there's no reason not to discuss it.-Cindery 08:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Bloggers often watch and comment on each other. The "A" List bloggers are the ones who get mentioned over and over again. If they say something stupid, they will immediately be "called out" by other bloggers and be forced either retract or substantiate their claims. "A" List bloggers ought to be considered reliable sources because they are just as reliable (and often more reliable) than newspaper or magazine columnists. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 14:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Any blogger who is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page is an "A" List blogger. Here's one: Robert Scoble. These are reliable sources within their areas of expertise. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 14:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I would very much disagree with that statement. There are a lot of "B" and "C" list people (in any category) who have articl es. Notability does not equate with expertiese or reliability. Blueboar 15:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And if every living person who has an article were notable, AfD would have much less to do. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for expertise; the presence of an article is an even less reliable indicator. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Blueboar, and would point out the corollary that a person who has no Wikipedia article, and is not notable enough to get one, can still have an blog that is a reliable source, if the blog can be reliably connected to the person and the person's office. In particular, government officers are sometimes reliable sources for the official government position on an issue, by virture of their office, no matter how obsure the individual may be. --Gerry Ashton 20:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Well... on that example, I would want to know that the official was posting his blog as an official, and that the blog was hosted on or linked by the government department's website. His own personal blog is less reliable. If verifiable to him, it might be reliable as to his opinion on issues, but definitly not for fact. Blueboar 20:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This has gotten away from what I think was a valid point: that blogs reference each other, and that's how we can gauge how much they matter. A little blog's first notice is from a bigger blog, etc. (The people don't have to be notable; the blogs do.) Here is hopefully a humorous example. It's easy to look at this little blog, and say, "it's a matter of taste. And very bad taste, at that":[15] But this bigger blog likes it: [16]. If Doonesbury were started today, it would be on a blog, not a newspaper. And bigger blogs would start reprinting/carrying it/linking to it... -Cindery 03:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The blog world is shifting as we type... but for the moment, print media rules. so... as a first criteria for a blog to be acceptable, I would say that it must be regarded as a reliable source in the reliable print media of it's subject field. We have not yet gotten to acceptable blog references smaller less reliable blog yet... it may come in time, but RS consensus is still biased towards print and wary of blogs in general. Be patient. Blueboar 04:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that was Jeff's point: in some areas of entertainment media, print no longer rules (and Wikipedia is behind the times in acknowledging that). As I said above, I'm not advocating for a change so much as seconding the call for discussion. The standards and mediums for what is considered a reliable source in webcomics are very different from what is a reliable source in rocket science, after all. :-)-Cindery 05:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe to add clarity: the line isn't "print," even for print--the line is recognition. (Who recognizes the source as legit. And what does legit mean in entertainment in contrast to genetics or rocket science?)-Cindery 05:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
My point, exactly. How are we supposed to tell the good blogs from the bad without relying on some Wikipedian's original research? Print media are relatively stable, and the costs of entry are high enough that most sources are either reliable (within their fields) or flagrantly unreliable. Moreover, one generally doesn't need to be an expert in a particular field to understand which is which. Not so with blogs. The field shifts rapidly, only the cognoscienti are up on it, and this year's hot blog could be forgoten three years hence, so how will anyone verify reliability in the future? It is a shame to exclude worthwhile voices, but I would rather do that than open the floodgates. Until I understand how we are going to know which blogs are reliable, I have to presume them all (with narrow exceptions) unreliable. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Would you be willing to help figure it out? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
In my copious spare time? If I can be of help, I will. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Undent* Source-based research is not original research. Original research does not mean "I read a blog which said this and another blog said that." That is source-based research. Original research involves the creation of statements, not merely finding them somewhere. Also trivial analysis is not original research. Wjhonson 19:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


I'd generally agree that more granularity around reliability would be useful across the range of topics that are covered. Clearly some areas have a well established approach to sourcing, history for example, whilst others are both less rigorous with respect to sourcing and probably have fewer sources which meet the reliability criteria.
In parallel with that the current RS guideline does need more work, some of the improvements were undone by a rather unthinking paste in of legacy material.
In terms of approaching the issue I see three possible approaches; blob up everything in one guideline, a number of different guidelines dependent on topic or an overarching guideline with a range of topic specific subordinates. In my view:
  • Blobbing up: Leads to a bloated and potentially mutually contradictory set of guidelines. We end up in the situation where RS was before a radical rethink. This approach might seem attractive because we minimise the amount of guidance but in practical terms it can easily become too long to comfortably read or become vague and lack real direction, being filled with bland platitudes and hoping that people will not seek to abuse it.
  • Collection of topic specific guidelines: This could work since it would address the needs of various topics, more mature topic areas would be quite straightforward because there is an established corpus of research guidance available which can be chosen from as appropriate. Less mature topics would be more contentious and probably need quite a lot of development. Noting the discussion above about determining Blog reliability, similarly other media, such as ephemera, may become more important in these areas. I think this could work, but given that much of the reliability material is common we end up with a lot of duplication, configuration management issues across the guidance and the risk of some guidance becoming so diluted that it becomes useless. Managing that could become a challenge.
  • Overarching guidance with topic subordinates: This would gather the common material in a parent guideline with topic specific material being included in daughter guidelines as appropriate. Similar challenges in terms of identifying appropriate standards to apply to some topic areas but I'd suggest that it deals with the configuration management issue. This would be my preferred route.
Clearly one of the issues we'd have with topic based sourcing guidance would be the effort from some editors to argue an article into a less rigorous topic area in an effort to force dubious material in. This can reasonably be dealt with under existing dispute resolution processes.
Notwithstanding all of that, this was a subject I tried to address by chopping the topic specific material out into a daughter page, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples which I made a start on. It's the kind of thing which could be built on. I did ask at the time for some help with it, particularly in the areas outside my core disciplines, but that's not been particularly forthcoming, appreciating that people are busy developing the encyclopedia and other initiatives are also ongoing.
In addition what seems to be coming through in the questions being asked since the major re-work of the guidance are more related to usage of sources rather than their inherent reliability or not. I think this more reasonably reflects the nature of sourcing however it may be appropriate to include some information about usage either in the guidance or in a related article; an essay perhaps.
ALR 19:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous staffers

A new change to the guideline page had said that signed articles are preferable to unsigned articles. That much seems fine to me. But then it went on to say that "anonymous staffers rarely have sufficient expertise". Or something to that effect. I object to that. It appears to be a way to open to door to not allow any citation to an article appearing in say "USA Today" if it's unsigned. The conflicting editor can simply say "they don't have expertise" regardless of the fact that USA Today is putting the weight of their own independent authority behind the article. This added sentence to me is unnecessary. Wjhonson 17:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree... The simple statement that signed things are more reliable than unsigned is good (they are)... the rest is iffy. Given that the big discussion going on at the time of the edit related to blogs, I suspect that the underlying issue is what to do about unsigned (staff written) blogs. Blueboar 17:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't have a problem adding a clause that unsigned blogs are very poor sources since they can't be determined to have been writen by an authority. I just don't want to extend to the more vague term "articles" which could cover the Encyclopedia Brittanica as well which has many unsigned articles (in fact probably the majority), and in-and-of itself could probably, in that case, be likened to a newspaper with a chief editor and lots of contributors. Wjhonson 18:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe that this point was added by one of our resident historians when discussing the proper use of Tertiary sources: "Articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica and similar encyclopedias can be regarded as reliable secondary sources. (Unsigned articles, and those signed 'X.' are not written by experts and are less reliable.)" Robert A.West (Talk) 18:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I would strenuously object to any attempt to denigrate any article in EB to the point where a conflicting editor can claim that that article is not an RS. Wjhonson 18:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out. I have removed the opinion that unsigned articles in teritary sources are not writen by experts. Such an extreme view needs a citation. Wjhonson 18:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
As a side note: I do love the EB articles that ARE signed, however... especially those in the early editions. They had some really amazing people editing for them in those days, and its fun to see who wrote what! Blueboar 18:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
And the 1911 Britannica is suitably famous for them; but many of them do what all too many Wikipedia's editors do: deliver a personal essay, telling them all how it is. They didn't have a policy against this; we do. (For good reasons; readers would be interested in notable contributors explanations, even if they checked many of them elsewhere.) Swinburne's article is a reliable source for Swinburne's opinions. Calling it a more reliable source on Elizabethan drama (although he was an expert) is -er- doubtful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the above opinion. That some of the articles in the 1911 Britannica are "...personal essay[ies], telling them [us] how it is." is an opinion, which needs a citation to back it up. Wjhonson 19:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Which is why attribution is always encouraged. Saying "According to the entry on Henry IV, Part I, in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica (written by Swinburn), Falstaff was...<ref>1911 EB article citation</ref>" is preferred over saying "Falstaff was... <ref>1911 EB article citation</ref>" Blueboar 20:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Or, more simply, "According to Swinburn, Falstaff was... <ref>1911 EB article citation</ref>." Robert A.West (Talk) 21:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
What about associated press stories? The AP articles I've seen are unattributed... does this fall under this guideline? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes... the AP is a reliable source ... "According to an unatributed Associated Press story...."
To sum up...
  • Signed articles = good!
  • Anon staffers = OK (sometimes)!
  • 1911 EB = Fun!
  • Attribution = good!
  • AP = reliable
Did I leave anything out? If not... NEXT! Blueboar 21:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I would sum up...

Signed articles = good! Anon staffers = marginal 1911 EB = Fun! Attribution = good! AP, Reuters, Bloomberg = reliable

The AP and major news services (Reuters etc) use very skilled professional reporters who have a "beat" and know their material very well; their stories are checked by very skilled editors; they take pride in their accuracy (and run corrections if they make a mistake). That's reliability. Encyclopedias use freelance writers who write on many different topics for $; editors care about names and dates and spelling, but neither they nor the freelancers are experts. Rjensen 22:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it depends. The AP has several of the weaknesses of primary sources: they haven't seen all the evidence, and they are telling it as best they can at the time. On the other hand, the signed articles in the Britannica (9th through 14th editions, and largely the 15th and current online editions) are mostly written by experts; the extent to which they enforce neutrality varied. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I've removed the reference to "Expert" whatsoever in the context of discussing articles in tertiary sources (i.e. encyclopedias). I feel rather strongly that it is not our place to be creating a guideline that allows some snippy editor to go on a campaign to remove all references to the 1911 EB from wikipedia, claiming that they "aren't writen by an expert", and so as thus unreliable and then have to come here and have long flame wars over the details. So I would prefer that this be phrased in a way, without the use of the key-word "Expert". Wjhonson 18:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand and agree with what you are saying... but I do think we should differentiate between tertiary sources signed by experts, and those not signed. What if we turn it around and say: "While an unsigned article in a tertiary source is considered to be reliable... a signed one has a higher degree of reliablity, because we know who wrote it." or words to that effect. Blueboar 18:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Your latest edit is fine. Thanks for your time. Wjhonson 06:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Bus number issue

I'm not sure if this is really a reliable sources probem or just tangentially related. On several articles, including Queens Surface Corporation, I used [17], a city webpage about the bus companies from several years ago, for some information, including the number of buses they operated. The operations were taken over by the MTA in 2005 and 2006, so that page will not be updated. According to BWCNY, the number changed between when that page was published and the MTA takeover, and he gave [18] as a source. I don't doubt that that source is correct, but it's certainly not reliable. What do you suggest I do? I feel that it is useful to give the number of buses, since it gives an idea of how large the company was, so removing the number isn't a good option. --NE2 07:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that geocities site is surly not a reliable source... are these companies publicly traded? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
This self-published information might be good enough for non-controversial claims: [19] ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately that's for the current public company, which is a consolidation of the operations of the seven private companies. --NE2 08:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm this info might be hard to find. You could always give the company a call, explain who you are and make a request for any news-stories they might be aware of. A lot of times industry publications will carry that kind of detail but are hard to find using google. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the companies are around any more... would it be acceptable to say "about foo" and round to the nearest 25 or so? Or would that be original research, choosing to round because you believe the numbers to be wrong? --NE2 08:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
As a NYC resident, I can vouch for the fact that the companies are not around any more... they were indeed taken over by the MTA. My suggestion would be to contact the MTA for updated info. While adding any information they gave you would indeed constitute original research, I doubt it would be challenged. This seems to be a perfect example of why WP:IAR exists. Blueboar 14:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

PRR Chronology

Is the PRR Chronology a reliable source or just "good enough until we find a reliable source"? Each entry is cited; he details this in the introduction. --NE2 11:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Without knowing the details of how you wish to use the site, I would say it looks reliable. The site is hosted by Pennsylvania Technical and Historical Society, which indicates a certain degree of fact checking and competence. I am not sure who Christopher T. Baer (the author) is, or whether he would count as an expert or not... but I am not sure that is needed. If there is debate about it's acuracy, you should find corroborating sources. If they exist, you should present alternate opinions in the article. Blueboar 14:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks like he's written at least one book: [20] In theory one could "transparently" use the PRR Chronology, instead citing his sources, but some of them are pretty hard to come by. --NE2 15:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the "how" is for citing facts, for instance in Long Island Rail Road. --NE2 15:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks quite reliable to me... again, if inclusion is debated, see if it can be corroborated. Perhaps the LIRR site? Blueboar 16:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review as Article of Faith

The following was originally posted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quackwatch#Peer_Review_as_Article_of_Faith

... and I am now cross-posting it on THIS page for reasons that will be obvious. --AEL



Peer Review as Article of Faith

Much has been made, on this page and elsewhere, of the (presumed) importance of editorial peer review and the use of peer-reviewed sources. There are multiple problems with peer review, however. Most notably there is a lack of scientific evidence favoring it as a method to ensure (or even to increase the probability of) manuscript quality, veracity, reliability, or anything else.

Before proceeding I would like to say that I appreciate Wikipedia's sincere desire to provide quality, authoritative information, as reflected on Wiki's "Reliable Sources" guidelines page. This effort is certainly admirable. However, it seems that the author of the "Reliable Sources" page (along with the contributors on THIS discussion page, and many other pages on Wiki) is poorly informed on the matter of peer review, and on what the recent scientific literature has to say about it

According to a recent (2006) Cochrane systematic review -- surely the "gold standard" of evaluation of the biomedical literature, if anything is -- there exists an "absence of evidence" for the effectiveness of peer review in assuring manuscript quality. "We could not identify any methodologically convincing studies assessing the core effects of peer review", say the Cochrane reviewers.[1] Likewise, an earlier (2002) systematic review published in the JAMA concluded that "Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain".[2]

Most striking (and amusing), perhaps, is the suggestion by Linkov et al in a recent (2006) item in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine that the belief in peer review is faith-based, rather than science-based: "we scientists have almost complete faith in the journal process as right and unassailable. We thus take a `faith based' approach to research communications... Questioning peer review is like questioning the Bible, Quran or Torah."[3]

Even before the Cochrane review was published, doubts about peer review had mounted.[4]

I submit that if there is a lack of evidentiary basis for the value, in measurable terms, of peer review (as there is), then the invocation of it as some sort of Holy Grail of scientific reliability or veracity is wholly inappropriate, and indeed misleading. Those who bandy it about in such a way should be corrected, and referred to the relevant literature for study and self-education. All approving mentions of peer review, or mentions of it that suggest that it is essential or even important, on this (Wikipedia) Talk page or anywhere, should be disregarded as reflective of ignorance of the best and most-careful biomedical thinking and research currently available on this subject.

Further, quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words: "Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable." Examples include:

  • "Research has shown..."
  • Mainstream, serious, ...) (scholars, scientists, researchers, experts, scientific community...) ..."
  • etc.

I submit hereby that criticism of a publication based on its lack of peer review status itself constitutes weasel-wording -- giving "the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable" (and assuming that the source IS reliable BECAUSE it is peer reviewed -- an assumption that is clearly unwarranted).

Anyone who disagrees with the foregoing is encouraged to present compelling contrary documentation, comparable to what I presented; e.g. a contrasting Cochrane systematic review, or some other careful review of the literature on the subject.

Regarding the items cited: you are invited -- nay, urged -- to read the full texts and decide for yourself. The full texts of some of them are restricted access (must have subscription to the journal). I have the full texts, and if you want to see them, please write privately to aelewis AT provide DOT net, and specify which you would like. I'll send them to you. When writing to me, to get my attention please put WIKIPEDIA REQUEST (just like that, ALL CAPS) in the subject line.

As a side note I was surprised to learn that the key papers (Cochrane, JAMA) are NOT cited or mentioned, as far as I can tell, on the Wiki "Peer Review" page. This seems to me a serious oversight which I hope will soon be corrected by that page's editorial group.

Sincerely, -- Alan2012 21:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: I will cross-post this item on the Wiki Talk pages for "Reliable Sources", "Peer Review" and "Avoid weasel words":

...................................

References

1. http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/mr000016.html -- Cochrane Systematic Review: Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies

2. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/21/2784 -- JAMA Vol. 287 No. 21, June 5, 2002, Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review

3. http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/99/12/596 -- J R Soc Med 2006;99:596-598, Scientific Journals are `faith based': is there science behind Peer review? Faina Linkov et al

4. http://www.infotoday.com/it/apr03/peek.shtml -- Information Today, Vol. 20 No. 4 - April 2003, Could Peer Review Be Wrong?

...................................

SNIPPETS from Linkov et al, www.jrsm.org article:

[...snip...]

Jefferson recently presented an outstanding review of peer review and could find only 19 studies on peer review that were scientifically sound.... As Jefferson has pointed out, there are almost no data suggesting that the existing peer review systems work and none to suggest that they are better than any other system.

[...snip...]

Why hasn't peer review, IMRaD, the editorial decision process and the overall journal process evolved into a new form of research communication? We would argue that the reason is that this has been due to the almost non-existent use of the scientific method to question and test the publication process itself.... [journals] are `faith based': we believe in them, we dare not question them.

[...snip...]

Isn't it strange that three features that are inherent to research communication have not been looked at scientifically? There are several possible reasons for this. The most likely is that we scientists have almost complete faith in the journal process as right and unassailable. We thus take a `faith based' approach to research communications. Faith is defined as a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Many of us might view questioning of the journal process as an attack on science itself. Clearly, the scientific journal process is not a part of the scientific method. We are taught early in our training about the importance of learning to write articles (e.g. IMRaD), the power of peer review and a belief in the editorial system. We do not question the process, despite the fact that the essence of science is questioning. Questioning peer review is like questioning the Bible, Quran or Torah. One role of science is to help separate science from dogma, which we should now do with journals, and avoid a faith based approach.

[...snip...]

It is the scientific method that is central to science, not the scientific journal. The scientific method should be central to other research communication processes, but it is not and has not been used to continuously improve how we communicate research. Because of this, we are forced into a conundrum -- we cannot change the process if the process if based upon faith, not data.

-

Gods this has been spammed all over the place, WP:POINT might come into play.
However it does raise a reasonable point, personally I don't like the explicit suggestion that Scholarly (undefined in the guideline) is inherently reliable with the corresponding implication that Peer Reviewed is similarly inherently reliable. I appreciate that this is driven by the Academic fetishism of a large proportion of the active editing community; schoolkids, college and university students and staff, but it does place undue weight on the process of peer review at the expense of other aspects of source reliability and quality.
I appreciate the inherent tension between those seeking a ticklist approach to the rules and those who see rules as less rigid, but I think this is something which could usefully be discussed in the round rather than specifically under this point.
ALR 21:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It was judiciously, thoughtfully cross-posted in a FEW spots where it is directly relevant, and being as it is an under-considered (but now glaring, given the status of the literature cited) matter that is in sore need of airing. Thanks for your comments. -- Alan2012 22:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It is never necessary to cross post. It is better to have it in one place and make references--people will follow them if interested. It has now been removed partly on that basis from Avoid Weasel Words (by me) and from Peer Review (by another editor). It is reasonably appropriate here, but I strongly urge Alan2012 to consider shortening it a little, and making the appearance more compact. The Jefferson article and comments thereon is in the external references at Peer review. I intend to add a new section to the main article, Scientific studies of peer review, and discuss it there.
As to the issue involved, PR is indeed of unproven effectiveness, and most of the evidence is anecdotal, and one could talk about it for hours or days. And nobody doubts that some non-peer reviewed journals , such as Chemical and Engineering News. have very high quality, and many peer-reviewed ones, very low. Many frequently used reference sources, such as DOAJ and Ebsco's databases. accordingly use "peer-review" as a marker on all articles where there is meaningful editorial review of the content. The test is only an approximate one, but it is helpful in weeding out the worst of the point-of-view laden publications, and magazines where there is no responsible editorial control. DGG 00:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
And this is a real problem for us. Several bad editors make a practice of quoting scholar.google.com results, usually inaccurately or out of the context of the actual paper, and then saying, "but it's peer-reviewed". Our article on Peer review is itself a useful introduction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Alan could you just summarise your point? I assume you are not saying that equal weight should be given to manuscripts without peer review? David D. (Talk) 21:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess this is the money statement: "I submit that if there is a lack of evidentiary basis for the value, in measurable terms, of peer review (as there is), then the invocation of it as some sort of Holy Grail of scientific reliability or veracity is wholly inappropriate, and indeed misleading.... All approving mentions of peer review, or mentions of it that suggest that it is essential or even important, on this (Wikipedia) Talk page or anywhere, should be disregarded as reflective of ignorance of the best and most-careful biomedical thinking and research currently available on this subject."

That's as succinctly as I can put it, David. I am not saying that equal weight should be given to all manuscripts, but I AM saying that peer review cannot -- in accord with what is clear from the best scientific literature on the subject (see above) -- be a rational basis for weighting. We'll have to rely on other indicators. Sorry about that, but that's what the best scientific literature on the subject tells us. And we DO want to be scientific here, don't we? ;-) -- Alan2012 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

PS - Implicit in the foregoing is that the Cochrane database of systematic reviews (which I called "the Holy Grail" of biomedical criticism, IF THERE IS ONE), and the JAMA, are reliable sources. There are several reasons for thinking that they ARE reliable sources, at least with respect to this issue. The main one is that both sources have a great deal of intellectual and emotional investment (not to mention financial and professional/status investment) in scientific publication, the journal system, and the value of peer review. In other words, for THEM to state, bluntly, that there is no good and clear evidence favoring peer review, is quite remarkable. That is, unlike some publication of scientific renegades, miffed at having their article submissions rebuffed by the major journals, taking a similar position in an editorial. Obviously, the former is of much greater value and significance than the latter. (Or at least I think that much is obvious; disagree with me if you will, but please spare no detail in explaining why!) Again, these comments are with respect to this particular issue, and not necessarily any other. A contrasting example would be the Cochrane meta-analysis of the ascorbic/common-cold issue (cited above, somewhere): given that the "scientific" community (actually faith-based, as pointed out above) has so very much intellectual and emotional investment in "proving" vitamin C to have no value, and Pauling to be an old quack, the pressures on the reviewers to come up with a negative evaluation was surely very great. And yet they were forced to admit -- albeit with some rather ridiculous opinionated remarks sandwiched in between -- that vitamin C does have value. This is an illustration of the same point, in reverse: for THEM to admit that vitamin C has value is quite remarkable. That would be as opposed to the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (JOM) editorializing about the value of vitamin C. You will note that I did not just say that the Cochrane database is generally better or more reliable than the JOM (or vice versa). They are different animals with different purposes and are governed by different paradigms or vMEMEs (google: spiral dynamics, vMEMEs). For some things, Cochrane is better; for other things, JOM. Everything must be evaluated on its merits and with a full understanding of the context, particularly the emotional/intellectual/financial/professional (an

d Darwinian status-hierarchy) biasses of the players. -- Alan2012 22:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your argument against the concept of peer-review is out of place here. You could take it to the talk page at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, or Wikipedia:Verifiability if you want to change policy. Until it changes, peer-reviewed literature will continue to be the gold standard on scientific articles here. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - meaning it's supposed to summarize the state of current knowledge, not be on the leading edge of a movement to drop the idea of peer-review. If that idea gains currency in the scientific community, then Wikipedia will adapt - not vice versa. Of course the New England Journal makes mistakes - look at some of their recent retractions. You're free to value sources however you like, but here there are policies and guidelines on how to handle sources. MastCell 23:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
First, it is important to understand that whatever "argument" I might have against the concept of peer review (if I even have one) is irrelevant, and not the subject of my post. My post above was about meta-analyses of the relevant literature, appearing in sources that are hardly impeachable (that is, if any source is unimpeachable), which found that the belief in peer review as a quality filter has no clear scientific basis. Second, I did post a copy of the item above to Reliable Sources and a couple other spots where it might be useful (as indicated in my original post). I cross-posted to those areas simply as a courtesy to those editorial groups, who might benefit from the information. My interest and involvement is on THIS page, however. I will leave it to others to work on other pages, and to "change policy" if that is called for.
This discussion is appropriate here because of the frequency of the invocation of "peer review" as an unquestioned measure or determinant of value -- which groups of literature meta-analysts have shown to have no scientific basis. (Please see the cited literature.) This is not a "leading edge movement". If you will but read the items I posted, you will see that the "trailing edge" (the belief in peer review) never had a clear evidentiary basis. It is a belief only, not supported by the science; it is faith-based. The problem is not with these most recent papers (and there have been others, BTW); the problem is with the faith-based belief in peer review. Or as Twain put it, the problem is "what we know for sure that just ain't so". The fact that lots of people, including Wiki guideline-writers, have been out of touch with the science on this issue, is unfortunate but not relevant to our discussion right here, right now. Further, this is not about "dropping peer review". It is simply about according it the place, in our deliberations about the quality and reliability of information sources, that the science available on it currently justifies. Sorry about that. If you have literature or documentation that compels another conclusion, favoring peer review as a quality filter, please present it. -- Alan2012 23:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If you believe peer review is outdated, irrelevant, or simply not evidence-based, then there are thousands of forums to advance that argument. Wikipedia is not one of them. You could go to the peer review page and see what they have on "Shortcomings of peer review" or some such, but even if you could convince me or everyone on Wikipedia that peer review was overrated or meaningless, it wouldn't change anything. This is the wrong venue for what you appear to be trying to accomplish with this thread. MastCell 23:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but in this matter I have no "argument" to advance, and my opinion is irrelevant. There is no argument, nothing to "argue" for. The conclusions of the Cochrane and JAMA meta-analyses of scores of studies speak for themselves, and I am not aware that anyone has seriously contested them. If you cannot accept these, then what in God's name CAN (or DO) you accept? Are you saying that popular myths or prevailing prejudices trump clear-cut scientific analyses? And as for the matter that "it wouldn't change anything" -- why, that's preposterous. Or monstrous. I mean, if it did NOT change anything around here, that would make a complete mockery of Wikipedia as a source of credible, reliable information. Wikipedia -- stubbornly resistant to scientific evidence, favoring instead man-on-the-street polling? Ridiculous! Or monstrous. -- Alan2012 23:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I'm not being clear. The vast majority of the scientific community regard peer review as essential and valuable. Until the scientific community changes their opinion of it, Wikipedia's opinion is unlikely to change. This is off-topic and I'm going to let the thread die (from my end) at this point. MastCell 00:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
And maybe I am not being clear. Maybe the vast majority is correct in their belief in peer review. That is not the point. The point is that there is, according to careful meta-analysts of the literature, no scientific evidence to justify that view. Clear enough? NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. The vast majority may also believe in the tooth fairy. The vast majority believed that Pluto was a planet, up until a few months ago. You're saying that Wiki's policy is based on polling and popularity contests rather than scientific evidence? Quite outrageous and extremely embarrassing (for WP), if true. And by the way, where is the evidence that the "vast majority" regard peer review as essential and valuable? I don't (much) doubt it, but let's hang our righteous certainty on a wee bit of evidence, shall we? -- Alan2012 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Once again, if anyone has any literature or documentation that invalidates the meta-analyses presented, and compels another conclusion justifying the (presumably) prevailing belief in peer review, they are urged to step forward and present it. -- Alan2012 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for doing so. --Philosophus T 01:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

All of the above is irrelevant in my book ... Wikipedia opperates on consensus in determining it's policies and guidelines, and the consensus is still in favor of Peer Review as a factor in determining reliability. It may be right, it may be wrong, but it is the consensus. Blueboar 16:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarification requested - blogs of published journalists

RS says: "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Am I correct in assuming that even if a professional journalist is published by say, the New York Times, any info he puts on a blog should still meet the rest of RS to be included as a source? Over at Talk:Barrington Hall‎, someone seems to be arguing that once a journalist is published by credible, third-party publications, anything they write anywhere qualifies as a reliable source, and that once that one criteria is met, nothing else in RS can disqualify it as a source. Is she misinterpreting RS? Wikilawyering it? Is RS clear enough on this point? Opinions would be welcome, thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not intended to be a tick list of things to achieve reliability, but the list of issues to consider need to be taken in the round. With that in mind I would agree that the source should be otherwise reliable. My position is that I don't see the NYT as inherently reliable so just being published there isn't an automatic endorsement. The wording of the caveat would also need the journo to be writing within their area of expertise and of course the ongoing issues with Blogs would come into play as well.ALR 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, it brings up a related issue. Does "writing within his or her field of expertise" apply to researchers and journalists? The current wording makes it sound like it may only apply to the researchers. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally speaking, bearing in mind I'm not one of WPs academic fetishists, then I'd say that it depends. Some Journos, such as John Keegan, who have a recognised authority and write for an otherwise reputable publication then it could be debated that they're included. Someone writing for something like the News of the World then I'd be a lot more sceptical about their expertise.ALR 21:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Even bearing in mind that I may be considered one of WP's' academic fetishist's, I agree it depends on the journal and the journalist, and no clear rule can be written. WW, mentioned below, was perhaps noted for unreliability, but can certainly be used to establish existence of something within his scope. . WL, or WC are, but in the field of public affairs. I would not rely on either of them for fine arts or for science. WS is sometimes considered a little biased. DGG 02:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
You may want to find a clearer example. Sir John is a lot more than a journalist. Do you mean Walter Lippmann, Walter Winchell, or Walter Cronkite? Christopher Hitchens? William Safire? Scotty Reston? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the expertise of a journalist consists of collecting, evaluating, and organizing information. For some journalists, this would be general information, while others might specialize in a certain field. But the reading public usually accepts that journalists may lean on the expertise of the experts they interview or otherwise collect information from. For example, if a journalist with an expertise in science reports that a new climate model makes certain predictions about global warming, the fact that the journalist is not capable of running the climate model herself does not detract from the story. On the other hand, if a climate expert makes the same claim, we might expect that the expert can indeed run the climate model herself. --Gerry Ashton 23:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Either of you guys want to pop in at Talk:Barrington Hall‎? Cindery is citing your statements as agreeing with her. FYI, the source in question is [http://bonussugar.blogspot.com/]. Your input would be appreciated, thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it looks like my glance over there has been overtaken by events. The blog in question didn't actually appear to have any significant content earlier today and it's now been deleted from Blogspot anyway. FWIW I am unhappy about the use of this commentary on the guidance, I don't believe that the argument was supported by this discussion.ALR 18:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed... a comment made on one talk page should never be used to support an argument on another article's talk page. Doing so takes the comment out of context. If a conversation on one talk page has relevance to some other article's discussion, simply post a link the page. That way all the comments are in context, and the reader can see the entire conversation. Blueboar 19:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Tertiary sources and encyclopedias

On January 19th the longstanding consensus wording regarding encyclopedias, specifically:

Articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica and similar encyclopedias can be regarded as reliable secondary sources. (Unsigned articles, and those signed "X." are less reliable.)

was radically changed to say the exact opposite, without any apparent consensus. Please discuss here, and get consensus before attempting to change this. Jayjg (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


First, I think there was consensus for the change... there certainly was discussion (see: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Anonymous staffers above). Second, I don't think it says the exact opposite at all. Let's compare both versions in their entirety...
Old version:
  • Tertiary—Summarized material drawn from secondary sources, as in general encyclopedias. These sources generally lack adequate coverage of the topic to be considered comprehensive where arguments are subtle and nuanced. They generally do not discuss and evaluate alternative interpretations. Tertiary sources can be used for names, spellings, locations, dates and dimensions. Articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica and similar encyclopedias can be regarded as reliable secondary sources. (Unsigned articles, and those signed "X." are less reliable.)
New version:
  • Tertiary—Summarized material drawn from secondary sources, as in general encyclopedias. These sources generally lack adequate coverage of the topic to be considered comprehensive where arguments are subtle and nuanced. They generally do not discuss and evaluate alternative interpretations. Tertiary sources can be used for names, spellings, locations, dates and dimensions. Articles signed by experts should be regarded as more reliable than unsigned articles. Unsigned articles should not be used to support any controversial or complex points. Secondary sources should be given priority over tertiary ones.
Both versions say essentially the same thing: that encyclopedia articles that are signed by experts are good... the only differences I see are 1) the new version does not give an example of a specific Encyclopedia (which is not needed) and 2) it shifts the clarification about articles that are not signed, from "Unsigned = less reliable" to the more positive "Signed = more reliable"). I don't see how the new version is "the exact opposite" of the old one. Blueboar 03:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we can break the argument down into pieces.
  1. Are signed articles in encyclopedias more reliable then unsigned articles in encyclopedias?
  2. Can unsigned articles in encyclopedias be used for controversial or complex point?
I think those are the two seperate issues to debate. Let's leave the keyword "expert" out of it for now, I don't think that adds anything and it muddies the water. Wjhonson 04:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, Jayjg's preferred version and mine both agree on question no. 1... I would say "yes" to that. However, I don't think you can leave out the term expert... the whole point of having a signed article is that it is signed by someone who is considered an expert in the field. With an unsigned article, you don't know who wrote it. It could be an expert or it could be just a well read staffer. So signed articles have to be considered more reliable than unsigned ones.
As for question no. 2) I would also say "yes" to that. For simple things ("names, spellings, locations, dates and dimentions") just about any encyclopedia is good... but for more complex or controvercial topics we need a higher standard of reliablility... we need to use either a secondary source rather than an encyclopedia article, or a tertiary source that is signed by an expert. Blueboar 04:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I see I need a question 3 which is "Is a signed article, within a tertiary source, actually a secondary source?" Perhaps that is jayjg's issue. I see it's stated in the phrasing differently (or could be construed that way). Wjhonson 04:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
certainly there are hybrids. serious specialized encyclopedias, such as the Stanford E of phil, and the Oxford DNB are to a certain extent secondary sources as well, for they do evaluate the primary literature, and the authors can furthermore be assumed to be authoritative. More general encyclopedias vary The old Catholic ency was scholarly, but only from a POV. I have yet to see the new Jewish Encyc. --I tend not to count too much on signatures, in many cases, the more distinguished, the more out of date. This is one real problem of encyclopedias etc. Secondary sources necessarily are a few years behind the research frontier, and tertiary one even more so. This was of course more of a problem with print, but even the Online ODNB which does update, is by policy 4 years behind the death dates of the people included--they have just added the 2003s. That so many of our editors do not have access to such expensive sources makes it worse, because it takes specialized knowledge to know just how far behind a 75 year old article is likely to be.DGG 05:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think articles signed by experts, who put their credibility on the line, should count as "secondary". The unsigned ones are usually done by freelancers who take a stack of assignments in one broad area (history, art, math, whatever) and promise to meet tight deadlines and a 750 word limit in return for $100. There are penalties for missing deadlines but none for subtle mistakes like missing recent scholarship. I've edited paper encyclopedias and the system is assembly-line. No room for the sort of debate and interchange that makes Wiki fun. Rjensen 05:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the authors of signed articles in good encyclopedias (not wikis) are capable of writing secondary sources, but whether they did or not in any particular article depends on how they used their sources. If they didn't synthesize any new ideas or use any primary sources, it is a tertiary article. --Gerry Ashton 08:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole division between "primary, secondary, and tertiary" sources is both artificial and a bit of a red herring, as sources can be in multiple categories depending on context. The real key to the whole section is to avoid doing original research using whatever sources, rather than trying to create a complex source taxonomy. And the bottom line is that some encyclopedias are considered reliable sources, regardless of whether or not the articles are signed, and thus can be used to support complex or controversial claims; to change what had been accepted Wikipedia practice to verboten without significant community input is unreasonable at best. Jayjg (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

DarkGreen says that some encyclopedias are reliable even for unsigned articles....which ones are these? We are trying to give guidelines for editors here. Rjensen 08:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally I don't like this fine-tuning level that we appear to be on. It seems more like a useful way for editors to continue warring over whether an Encarta encyclopaedia can be cited in an article or not. When what they should be doing is getting better citations, not trying to remove what citations we do have. In a case where a 20-page reliable-source article on spark plugs makes statements which contradict Encarta, I certainly hope that the longer article would hold sway for us all. Not sure we really need to nitpick encyclopedias at all here. Wjhonson 08:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think Jayjg's wording is clearer and more direct. If Blueboar believe's his/her version means essentially the same thingk, I favor Jayjg's simply because I think it is clearer and better style. I think signed encyclopedia articles should have roughly the same status as, say, books or chapters of books published by academic presses. I happen to think signed articles published in academic venues are more valuable than unsigned encyclopedia articles, and I wonder whether there is any disagreement over whether Jayjg's (really, not his personally but the earlier consensus version, folks) version registers this adequately. If there is, we discuss how to make it clearer. Or, as Wjhonson may be suggesting, the issue is doing more to encourage, positively, peer-reviewed journal articles and the like. But for the issue at hand - just comparing the pre-January 19 and the post-January 19 version, I very strongly prefer the pre-Jan. 19th version. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally I find it overly simplistic, but would echo Wjhonson in the view that this is micromanagement of the discussion and Jayjg in the point that Primary, Secondary, Tertiary is a sideshow. It biases the guidance towards one subset of research and it's significantly less useful in other subsets. Taken in conjunciton with the point by Badlydrawnjeff up the page this debate is more apposite to a segment of Wikipedia articles rather than generic guidance about sourcing.
Notwithstanding that, in terms of process, the changes by Blueboar were made after a reasonable amount of discussion on the talk page, over a three day period. The initial gross revert with no engagement in the discussion until prompted to do so goes against both the spirit and letter of collaborative editing, although there is a small segment of the community who feel that this is appropriate behaviour in the policy and guidance space.ALR 13:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I have tweeked the passage... adding:
  • "Tertiary sources can be used for names, spellings, locations, dates and dimensions. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given teriary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. For example, articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica..."
I hope we can at least agree on that. Blueboar 15:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I would remove the word "experts" and simply say "signed articles". What I hope we can all see, is that the use of the word "experts" in this context, gives caveat to those who would invert the logic and proclaim that unsigned articles, since they are writen by *nobodies* have no standing whatsoever. Certainly if you follow that path you can reach that conclusion from the rest of the main-page. I have always disagreed that somehow *encyclopedias* just hire idiots to write their articles. Unsigned articles can still be considered vetted in some manner, even if it's just over time as better editions come out and people bitch that the articles are flawed. But really that's not our position to defend here. So we shouldn't open that can-o-worms imho. Wjhonson 18:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
OK... let's cut to the basics... The point of the entire guideline is to help editors determine if a particular source they want to use is reliable or not, and for what kinds of statements. The secion on the three classes of sources (Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary) seems to focus on the latter part of this... to give guidance on what kinds of statements a given class should be used for. Primary sources are reliable for statements of opinion, or to cite discriptive statements of fact but should not be used to site interpetive statements. Secondary sources are preferred, as they can be used to cite all statements of fact and opinion. Tertiary sources should be used for names, spellings, locations, dates and dimensions etc (ie very basic statements of fact). In other words, the section does not discuss whether a given class is reliable or unreliable as a class (that depends on the given source) but instead focuses on usage... under which circumstances they should be used.
This may not be clear. So much of the guideline focuses on whether something is reliable or not, that this shift in focus can get overlooked. I think we may need a preliminary statement re-emphisising that, within each class, there are degrees of reliablility. Some sources within each class are more reliable than others, and all three contain sources that are either highly reliable or not reliable at all.
The issue with signed articles is that (because they are signed) they really fall into the Secondary source class... even though they appear in a Tertiary format, they can be considered secondary sources. Perhaps the way around this is to move discussion of encyclopedia articles signed by experts up into the discussion of Secondary sources? Blueboar 21:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Section Re-write

This is sort of what I have in mind... (additions and changes are in bold)

==Types of source material and their usage==
Main article: Wikipedia:No original research
Three classes of sources exist:
  • A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term mainly refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. Primary sources include official reports, letters, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies, statistics compiled by authoritative agencies, and court records. Primary materials typically require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research and so should be used with caution. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Primary sources can also be reliable for citing statements of opinion. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources.
Let me suggest a revision: :Three classes of sources exist:
  • A primary source is a document providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation. Primary sources thus refers to documents produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. Usually the document is produced at the same time, though later memoirs and oral histories are included. Primary sources include official reports, letters, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies, statistics compiled by authoritative agencies, and court records. Primary materials typically require interpretation and corroboration with many other primary sources, each of which usually constitutes original research and so should be used with caution . Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Some articles, such as those written describinng software or creative art, may use primary sources throughout. Primary sources can also be reliable for citing statements of opinion. Any interpretive claims generally require secondary sources unless they are directly obvious from the primary sources themselves. In many cases, the appropriate use of primary sources is by quotation. Rjensen 01:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • A secondary source is one where' the informed and expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration of primary sources is used to synthesize a conclusion. 'The writers of the most reliable secondary sources usually have advanced or specialized training, and use as many different primary sources as are available so they can be checked against each other. In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources the vast majority of their facts. While most encyclopedia articles are tertiary sources (see below), some may be considered secondary sources: normally, these will be ones that cite primary sources and are signed by scholars who are notable in the subject's field.
  • A tertiary source summarizes material drawn from secondary sources, as in general encyclopedias. These sources generally lack adequate coverage of the topic to be considered comprehensive where arguments are subtle and nuanced. They generally do not discuss and evaluate alternative interpretations. Tertiary sources can generally be used appropriately for such information as names, spellings, locations, dates and dimensions.
The classification of a document does not determine its reliability, but rather its usage. There is a wide range of reliability within each of these three classes. In each class there are some sources that are highly reliable, and others that are completely unreliable. Editors should look for those that are the most reliable for their subject matter.

Is something like this acceptable? More importantly, does it solve the issue about tertiary sources? Blueboar 00:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, for there will be very great variation. Often these may be the only accessible sources. Remember that we are not describing RS for academic topics alone, and this classification may not be applicable for very wide stretches of WP. let's not write a straight-jacket.
I am not sure what you are saying... the point of my proposed rewrite was to remove the straight-jacket... to say that classification is not a determinator of reliability, but rather of usage. Are you saying that you think people should use a general encyclopedia to cite more complex ideas and conclusions? Blueboar 14:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


One purpose of Wikipedia is to give people free access to information. Of course, an unverifiable article is worse than no article, but a shallow, verifiable article is better than no article. Let's not phrase the guideline in a way that discourages a person from creating a new article by paraphrasing one or more reliable tertiary sources, because such an article is better than nothing. --Gerry Ashton 14:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I think I see where you are coming from ... what if we phrase it like this:
  • A tertiary source summarizes material drawn from secondary sources, as in general encyclopedias. These sources generally lack adequate coverage of the topic to be considered comprehensive where arguments are subtle and nuanced. They generally do not discuss and evaluate alternative interpretations. Tertiary sources are excellent for referencing such basic information as names, spellings, locations, dates and dimensions. They can also be used to reference other information when no reliable secondary source is available.

Blueboar 15:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I like that better. I would change "when no reliable secondary source is available" to "when no reliable secondary source is available to the editor." That makes it clear that an exhaustive search at a first-class library is not required. --Gerry Ashton 17:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I haved problems with this "Primary materials typically require interpretation and corroboration with many other primary sources, each of which usually constitutes original research and so should be used with caution" For many subjects which involves treaties, etc the primary source is frequently used and should not constitute original research to use them. For example to take one which I have just been working on:

International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons#UK...:
These arguemts are summerised in a question and answer briefing published by UK Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmament (source: Britain's Nuclear Deterrent)
  • Is Trident replacement legal under the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT)? Renewal of the Trident system is fully consistent with our international obligations, including those on disarmament. ...
  • Is retaining the deterrent incompatible with NPT Article VI? The NPT does not establish any timetable for nuclear disarmament. Nor does it prohibit maintenance or renewal of existing capabilities. Renewing the current Trident system is fully consistent with the NPT and with all our international legal obligations. ...

Is it original research to use a brefing paper by a government which is aimed at the gerneral public? Now for another example, there is an article called Agreement of the People. The Agreement is used as the source to state that the initial major tenets "were freedom of religion, the frequent convening of a new Parliaments and equality for all under the law", because these facts are clearly written in the Agreement. Or this one the Potsdam Declaration. In all three cases this is not WP:OR because they are not creating a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." As all three primary sources were written in English for the general public to read they do not assume an expert is reading them therefor as WP:OR says about primary sources "For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." Which I think makes much more sense than "Primary materials typically require ..." --Philip Baird Shearer 18:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Ok, I can see that. What if we juggle the paragraph around a bit, and say...
  • A primary source is a document providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation. Primary sources thus refers to documents produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. Usually the document is produced at the same time, although later memoirs and oral histories are included in this class. Primary sources include court records, official reports, letters, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies, statistics compiled by authoritative agencies, and raw scientific data. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to reference descriptive points about the topic. Statements that reach conclusions based upon primary sources generally require secondary sources, unless they are directly obvious from the primary sources themselves. Primary materials often require interpretation and corroboration with many other primary sources to fully understand, and so caution should be used to avoid adding original research. Primary sources can also be used to reference statements of opinion. In many cases, the appropriate use of primary sources is by quotation.
Blueboar 18:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

How about striking Primary materials often require interpretation and corroboration with many other primary sources to fully understand, and so caution should be used to avoid adding original research. Primary sources can also be used to reference statements of opinion. In many cases, the appropriate use of primary sources is by quotation./ and replace with text taken from WP:OR Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. I realise that this will need a little work because it duplicates some of what you have already written, but lets see if we can work with it. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) How about replacing the sentence "Primary sources include court records...raw scientific data" with the following:
Letters, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies, and raw scientific data are almost always primary sources; statistics compiled by authoritative agencies, court records, and official reports are often primary sources.
I think the report issued by the 9-11 commission would be an example of a secondary source; it was created by a commission of experts after an extensive review of many primary sources. Statistical reports sometimes are created by examining and selecting many primary sources, so those are potentially secondary sources too. Courts sometimes issue decisions based on very narrowly defined circumstances, which might make a decision a primary source, but other cases are decided on broad principles, which could make them a secondary source. --Gerry Ashton 19:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way... if I keep posting updated versions of the proposed language each time someone has a good suggestion, this discussion is going to get VERY long. So... I have pasted the section onto my talk page and will make edits and corrections there as we go along. I will try to update it as suggestions gain at least some degree of consensus ... Please feel free to pop over and check on the language, but I will ask that you not make edits to that version. If you don't like what it says, post your comments here so others can see what you are disagreeing about. I will let you know when changes get made so you know to check the updated language (don't panic if I am behind the discussion here and your suggestion isn't in my version... it may be that I am waiting to see if others agree with you or not... or it may be that I am off editing other things and have not seen your suggestion). Once the discussion dies down, and I think we have a consensus, I will re-post the entire thing here for a final round of comments and objections. Blueboar 00:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand... you could just edit the guideline on your own and get into arguments and revert wars... it IS more fun that way.  :>) Blueboar 00:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK... I have incorporated the most recent comments - and added something new: It struck me that there are documents that cross class depending on how they are used. For example, a biography of Caesar would be a secondary source in the article on Ceasar, but would be the primary source for an article on the biography itself. (we can probably come up with a better example). Swing by my talk page and give the draft a look over. Blueboar 19:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguity in Partisan and religious sources

The phraising The websites, print media, and other publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source is very vague. What defines "caution?" Does that mean they should be used on articles about religous beliefs, or only as a viewpoint, or something else all together?--Sefringle 21:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The short answer to your questions is "YES'. (how's that for ambiguity). Seriously, "caution" means what it says... you should use caution when citing to such sources. Some religious and political websites are reliable... others quite unreliable. They may make statements that are clearly biased by their political or religious views... they may even state outright falsehoods to further their political or religious agenda. Be a bit sceptical of any claims made and don't take the claims at face value. Ask yourself if the site is really reliable. Look for corroboration. It also means that if you want to cite from such websites, it is probably best to do so in the form of an attributed quote (ie "according to the website Bathistparty.com "Bush is the Great Satan"). Caution goes beyond reliability... it also means that if you are a member of the political party or religious group you are writing about ... or of a group that opposes them ... you need to be cautious and not let your affiliation influence your editing to the point of violating NPOV. Be objective.
Hope that answers your question. Blueboar 21:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Note on self-pubished sources

User:Hipocrite added the following to the section on self published sources...

  • Note that the ability to use a self-published source in article about themselves does not mean that those self published sources can be used in other articles - even articles that the subjects are related to.

I am not sure that is quite accurate. While I understand (and agree with) the intent of the note (to limit the use of self-published material), I think reliability depends greatly on the circumstances of where and how slef pubished sources are used. The way the note reads, if an author self-publishes a theory on his personal web site, we can only use the website in an article about the author. Shouldn't we also be able to use that web site as a citation in an article about the theory? What about a broader article, on a topic closely related to the theory, that discusses the theory in great detail?... I think we may need to clarify what we mean by "articles about themselves". (for istance: when we say "source" what do we mean... is source the self-publisher as a person, the website that he maintains, or are we really talking about the information contained on the website?) Anyway... we need to discuss this further. Blueboar 14:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It isn't accurate. Our use of self-published and dubious sources is clear as day on WP:V. If an article is talking about the author/subject of the material, it's usable as long as it meets certain conditions. It's obviously a case-by-case basis, and I don't think that addition reflects that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy to clarify, but the point is that someguysblog can not be used as a source for someguy's thoughts on, for example, politics, in an article about politics. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It appears you're adding this clause specifically because of disputes at Killian documents authenticity issues and Jamil Hussien controversy. Is this accurate? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not make changes to clarify guidelines to "win" content disputes, and stop stalking me. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not stalking you, so stop that. What are you "clarifying," exactly, and why does it match up with the two disputes you're currently in? Furthermore, do you feel you have consensus for this change? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Those disputes are evidence that people misunderstand the wording of the guideline. I do not make changes to guidelines to "win" content disputes, I "win" content disputes by understaning guidelines, your assumptions of bad faith, and obvious wikistalking aside. Leave me alone, already. You are well aware the community does not allow Someguys blog cannot be used to reference Someguys not-notable political opinion on the article about Politicalnonsense, regardless of your own personal opinion on how we should mirror your other encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
In some cases, it can, however. Your change seems to believe otherwise. I don't know what "other encyclopedia" you're talking about, and I'm not stalking you, so stop it. I'm merely saying the evidence suggests that the clarification is being put there in tandem to those two disputes, if it's not accurate, it's not accurate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You are fully aware of the other encyclopedia to which I refer, and you have been told to avoid the appearance of stalking me before. Your assumption that I'm changing the guideline to then use it to slap people around in a content dispute is yet another in a series of bad faith assumptions from you to people you disagree with. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I have this page and your talk page and the Hussein page watchlisted. I could care less about you. And seeing as this is the only project I contribute to, I merely have to assume you're mistaken. Now, I've dealt with you in discussions before where you've completely gone off the wrong track regarding a policy or a guideline, so it was a fair assumption. Now, do you care to answer the question or not? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Stop stalking me. This is my final reply to your harassment. You had no pending question, except for your continued assumption of bad faith. You did not have the hussein article watchlisted - like the Jane Dark article (which you also alleged to have "watchlisted"), the only connection between you and it was your desire to make my life more difficult. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you remain civil; your hostility isn't helping matters. --NE2 15:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm not stalking you. I'm a regular reader of Power Line, they've spent significant time on the subject, and I've had it watchlisted. My pending question is whether you feel your change has consensus. Do you feel it does? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It does not, currently, which is why I have not made it - this is due to the comments from NE2, not from you, however. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's fine. Please don't add things to guidelines when you lack consensus, then. And my input will matter just as much as yours once the dust settles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If the Metropolitan Transportation Authority says in a self-published source that the IRT Lexington Avenue Line ends at 125th Street station, my reading of this addition is that only the MTA's article can mention this, not even the Lex or 125th articles. I think this is broken. --NE2 15:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


The MTA is a reliable source. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems to meet the definition of a self-published source... I agree that it's reliable, but your addition appears to make it unreliable "in other articles - even articles that the subjects are related to." --NE2 15:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I would propose adding in the language "otherwise unreliable." This addresses your concerns?Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Why change anything? WP:V already covers this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
If it's already covered but widely ignored it needs further emphasis. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It is already covered, and not widely ignored. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I still don't understand it... Blueboar's argument makes sense, that it would prevent citing fringe person A for a short summary on a list of fringe people in his field. As for this edit, why do reliable sources enter into it? It seems to be an issue of whether this person's rebuttal is notable: if it is, then his blog is a reliable source for what his rebuttal says; if not, then we don't include it. --NE2 15:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Things are notable if they are published by reliable sources. If some guy writes on his blog and no one picks it up, it's not notable. Fringe person A's writings cannot be used for a short summary on a list of fringe people in his field - since his writings are not-notable, they can only be used for his biographical article.
Let me see if I have your argument correct... are you trying to say is that you feel a self-published source can only be used in an article about the person who self-publishes? I don't think that is right. At minimum it should also be usable in an article about the self-publication itself (ie the website or book) as well as in article about the material he publishes. I would go further and say that it could be used as a primary source to cite a statement of opinion in most other articles that relate to the topic. I do agree that an exception to that would be a citation to "someguysblog.com"... since most blogs have seperate issues with verification. Blueboar 15:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that if you look to the larger community you will find that you are correct that someguysblog can be used as a source for someguy, and on someguysblog, and will clarify that in the next iteration. It cannot be used as a source for politicalhottopic. Are you saying it's ok to cite User:Hipocrite/Fenwick can be cited as a source for the article Invasion of the United States regarding Slovenly's opinions on that invasion? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
If Slovenly's opinions are notable, yes (and if that was verifiably said by Slovenly, which it really isn't, at least not in a way that "Slovenly" is someone whose opinions are notable). Reliable sources don't enter into this; whether or not to include his opinions are an editing decision and a matter of verifiability. --NE2 15:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Notable opinions are published by reliable sources. How else do we gauge notability? I would also note that you have assumed the blog was published by Slovenly, who is notable. It was not - through the use of ingenious technical measures, and the lack of any sort of verification, I have demonstrated another major fallacy of using blogs - unless verified by third parties, they could be total garbage, like in the above case, where Slovenly, a notable journalist, was impersonated by myself. For example, tell me if bonussugar.blogspot.com is a reliable source or not, please? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
And yet you seek to exclude their inclusion even when they are verifiably notable in the field and the opinion is verifiably theirs. --NE2 15:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't. If the opinion is verifiable, then it was published by a reliable source. Note that some blogs are, in fact, reliable sources - blogs published by notable individuals in their field. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I think I understand it now... in which case your addition seems completely redundant. Why are you adding it, when the guideline already says that the reliability of self-published material is based on "the reputation of the self-publisher"? --NE2 15:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
That guideline is fully ignored - When someone on a blog says something VERY EXCITING it is quickly added into articles because it was very exciting. We are regularly embarassed by blognonsense placed on pages in contravention of this guideline. Self-published sources of dubious reliability (like, for instance, [21] - fully anonymous, lacks fact checking and a history of reliability - perhaps the epitomy of "someguysblog") are regularly inserted as purveryors of notable opnion, when, in fact, they are self-published sources of no notability. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I really don't understand now. You agree that it's redundant. but want to add it because people ignore what's already here? What makes you think that adding another sentence will make people more likely to pay attention? --NE2 16:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It's obviously clear to me. It's obviously clear to you. It is clearly not clear to others. We need to find a way to clarify it for them, as they have demonstrated that they believe that if some blogger has a role in the most recent blog conflict, they can be used as a source in the article about that blog conflict. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Hipocrite. I can't tell you how many times I've encountered this problem, and it would help tremendously to have absolute language prohibiting the use so that the rule could be cited in response. I sincerely hope you will consider that. Cheers.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 16:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that; if you are stating that "blogger X said foo", then blogger X's blog is a perfectly valid source. Whether it's a useful thing to say in the article is not a reliable source issue. --NE2 16:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it's really not. The only time "blogger x said foo" is allowed in an article is if blogger X is a notable researcher in the field (in which case his blog is a reliable source) or blogger X is a journalist (in which case his blog is a reliable source), or if "blogger x said foo" was published by a reliable source (in which case we don't need his blog as a source). In no case is blogger X's blog a reliable source for "blogger x said foo" under the self-published criteria. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I completely disagree in the case when blogger X actually does verifiably have a role in said "blog conflict". Then the article about the conflict is directly related to him, and his comments are very relevant. --NE2 16:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • (dedent) note that an important reason for having guidelines like this one is educating novice users. As such it doesn't hurt being somewhat redundant to make certain points clear. We have several pages (e.g. WP:ENC) that are by nature redundant because it turns out they're useful to explain things; it's only when pages get contradictory that it becomes problematic. >Radiant< 16:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I would think that the longer a page is, the less likely it is that a newbie will read it. --NE2 16:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Redundancy is a problem, that's what led RS to become bloated and internally inconsistent in the past. It did get trimmed down a lot, but there is a steady effort to try to grow it up into a behemoth which won't get used again.ALR 16:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying that bloat is a good thing (indeed, that's the other extreme) but some things are worth saying twice. The main cause of bloat on policy pages appears to be convoluted phrasing and excessive caveats. You'd be amazed at the amount of "be careful" statements that tend to be added to e.g. WP:BLOCK. >Radiant< 16:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Better for there to be bloat here than for the entire Wiki to get bloated by unworthy articles relying upon blogs and other disreputable sources.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 19:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A thought experiment

Can I include my opinions on current events on wikipedia by starting hipocritesstatmentsforinclusiononwikipedia.blogspot.com, getting into a LOT of blogslapfests, and then tacking "according to hipocritesstatmentsforinclusiononwikipedia.blogspot.com, Hipocrite believes George Bush is (the antichrist/the second coming?). On February 2, 2007, Hipocrite blogged that he had unique evidence of George Bush's (divinity/antichristhood). Criothip responded on February 3, 2007 at hipocritesstatmentsforinclusiononwikipediaareshit.blogspot.com that Hipocrite was obviously wrong - he posted an animated gif of Hipocrite morphing into (John Kerry/John McCain) as proof?" Obviously not. How is that any different than what is going on here, except that motive isn't implied? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be removed, because it's not worth mentioning in the article, by applying something called common sense. Now if we had an article on said "blogslapfests", then it would be fine for that article if it's relevant. Your question is like asking "what will keep me from mentioning that the right-of-way of State Route 237 is 20 feet at mile 2, 21 feet at mile 3, and 20.05 feet at mile 4, given plats that clearly show those dimensions?" Our actions and choices are not solely determined by what our policies and guidelines say. --NE2 16:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying it common sense that if something can only be sourced to blogs, it should not be mentioned, but you're unwilling to have that inserted in a guideline because? Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not see it that way--if something IS only sourced to blogs when it is normally the sort of thing that can normally be sourced in more reliable places, then the use of the blog would not be correct. the question of how to deal with things that CAN only normally be sourced to blogs is a more difficult one, I think we will probably end up by changing the rules to accept some blogs that are produced by an authoritative source--it seems to be transitioning into a method of general communication, particularly in academic settings. (I did not say that I liked this development)DGG 05:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying that anything that can be sourced only to blogs should be removed. In an article about said "blogslapfests", your comments from your blog should be allowed even if not specifically mentioned in press coverage. --NE2 13:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, here's my own example: we have a clearly reliable source like a newspaper article stating that "The blogslapfests began when Bum Bum Blogger posted disparaging remarks about Willy Weblog, and this dispute ultimately caused Hubba Hosting to restrict registration." Then there shouldn't be a problem with saying what said remarks actually were, sourced to Bum Bum's blog, in the articles about the "blogslapfests" and "Hubba Hosting". --NE2 20:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Advice please

I have run into an application of this guideline which troubles me. vojska.net is a personal website belonging to someone whom, looking at the contents, seems to me to be a NPOV serious hobby historian (WWII, Yugoslavia, and yes, I looked at POV). Dozens of Wikipedia editors have taken over a lot of factual content (so non-copyright) from this site and continue to do so. Everytime a stub is started people link to the site article, use it to check facts and, once there is a complete article, the link stops meeting WP:EL because a personal website is not WP:RS as a source and people have basically "adopted" all the factual content. So I just took 30 of the 54 article links out because the site page was no deeper than the article page and it wasn't good enough to be a reliable source. I feel very bad about doing this: in fact you could argue we should go and delete all the articles because the content has been added with no reliable sources except the WP editors on all these pages (I haven't ever editted any of them) have used it and appear to trust it. In these circumstances I am inclined to go back and say if diverse article editors in a wide area are consistently using this as a reliable source I should accept it as such and leave the links in (even though there is the personal website aspect which doesn't meet the guideline). Can anyone agree or disagree (thoughtfully please) with this one? If you suggest going and deleting all the articles please offer to bring a lot of mates with you ;) --BozMo talk 16:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I took a look at some of the articles in question (by going through BozMo's contribution history) and I immediately noted a serious issue with some of these articles ... They appear to be quite good articles, and I would hate to AfD them... but none of them contain any citations or references at all. On some of them the vjska.net site is linked as an External Link, but is not listed as a reference to back any statement. I think the correct way to go with this would be to slap a "this article needs references" tag on them, put a brief explanation of what the problem is on the talk page, and see what happens. Blueboar 16:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Blueboar has hit the nail on it's head. Also any particularly *contentious* statements should get their own {{fact}} tag slapped on them, but don't overdo it since that can lead to edit warring. Probably best to take a conservative approach at first and see what happens. Wjhonson 17:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. The site gives a bibliography: [22] but its mainly out of print. --BozMo talk 08:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
That's what libraries are for; that it's mainly in Croatian is a more serious problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

related discussion

This is being discussed at great length at WP:CSDUA, Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles. The name is a misnomer--it was established very early that speedies in the normal way would not be practical--and might get he whole proposal quickly annulled. Current thought is 7 to 10 days, though a word to replace "speedy" has not been decided on. It also became clear that this would have to apply to new articles only--that any attempt to apply it to existing articles would destroy WP--or, more likely get the whole project cancelled. (there's precedent for this--when the copyright permission criteria for images was tightened, it did not apply to the existing ones in articles). Discussion since has been along the same lines as discussion here. (And I've been saying more or less what I do here, is that the RS guidelines need to be a good deal more flexible for it to work. DGG 21:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Mozilla Wiki

A comment has recently been posted on the FARC of Mozilla Firefox as to the use of Mozilla Wiki as a source for the article. I believe it may be considered a reliable primary source for this specific article (my comments here). I would greatly appreciate input from other editors who are more familiar with the website and/or are willing to assess and comment on its reliability. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 11:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's unacceptable, there appears to be no expertise checking so there is no assurance that entries are accurate.ALR 16:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's acceptable as a primary source for facts about the development of Firefox, particularly identified versions. It is where development of Firefox is discussed, by the people who develop it. It shouldn't be cited as a secondary source, but it is clearly a primary source. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Rick, would you be willing to look through the article and opine on the FARC? We're stumped on this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm also confused here by what looks like circular reasoning: a primary source is a reliable source if it is published by a reliable source. "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
You're right that's circular and should not be stated in that fashion. It should rather say a "reputable publisher". Wjhonson 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
That's better - ok, so with that clarification, then what do we do about a Mozilla wiki - what makes it a "reputable publisher"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the fact it is the Mozilla Foundation's official development "forum"?
MozillaWiki is a so-called wiki (or WikiWiki) website, where the Mozilla Foundation and various other volunteers draft the plans of software development. [23]
(Of course, we could just throw our hands up in the air and move on :) Fvasconcellos 20:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Nah, someone will come along in the future and say, "well how come so-and-so is such-and-such ... " :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, of course. On with the discussion then... Fvasconcellos 20:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's back up. The intent is that facts be reliably sourced in a verifiable manner. If somebody says on a wiki (or in a blog) that the earth is flat, we can't use this as a source for a statement in an article that claims the earth is flat. This is entirely different from a fact about something for which a wiki or a blog is the primary source. If somebody were to write an article about a "flat earth" movement (for example), referencing a statement from a blog or wiki that claims the earth is flat (supporting a statement in the article that people make such claims) would be entirely appropriate. In the case of the Firefox article, the Mozilla wiki is being used as a source for statements about the development of Firefox. It's not being used as a secondary source for opinions or interpreted facts (like, say, market penetration statistics). The point about "using primary sources published by a reliable source" doesn't exactly apply in cases where the source itself is "published" (like a website). For example, the text of a speech can be used as a primary source only if it's published in a reliable source rather than (say) on somebody's blog. Websites are inherently self-published and are perhaps the ultimate "reliably published" version of anything appearing on the website. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

142 year old sources and WP:BIO

Here is an interesting question... I have come across a source (reliablility is seriously questioned) which mentions a specific Lodge of Freemasons (St. John's Lodge in NYC)... the source is over at least 142 years old, but the lodge still exists. To Masons the source is disparaging. My question is... 1) do specific chapters of a larger organization fall under the provisions of WP:BIO? ... and 2) can something said in a source that is 142 years old be a violation of BIO if the person (or group if the answer to question 1 is yes) it disparages still is living? Note that this is really an accademic question... I don't think I would question inclusion in the article on BIO grounds (there are better and far firmer grounds to challenge it)... I am just curious. Blueboar 02:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Disparaging is not the same as libelous. An organization, imho, would fall outside the area of WP:BIO, and by that standard, you could suppress anything negative or controversial about an organization forever. I don't think you can follow the logic to its end. Wjhonson 20:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Didn't think so either. But it does raise another issue... is there a statute of limitations on BIO ... what if a truely libelous source from say 70 years ago is added to a page about someone who is 90 and still living? (I suppose I should really ask this a the BIO talk page. But as this is really a hypothetical... ) Blueboar 20:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
You're out on a limb now :) If someone did something when they were 20 and they are still worried about it when they are 90, then I'd say they have other issues going on as well. That's an awful long time to not have collected material to *counter* anything perceived as libelous, and for other writers to not come up with any published defense. I'm going to have to push the "show me the money" button on that hypothetical, I just don't think you can find a case like that. Wjhonson 00:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Well there is the example of.... um... Ok, what about... er... well it could happen!  :>) Blueboar 00:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The only problem with articles on organization about BLP is when they contain remarks about individuals. They frequently do. & mention of them is just the same as an article about them specifically. We all know this, but it's good to repeat it once in a while.DGG 00:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

defining "source"

I have realized one reason why there is so much confusion about this guideline ... What do we mean when we use the term source? In some cases we talk about term as being the medium in which the material being cited is found (books, accademic journals, websites, etc.). In other cases we seem to be referring to the material itself (the text found in the book, journal or website). In yet other cases we seem to be talking about the person who said or wrote it (the author of the material)? Each of these three meanings for the term "source" has aspects that can affects reliability, but they are different.

I think we need to clarify this... but I am not sure how to start. Blueboar 20:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Very rare or unique doucments.

I have posted this comment at WP:V... but it has reliability aspects as well, so... How accessable does a document have to be to be considered reliable? For example, consider a rare or even unique document that is housed the archives of the Library of Congress. Anyone can go to Washington D.C. and read it. It is accessable to the public, and thus "verifiable" in a way ... but traveling to Washington may be the only way to verify that the document says what it says. Is a document that is "available to the public", but only at one location, accessable (and thus reliable) enough? Blueboar 15:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith could be taken to mean we trust people in these circumstances? --BozMo talk 15:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Seems reasonable--in practice, ones publicly posted would be accessible as copies or facsimiles, especially in forthcoming years with the many project to release such documents on the web. Ones not so available in archives etc should count--a suiitbly qualified person should be able to verify, and anything likely to be controversial is likely to have been discussed by historians. DGG 21:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The issue is the definition of the word "published". If you recall Blueboar, some time back we'd discussed whether the "Secret Meeting Notes" of the Masons, deposited in manuscript form in a library would be "publishing" them. I think we'd come to the conclusion that libraries don't "publish" and aren't "publishers" so depositing a work in one isn't "publishing" it. You need an agent who does the act of publishing before it can be wikicited. Wjhonson 16:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Classified sources

I was browsing through my watchlist earlier and hit Classified_information_in_the_United_Kingdom which is currently unsourced. Now I happen to know that the authoritative source for this material published by the Cabinet Office in the form of the Manual of Protective Security, which is itself classified. I've found a number of websites which articulate the content of the MPS as applicable to the organisaiton which supports the website, things like the crown prosecution service and the metropolitan police but none which reference the original source, MPS.

Clearly a classified document is not easily verifiable by the average punter off the street, so how might this be addressed? ALR 21:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

to the extent to which information about it is known in RS, it can be used, but the credibility depends upon the source reporting it. Anyone else who might use it for positing is someone who has access to it, and is undoubtedly violating the conditions of the access, and even when not copyvio, it comes to the same thing. Have you the right to see that document? There are certain cases where people feel individually justified in publishing classified and other prohibited sources in part of whole, but WP is not the place to do so. In the case mentioned, websites which articulate the content of the MPS should be usable, and multiple ones will adequately deal with NPOV--akthough this will not be quite as authoritative. DGG 21:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The issue I have with the article in question is that, other than not being well written, some of it is very outdated, by about 10 years. Difficluty is that the bits I'd need to use aren't in themselves classified, in fact the CPS website has a reasonable description which just requires generalised. In generalising I'll move away from the available source and towards the authoritative source, which is potentially less verifiable to the average punter off the street.
Lets face it, I could rewrite the article in a credible manner from memory, but as soon as someone challenges that...... There is no way to prove what is there is wrong, in the same way that there is no way to prove what I could put in is right. However lack of sourcing is rarely accepted as a legitimate reason for deletion, which would probably be the most appropriate direction for the article in question.
ALR 22:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Help with screen credits

Hi, I am a part of WikiProject The Simpsons and is working on providing sources for the material and to help others finding reliable sources. For this I have written a short guide, which deals with the common mistakes.

I have a problem with finding sources for the guest stars on the show. IMDb and The Simpsons Archive are deemed unreliable, but official sources such as the web site and the episode guide book only lists the major guest stars. As the official sources are incomplete I would actually call the "unreliable" sources more correct. Anyway, I read from this page that you can use primary sources, but people complain if we use the show itself as a source. So my question goes: Is it possible to reference the screen credits at the end of the show? --Maitch 12:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You can absolutely reference the show. As long as the guest stars are listed in the credits (as opposed to uncredited) you should be fine. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, citing the credits might be awkward, but it's valid. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This website has a good example of how to do it using MLA standards. ---J.S (T/C/WRE)
Would it be OK to cite episodes that the editor watched as they were being broadcast, or would it be necessary to cite a video or DVD that can be purchased, rented, or borrowed from a library? I notice the Wikipedia article says The Simpsons is in it's 19th season but the most recent season offered for purchase at [www.thesimpsons.com] is season 9. So does that mean one should not cite anything from seasons 10 through 19 unless a place to obtain videos or DVDs can be found? --Gerry Ashton 20:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The last remark is a valid question I also would like the answer to. Thanks for the help so far. --Maitch 23:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, this goes to the issue of publication... When is a TV broadcast "published"? When it airs? When it is made available for public purchase? What about a privately taped recording of the broadcast? What about re-runs? My feeling is that it is "published" when it airs, but others may disagree. Blueboar 02:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I will weigh in on the side of "it's published when it airs". Typically when, if not before, it airs, the studio has already "created in fixed media" the episode. On a tape or reel or what have you. Broadcasting is the creation of copies, the TV is the photocopier in that case merely copying an already published episode. The fact that the images are *consumed* if you will in real-time in not material, so are web images as you browse, they are discarded. So you can cite the episode, assured that someone could verify it just by taping it as it airs or waiting six weeks. Wjhonson 06:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Use of blogs ok, if we're just saying the blogger said something?

It has been alleged that it is ok to use blogs as sources on an article if we phrase it as "blogger x said y", as opposed to "y is true, according to blogger x." Is this true? Regarding Talk:Jamil Hussein controversy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Probably not, because it's likely not all that noteworthy. For instance, many American bloggers have at some point expressed an opinion either way about president Bush. That doesn't mean that his article should contain statements such as "[the presence of WMDs in Iraq] is true, according to bloggers [p q r], but false according to bloggers [x y z]". >Radiant< 13:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It greatly depends on who the Blogger is (is he an expert?, A noted journalist? etc.) Blueboar 15:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
No and no. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
For example, let's say we have an article on Ralph Reed. And on his official blog page he states, "last night I went skydiving, which I really love". You can cite that on his own page, because it's his blog about himself, and you're citing it to his page. Now let's say he says "I saw President Bush in drag prancing around a large pumpkin." You cannot cite that on the page for George Bush. Wjhonson 16:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If Ralph Reed said that on his blog, you know it would be reported in several more reliable sources within a few minutes ... but getting back to blogs: we also have to consider where the blog is hosted. William Saffire's blog hosted on the NY Times website has to be reliable for quoting that he saw Bush in a dress trampling a large squash. After all, we would consider it a reliable source for what Saffire says if the same statement appeared in an op-ed piece in the printed Times. The Times is just as accountable for things posted to its website as it is things printed in its paper. Shouldn't we differentiate between a reliable source that is in blog format, and a personal blog.
Once again, we seem to be discussing three different meanings of the word "source"... who said it, where they said it, and what they said. All are sources, but they get handled differently. We need to be clearer on this point. Blueboar 19:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


reinserted company and organizational websites.

unsure why it was removed. [24] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.68.7.90 (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Sources for self-evident claims

Let's suppose a user feels that, for whatever reason, it is important to state in an article that "since Pope John Paul the Second died in 2005, he can't have attended the World Cup in Germany in 2006." This is a self-evident assertion -- but if the user adds it to the article without sourcing, it's still original research.

Now let's suppose that the same user finds a source that claims, precisely, that "since Pope John Paul the Second died in 2005, he can't have attended the World Cup in Germany in 2006." In that case, he can add the assertion to the Wikipedia article and it will not be original research.

Perhaps in such cases the requirements for the sources should be less stringent than in other cases. The source's only function is to state the evident. The important requirements would be for the statement to be really self-evident, and for the source to be durable. Because it doesn't take any special expertise to say "since Pope John Paul the Second died in 2005, he can't have attended the World Cup in Germany in 2006," and the only important thing would be to know that someone has really said so and that it's not, thus, the user's original research. --Abenyosef 03:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The extent to which logical deductions may be made without finding those deductions stated in a reliable source is covered mainly in Wikipedia: No original research, not the "Reliable sources" guideline. Simple logical deductions by editors are allowed without sources, so there is no justification for watering down the requirements for sources. --Gerry Ashton 04:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
While simple logical deductions are allowed by the NOR policy, they are not allowed to dispute theories presented in the article. For instance, if the article quotes a reputable source claiming "in 1860, San Martín became governor of Buenos Aires province" NOR policy does not allow an editor to claim "however, questions arise as to this assertion, because if San Martín died in 1850, he can hardly have ruled Buenos Aires in 1860." It would be original research. However, if that editor finds a source making that evident claim, he is fully allowed to include it in the Wikipedia article. In that case, does it matter whether the source is scholarly, for instance?
To put it another way, cannot a source that would be unreliable for other purposes be considered reliable to make an evident proposition? If a claim is evidently true, do the requirements of scholarship, nonbias, etc., apply? If an anti-abortion page claims "if San Martín died in 1850, he can hardly have ruled Buenos Aires in 1860," can't it be quoted as a reliable source for that claim, despite its being nonreliable for claims pertaining to abortion issues? --Abenyosef 15:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I dispute that this is the case. If NOR says this, then NOR needs to be changed, because this is quite contrary to my view of what we are allowed to do. We do not need to find exact quotes that state each and every thing we say. If we were, then wikipedia would simply be a series of disjointed quotes with no synthesis or analysis involved. To me, that makes no sense whatsoever. Wjhonson 17:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The reliability of sources needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If a scholarly source says John Doe was born in San Francisco on July 12, 1867, and a certified birth certificate issued by the appropriate government agency says the date is July 21, 1867, it would not be unreasonable to prefer the birth certificate. On the other hand, if no birth certificate was available and some genealogy web site of unknown reliability says July 21, the scholarly source should be preferred. --Gerry Ashton 18:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I certainly agree with that position, but if the Catholic Encyclopedia for example says Pope John Paul II died in 1983 and a newspaper article says he attended the Olympics in 1984, we could certainly quote both and point out that they conflict. We're allowed to say "these sources conflict". To me that is not OR, it's trivial analysis. Wjhonson 18:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Evaluating Sources

Can someone please inform me why the above-named section has been removed from the article? I always found it helpful in discussion about whether a source was reliable or not. Thanks. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There is still quite a bit about the subject, what was it in particular that you were after?ALR 09:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Mainly, this paragraph

Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or Al-Qaeda. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only as sources about themselves or about their viewpoints, and even then with caution and sparingly.

The current version only mentions this in regard to blogs, or personal websites, but it the questions should be asked of all sources. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the topic specific material was removed to a sub-page, there is no consensus as to the most appropriate approach, note the discussion above. Mind you, I think the point is already covered in the guideline.ALR 22:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Primary sourcing to wikis

The article on Wikinfo is predominantly sourced directly to editable pages on Wikinfo itself (some of which are protected). In Ref 9, there is also sourcing to an editable Wikipedia page. This brings up two issues over the sourcing: first, can these sorts of details be verified by a primary source; and two, can an editable wiki be used as a primary source, or at all? As I was the nominator in the 3rd AfD for this article, which closed as no consensus, I would welcome other opinions to ensure my judgement isn't clouded. Thanks. Trebor 13:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are correct regarding the problems associated with the Wikinfo article. Obviously I can edit even the protected pages there. However, I don't see the article remaining as a blot on Wikipedia. As a fork, it is notable to us, if not to the larger community. Fred Bauder 14:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes we can verify details by primary sources. What I would suggest is that you try to find secondary sources as well to add to the article. I'm sure there are some, there are over a half-million google hits, some of them have to be non-trivial, and secondary. Wjhonson 17:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
There are a few quality hits. The thousands are just articles (mostly imported from Wikipedia) and mirrors. Fred Bauder 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Boing Boing.net RS as a secondary source?

I'm curious as they are often heavily cited back by a variety of broadcast, paper and digital media on various topics and stories. Thanks. - Denny 00:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi... could anyone help me on this? Boing Boing is often cited by other sources, so I'm inclined to say yes. It's a notable online news source these days. Can someone clarify for me? thanks. - Denny 18:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Ask at WP:ATT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 18:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
thanks, I will. - Denny 18:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a Reliable Source?

Is Wikipedia itself a reliable source? I suggest that it is not, and that Wikipedia articles should not source or link to other Wikipedia articles for the following reasons listed in this very policy:

Clearly, Wikipedia articles cannot be reasonably claimed to always possess Attributability, Expertise, Bias, they clearly lack Editorial oversight, are often missing a comprehensive Declaration of sources, they often contradict other articles and therefore lack Corroboration, they lack Recognition by other reliable sources, and while archived history is available, they lack Persistence.

OK, I am being a little facetious about not linking to other Wikipedia articles. But I am very concerned that the Reliable Sources policy is an attempt to destroy what has made Wikipedia great - the involvement of tens of thousands of individuals outside the framework of the publishing industry. I particularly object to the near-blanket prohibition on using Internet sources. In particular, Hipocrite is going around deleting large sections of information that he thinks are sourced from blogs, without any effort to ascertain whether the information is correct or not, or even if they are actually sourced from a blog. This amount to a form of censorship of knowledge based upon the source. It appears that for the most part, only information published by the press, academicians or printed books or journals will be permitted and the rest of the human race will not be allowed to contribute to the terrific amount of knowledge that is being accumulated here on Wikipedia.

In looking through the history of this article, it appears that only 14 people have put together a radical policy for the rest of the membership. I cannot agree with this policy of choosing the "correct" sources over what should be the goal: correct information.Kevinp2 01:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that articles in wikipedia should not be used as a source or reference (footnote) within an article. However, in-line linking to other articles, for ease-of-access is not the same as sourcing to those articles to support the article you're reading. On your other note, are you sure you've read *all* the archives as well? I'm sure there's many times more then 14 unique names. Wjhonson 07:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the SPLC a reliable source on the identification of hate groups?

For reasons that follow, the SPLC should not be considered a reliable source for who is and who is not a 'hate group'. 1.) USA Today reported that "... in a recent report on arsons at black churches in the South, his Klanwatch newsletter included five 1990 fires in Kentucky. The article doesn't mention they were set by a black man."[2] 2.) Stephen Bright of the Southern Center for Human Rights describes Dees, the SPLC leader, as " a fraud who has milked a lot of very wonderful well-intentioned people. If it's got headlines, Morris is there."[3] 3.) The Montgomery Advertiser has said that from 1984 to 1994 the SPLC received almost $62 million in contributions but spent only $20.8 million on its anti-poverty and anti-discrimination programs.[4] 4.) Harpers Magazine has said that most alleged 'hate' groups on the SPLC's list are non-violent.[5] 5.) The American Institute of Philanthropy gave the center one of the worst ratings of any group it monitors 6.) David Horowitz of Front Page Magazine writes, "The effect is to multiply the number of racial hate groups, to scare well-meaning citizens into the belief that mainstream civil rights organizations like the Center for the Study of Popular Culture are really fever swamps of hate that deserve to be lumped alongside the Ku Klux Klan. The purpose of this fear-mongering is transparent. It is to fill the already wealthy coffers of your organization by exploiting unsuspecting donors into helping you promote leftwing agendas under the guise of civil rights"[6] In short, the SPLC is to social work what Robert Tilton is to televangelism. Using it's statements to mar other groups with the label "hate group" is indefensible. However, in many articles on Wikipedia it has been used for just this purpose and attempts to point out its dubious legitimacy have been systematically shot down. It should be noted somewhere on Wikipedia that the SPLC is not a reliable source when it comes to what is a hate group. I should also point out that because it has been used on several different articles, one RfC for one article isn't sufficient. (UTC)-Psychohistorian 12:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The unreliability of that organization is demonstrated by the fact that it has changed its name in 06 to "David Horowitz Freedom Center"--see the WP article. This may make it somewhat easier to demonstrate its worthlessness for any purpose except showing the personal view of DH. DGG 06:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
You are a bit confused. DHFC (which is, absurdly, currently a subject of AfD) changed its name from "Center for the Study of Popular Culture", CSPC not SPLC. CSPC is the old name of David Horowitz's umbrella organization. SPLC published an article by Chip Berlet accusing DHFC of "support[ing] efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable", exactly the kind of behavior Psychohistorian points to as showing that SPLC isn't a reliable source. My own position on this is that SPLC isn't a reliable source for the statement of fact that an organization is a "hate group", but that it (or Chip Berlet) calling an organization a "hate group" (nb:has it ever used those exact words?) would be a notable fact about the target, suitable for a NPOV mention in a Criticism section. Which is what I gave it in writing the current version of David Horowitz#Allegations of bigotry, which I think is both NPOV and indicates pretty strongly the probability that Berlet and SPLC have their heads up their butts. Which you can confirm by reading the citations for yourself. Andyvphil 10:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
yes, the SPLC is widely recognized as the most thorough and valuable source of information. It makes fewer mistakes than its critics--the "reasons" given above for distrusting it are pretty thin gruel. So yes it is reliable --is it perfect? --hardly (the list of perfect sources for Wiki is reather short.) The wonderful thing about Wiki is that we can use multiple sources and test their reliability in particular cases. Rjensen 11:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
"yes, the SPLC is widely recognized as the most thorough and valuable source of information." Do you have a source for that claim or is it just something you made up?-Psychohistorian 16:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Made it up? No it's citedas a reliable source by the mainstream news media. A check at google turns up 7000+ newspaper and magazine reports citing the Center -- eg Philadelphia Inquirer, Chicago Sun-Times, Denver Rocky Mountain News, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Greensboro News and Record, Salt Lake Tribune, West's Encyclopedia of American Law , NPR, School Planning and Management, Florida Bar News, Gerda and Kurt Klein Foundation, Jet Magazine, Razorfish, Inc. (NASDAQ: RAZF) (a corporation), Palm Beach Daily News, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, New York Times, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Buffalo News, Salon -etc etc. As for scholarly sources: SPLC is cited in scholarly papers in refereed journals including: American Behavioral Scientist, Journal of Social Issues, Social Forces, The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Political Geography, The Urban Review, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Information & Communications Technology Law, Public Administration Review, The Sociological Quarterly, and Justice Quarterly etc etc. Rjensen 18:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
If you believe that rather twisted bit of logic, then (since "Nazi" gets 8000+ hits) you must believe that Nazis are more reliable than the SPLC as a source. The number of hits that you get when searching a group on Google News is orthogonal to whether that group is a reliable source.-Psychohistorian 19:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Twisted logic??? How nasty. Fact is that the leading scholarly journals and many newspapers and magazines cite the SPLJ reports as reliable. For an in-depth look at the issues better read the leading sociology journal's major article on the topic: "Hate Crime Reporting as a Successful Social Movement Outcome," by Rory McVeigh; Michael R. Welch; Thoroddur Bjarnason American Sociological Review, Vol. 68, No. 6. (Dec., 2003), pp. 843-867. online at JSTOR Rjensen 19:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Pointing out that your logic is twisted isn't nasty. Nasty is a personal attack like if I were to call you "stupid". But what you have done is base your argument on an article which is inaccessible (it requires a JSTOR account). I'll go to the library and look it up if you can assure me that you aren't waisting my time. Tell me straight out that this article you are citing states "the leading scholarly journals and many newspapers and magazines routinely cite SPLC reports as conclusive evidence of which groups are hate groups." If you can't do that and don't have a better sources, then you must be just making it up.-75.179.159.240 23:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
User 75.whatever can be assured that I read the entire Am Soc Review article and found it useful. The authors certainly found the SPLC data valuable and integrated it fully into their study. I also looked at citations from all the scholarly journals I listed above and each one uses data from SPLC and treats it as reliable. If the scholars, the specialists and the editors say "reliable" then we can agree with them, or we can go along with the non-citations to non-scholarly stuff provided by non-nasty anonymous User 75.whatever Rjensen 23:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Quite right my acronyms got mixed up--my comments were in fact about CSPC, a thoroughly unreliable source for anything except its own opinion (& I voted keep on the article, by the way, as truly notable bigotry; so did most others.) SPLC is another matter entirely and a RS, keeping into account even its limitations--e.g. if we are NPOV we have to cite the "wrong" side as well. Thanks for the fix, Rjensen. DGG 22:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

The Sun

There has been some debate on the talk:Gillian McKeith page about the use of the British newspaper The Sun as a cited source. Some people are claiming that is is NOT a reliable source. Although The Sun is given to sensaionalism and stories about celebrities and cannot be given the epithet of a quality journal it does not trade in outright fabrication like The Daily Sport and some American supermarket tabloids and shouldn't be tarred with the same brush. I think a lack of understanding of the nature of the British newspaper industry can lead some people fail to recognise that The Sun can carry, a least on occasion, genuine and reliably sourced information. I have debated this with RadioKirk on User talk:RadioKirk. Jooler 19:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The main issue with the Stun is that whilst they do carry out quite reliable research, their representation of the outcomes of that research can be extremely biased. I would not consider the Stun to be a reliable source with respect to the topic under discussion, merely reliable with respect to what the Stun says about the topic.ALR 22:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The specific instance here is a quote. Jooler 22:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It is certainly reliable to say "According to The Sun: 'Quote'", but I would avoid using it as a source to back a conclusionary statement. Blueboar 01:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
One problem with citing The Sun is that someone would have to subsequently check for retractions or apologies for misleading and false statements (should they occur, especially about people) and adjust the article accordingly. This has the further problem that The Sun tend to lend less weight to apologies (hiding them away in the middle pages, two square column inches max), so could go unnoticed. Bubba hotep 14:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal correspondence

I've recently been in contact with the subject of a Wikipedia article. He has given me the oppurtunity to ask him whatever questions I wish, for use in the article. I'm not a journalist, nor do I work for any reputable website, so how would I be able to include this information? Simply posting them to a blog wouldn't seem to be sufficient. – Quoth 04:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't be able to. Interviewing someone is original research. You could however, have the subject of the article him/her self create their own blog or resume or interview page, and then a link to that page could be created. But the page has to be owned by the individual not yourself. Wjhonson 04:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for answering so quickly. So I could conduct and compile an interview, and as long as it's hosted on his website, I can reference it in Wikipedia? – Quoth 07:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Remembering that it's generally frowned upon for a person to link in their own work, in any shape, I'd say yes and no. If you Quoth are writing the questions, the interviewee is answering them, he is hosting it all on his site, then I'd say post a link to what you've done on the TALK page of that article, asking another, impartial editor to add it to the article. That approach *could* possibly pass muster. You might get challenged on the basis of *demonstrating* with some evidence, that the person themselves actually owns the website in question. Generally people directly involved in the creation of primary sources, should not be editing articles in wikipedia based on those sources. Wjhonson 07:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
One thing I forgot to mention, perhaps you and your subject might want to check out Wikinews for this sort of thing. Interviews are gladly accepted there with no restrictions. Wjhonson 07:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
What about if they answered in a letter which was then scanned in? --BozMo talk 14:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course a malicious contributor could make up such a letter and claim it was from George Bush for example. That claim might be easy and quick to disprove, but a similar claim about a letter from Carly Simon might take longer, and a letter from Orville Wright might be almost impossible to disprove (except that he's dead). That's why we lean heavily on reliable sources. Wjhonson 15:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
We are dealing with two issues here... the first issue is the interview itself, and if it constitutes original research. If the Wikipedia editor who conducted the interview adds information gleaned from the interview to an article, it would be considered original research. However, if the interviewer publishes the interview in some form, it becomes a public record that someone else can add to the article and, thus, no longer original research. So the question becomes, how and where to publish it. IE - how to make the interview a reliable source.
The interview needs to be published in a way that is verifiable and reliable. Quoth (the interviewer) can not simply post it to his/her personal webpage, as that would not be a reliable source (we have no way of verifying that the interview actually took place and is an accurate rendition of what was said) ... this is why it was suggested that the interview be posted on the subject's webpage. The personal webpage of the subject of an article is considered a reliable source for that subject. By posting the interview on the subject's website, the subject shows that he/she has approved what it says. The only other option would be to get the interview accepted by some other reliable source, such as a newspaper.
Unfortuanately, a letter can be forged (Note, I am not saying that you would do such a thing... I'm just speaking in general terms). So, no, asking the subject to write a letter verifying the interview, and then scanning and linking that letter will not make the interview reliable. it has to be published... either by the subject himself, or by a reliable third party. Blueboar 15:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I had always thought that "original research," as the name would imply, referred to the inference of information from a primary source, as opposed to the simple duplication of fact. The interview would unquestionably be a primary source — and verified by its presence on his own website, perhaps with an additional statement to that effect — so to simply duplicate the facts (e.g., "He graduated such-and-such secondary school in 1994, ...") as he himself has given them, would surely be discounted as any form of original research, i.e. interpretation? – Quoth 20:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes and no... It is a fine line. The problem is that you are the one who conducted the interview and the one who wants to use it in Wikipedia... that is a grey zone. If ALL you do is quote the interview, verbatum, with absolutely no interpretatry satements about it, then you probably have a good argument for it not being OR... but it is iffy. You really should bring that issue up at the WP:NOR talk page.
This page should really deal with the second part... is it reliable? For that you have to meet three basic tests - Who?, What? and Where? ... Who: is the author reliable? (do we have a reason to trust the interviewer and more importantly to trust that he/she is not misquoting the subject). What: is the material itself reliable? (ie can we reliably verify that the interview took place and that the subject actually said what the interview quotes him as saying). Where: is the material published in a reliable form (newspaper, journal, reliable webpage, etc). I am not sure that your interview meets any of these criteria completely. There are things you can do to make it more reliable, but it will be difficult. Blueboar 21:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Chages to Types of source material: A primary source

See above Proposed Section Re-write --Philip Baird Shearer 18:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Earlier today Philip Baird Shearer made major changes to the section on primary sources. Was this discussed? He deleted quite a lot and replaced it with wording from WP:OR. I'm not comfortable with his changes. A main problem I've been facing is editors wanting to use primary sources as evidence for extreme claims. The previous wording made much more clear the constraints on the use of primary sources. To me, the current version loses that and makes it seem as if they can be more readily cited. Should this be reverted? Thanks. TimidGuy 15:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you give an example? The way I've personally always approached *controversial* primary sources is to use quote marks, and an <ref> citation to show clearly and exactly what the source is saying. Of course often people will paraphrase non-controversial statements from primary sources. The problems of course only occur when controversy rises. That's why I wanted to look over your case to see what the issue is exactly. Wjhonson 16:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with using a reliable primary source as evidence that an extreme claim is made. The controvery over such sources usually tends to be that someone has used a primary source as if it were a secondary one... ie using the source to back an interpretary statement and implying that the claim is TRUE. There is a difference. Blueboar 16:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Wjohnson and Blueboar. Here's an example: a body of research, including over 200 peer-reviewed studies, was criticized in a Wikipedia article based on a letter written over 20 years ago (by someone without first-hand knowledge) claiming that all this research was fraudulent. This letter was from a POV web site. I argued that this letter was a primary source and that this claim of fraud needed to be corroborated by a secondary source, and did so based on the clear guideline. I raised the issue here and received support from two very experienced editors and was able to delete the accusation of fraud from the article.

I feel like the guideline on primary sources needs to be clear in regard to the constraint on using them. TimidGuy 16:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you point out specifically how the change in the wording from the old version to this newest version would affect your particular situation? I'm still not clear on that. Try to be as specific as you can.Wjhonson 17:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Old version:

  • Thus, primary materials typically require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reputable publisher, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources.

New version:

  • For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source because experts have the resources required for interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research.

I like the way the old version explicitly states that primary materials "typically require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration." And that they can only be used to make descriptive points about a topic. The new version seems to be less constrained, suggesting a primary source can be used as long as the passage in Wikipedia agrees with the primary source. So an uncorroborated claim of fraud in a letter could be acceptable according to the new guideline, as long as the person reading the article can see that the claim accurately represents the primary source. The old version suggests that such a primary source would need to be corroborated in the context of a secondary source. TimidGuy 17:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's my personal opinion that primary sources can always be quoted. So let's get that out-of-the-way at the outset. However, in saying that, your case involves a 20-year-old letter. Do you not yourself have access to sources which refute what the letter says? As an example, look at Blavatsky. Note how in the criticisms section and the responses section you have battling sources. One side says this, one side says that. The sources can even disparage each other by stating that side A is a known bigamist and gambler or failed a polygraph or was in prison for ten years for shooting his wife. The issue with sources is, its *almost* always better to have more, instead of suppressing some. The exceptions would be extremist sources, whose main purpose is apparently to deceive not inform. But be prepared to vigorously defend such a position, as we'd be more inclined, imho, to side on inclusion. My advice would be to find sources which refute the letter and post them to the article as well. Wjhonson 17:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for your thoughts. I guess in any case, both versions emphasize that the primary source be published by a reliable source ("Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them.") And in the example I gave this wasn't the case. So that's likely the main constraint. And as Blueboar noted, the problem comes in when someone uses a primary source as a secondary source to suggest that a particular claim is true. TimidGuy 18:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of changing the section heading so that it is a little more meaningful tomorrow :-) Yes the changes were discussed (see above Proposed Section Re-write) were I made the point (with examples) that in many articles using primary sources is quite acceptable and desirable provinding "[start text copied from WP:OR]Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material[stop][addition expansion] requires a secondary source because experts have the resources required for interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research". The previous wording was more restrictive than that in WP:OR and all I have done in bring the wording in this guideline closer to that of the policy. As to the specicic problem mentioned TimidGuy I suggest that this falls under Exceptional claims require exceptional sources rather than the previous wording of the primary source paragraph.
The other changes I made to the sentences "The term mainly refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. Primary sources include official reports, letters, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies, statistics compiled by authoritative agencies, and court records. " to "Primary sources include official reports, letters, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies, statistics compiled by authoritative agencies, court records, or other documents produced by a participant in an event, or an observer of an event." was done for style reasons it was not my intention to change the meaning of those two sentences. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much, Philip. I understand now. And thanks for pointing me to that specific section of WP:RS. And thanks again, Wjohson and Blueboar. I guess I overreacted and panicked a bit when I saw the change, given some of debates I've been involveld in regarding primary sources. Thanks for your work on these guidelines. TimidGuy 18:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that I could he of help. I think one of the problems we all have is that we tend to look at these guidelines from our own areas of interest and there can be conflicts and unforeseen consequences because they are interpreted differently in different areas, so discussions like this help to improve and generalise the guidlines.
Food for thought: A case were the primary source may be more desirable than just relying on secondary sources was high-lighted during the editing of the Bombing of Dresden in World War II last year (a controversial subject if ever there was one). By the selective extraction of different parts from a primary source by secondary source authors, those authors of the secondary source could use it to to reinforce their POV. From the same RAF Group briefing paper:
Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester, is also [by] far the largest unbombed built-up area the enemy has got. In the midst of winter, with refugees pouring westwards and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium, not only to give shelter... but to house the administrative services displaced from other areas... The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most...and to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do. ( Michael Zezima From Dresden to Baghdad 58 Years of "Shock and Awe")
Second example from Norman Longmante in The Bombers page 333:
Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany ... is also far the largest unbombed built-up area the enemy has got ... At one time well known for its china, Dresden has developed into a industrial city of first-class importance and ... is of major value for controlling the defence of that part of the front now threatened by marshal Koniev's breakthrough. ... The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most ... to prevent the use of the city in the way of a further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.
So using a secondary source that quotes a primary source may not necessarily avoid the problems of a biased POV even if "experts have the resources required for interpretation..." --Philip Baird Shearer 19:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating. Good point. TimidGuy 20:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Book Cover

On Bat Ye'or we have an example of commentary about her book being a quote from a well known historian on the cover of her book. Can it be considered reliable if it is only one setence and by virtue of being on a book cover was chosen specifically to praise the author? gren グレン 02:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, remembering that "reliable" does not mean truthful, neutral or mundane. If you want to contrast the quote, I'm sure you could find a book review that disparages the book as well. It's always better to have more citations, then fewer ones. Wjhonson 07:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It should, however, be sourced as: "Book cover, quoting..." Any quotations on a book cover may be assumed to be taken out of context, and to represent, if at all possible, a more favorable view than the reviewer actually holds. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation for award?

When claiming that the article's subject won an award, are the subject's Web site or press/promotional info appropriate as a citation? I am speaking in particular about Society of Seven. The article claims the subject won an award from a magazine but does not cite the magazine or explain when, and I have been unable to find a source. Another editor has cited the group's site and promotional information about one of their shows, but I feel neither is reliable in this instance because anyone can claim something like this. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 00:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Their website is certainly reliable for the fact that they claim to have won an award. I would discuss it with proper attribution... "According to their website, Society of Seven won an award from a magazine (although the website does not state details such as which magazine or when it was awarded).<ref>group's website where the claim is made</ref>" Blueboar 16:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of partisan and advocacy groups as sources

Let’s take a step back for a moment from the disputations in Is the SPLC a reliable source on the identification of hate groups?. Before we ask whether a group is a “reliable source”, we need to ask whether it is “partisan” — not so much regarding the issue it focuses on, but rather on its worldview or political orientation. If we neglect to do this, we become subject to identifying those whose orientation we are sympathetic to as “reliable” and those opposed as “biased”. Furthermore, partisan organizations tend, over time, to attract to their leadership individuals who are the most zealous in their orientation — to wit, the very people who have the hardest time being neutral. That is why we consider academic sources (on average) to be more desirable than sources that are advocacy groups. Academic standards call for more self-criticism than the latter, which tend to emphasize emotional engagement.

Can advocacy groups provide useful and reliable information? Certainly, but they also have a greater inclination to emphasize the supportive and obscure the contradictory; sometimes their zealotry may even lead them to make mistakes. This is why Wikipedia rightly calls for representing contentious issues from multiple viewpoints: write it NPOV and let intelligent readers decide for themselves. If we are to rely on advocacy sources, then to be fair we need to provide the criticisms of those whose partisanship lies with an opposing perspective since they are more likely to hold the other “accountable” (and vice versa). Perhaps we should reserve the moniker “reliable sources” for neutral and academic sources, and identify partisan sources as “semi-reliable sources”. In any case, when we use a partisan source, we should identify the nature of its partisan orientation.

Prejudice and hate-mongering are certainly not limited to any particular race, religion, political orientation, etc.; in fact, they seem to be a sad commonplace among all groups comprised of human beings. In modern times it has finally become a serious accusation and one that stings, so it needs to be applied judiciously so as to not water it down through mis-use. If a group only brands organizations that advocate a different perspective as members of a “hate group”, we need to be suspicious. (Keep in mind that the Nazis branded Jews as what we would call a “hate group”.) However, even if they so label a “fellow traveler” as such, caution is still required. The intense mutual disparagement between the Stalinists and Trotskyites, for instance, was due to their being competitors.

My recommendation regarding the use of advocacy organizations and leaders as sources for assigning a condemnatory label to another group — besides caution — is to identify them as such and to include criticisms of their identifications from opposing viewpoints. My first preference would be to draw upon multiple, independent, neutral (i.e., non-advocacy) sources before Wikipedia presents any organization as accused of belonging under such a hateful label, unless (like the KKK) they don’t serious dispute their prejudice (albeit denying the “hate group” label, per se, because of its legal implications).

In this regard, the SPLC should be considered a “semi-reliable” source. It is decidedly an advocacy group, and therefore its listing of “hate groups” must be treated with care. It is possible that some of those it so labels are on its list because those organizations disagree in their political or pursuasive orientation or perhaps even have simply incurred the personal ire of certain leaders of the former. The criticisms identified by Psychohistorian — and raised in the Wikipedia article on the SPLC — should not be summarily dismissed. Harpers Magazine is hardly a bastion of neoconservatism, nor would the Montgomery Advertiser’s investigation have become a Pulitzer Prize finalist if it were mere tabloid journalism.

Wikipedia also needs to be very careful in its description of “hate groups”. For instance, I do not believe the current article makes a very clear distinction between groups that advocate violence and those that others characterize as hate groups. The former are fairly easy to identify with relative assurance, while the latter are not. At what point does the opposition of one group to an agenda by another (usually oppressed) group qualify them to be legitimately portrayed as a “hate group” — and how do we differentiate from mere “political” demonizing?
Askari Mark (Talk) 16:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Users interested in this may also wish to review This RFC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

From the start of Askari Mark's posting at the start of this section.

Before we ask whether a group is a “reliable source”, we need to ask whether it is “partisan” — not so much regarding the issue it focuses on, but rather on its worldview or political orientation. If we neglect to do this, we become subject to identifying those whose orientation we are sympathetic to as “reliable” and those opposed as “biased”.

This causes problems, because all sources in certain fields are partisan. For example all governments in representative democracies consist of members of political parties and all political parties by definition are partisan. Any NGO which takes a political position, like for example Amnesty International, are partisan. This is also true of those in international organisations like the United Nations who argue that the U.N. should have a larger budget. However most people would consider all these sources to be reliable. Further one has to look at "we" in the light of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias article. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Systemic bias, while a problem in of itself, is most often a passive, circumstantial bias and its partisanship is derivative. The partisan bias I am referring here to is the active sort that focuses on advocating single-issue or political position agendas. Those participating in active partisanship are more likely to promote skewed information and less likely to recant from it than those whose passive “partisanship” derives mostly or entirely from a lack of exposure to information derived from other viewpoints or a broader range of sources. To wit, the latter are “educatable” while the former “want to make their opinion yours” (or at least dominant). Askari Mark (Talk) 20:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/examples

Slim Virgin recently removed the link to the "Examples" page because that page has been marked as being "inactive". Her edit was the correct thing to do (we shouldn't link to an inactive page) ... but why is the examples page marked as being inactive in the first place? It is a sub-page of this quite active guideline - designed to give the reader further examples of reliablility and unreliability as they relate to specific subject matters and topics. If this guideline is active, shouldn't any subpages related to it be active as well? Blueboar 13:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see it remain active -- and a part of the guidelines. It's been very useful. TimidGuy 15:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Not only should it be active, but it should really be expanded and considered the framework for what's considered reliable. I hadn't looked at this before, but this is almost exactly what I was considering proposing for subject-specific reliability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Now would be a good time to propose this -- since everything is in flux and wp:rs is being merged into WP:ATT. Of course, there's been a lot of debate about how specific the guidelines should be, so there may be some resistance. Still, we really need guidance in this area. It's almost as if there are two Wikipedias -- and two audiences for the guidelines. The first comprises the simple, straight-forward articles, and simple guidelines that help users understand that they're supposed to use sources rather than write original material. The second comprises the contentious Wikipedia, and the audience in this case consists of editors desparate for direction in regard to what kinds of sources are acceptable. Seems like in the long run, simply stating, for example, that scientific studies should be peer-reviewed would save a lot of time now being spent on disputes. TimidGuy 16:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Self-published sources: Can we simplify this?

First of all, I am not sure we should be lumping "online" with "self-published". There are a lot of things online that are not self-published (e.g. many newpapers publish online), and vanity books (offline) are self-published.

Anyways, in my opinion, it would be better to simplify criteria for inclusion of self-published sources down to three things:

  • Information is attributed, in the sentence, as being according to the source, and not stated as fact. (E.g. source for the opinion of the source. Note that this makes it a primary source.)
  • Relevant to the topic at hand. (Often, but not always, in the article about the source.)
  • Provably significant to the topic at hand. (Perhaps a good secondary source, like the New York Times, discussed the source in relation to the topic; or multiple good secondary sources have applauded the author as an expert on the topic.)

I do not think this would be underrestrictive, since satisfying the third requirement does require at least one good secondary source. It could also provide a source-based reason for deleting certain articles without resorting to the WP:Notability argument.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 01:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC), 01:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

To tie this in with the aspects of reliability, self-published sources utterly fail on editorial oversight and might have bias issues, but this can be made up for with recognition by other reliable sources, and possibly expertise, provided we use the information with caution - attributing it to avoid stating it as a fact, and only using it where relevant. Also, it occurs to me that the 3rd requirement ties into WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why peer review can't occur after publication. Favorable review or citation by a number of reliable sources could turn a self-published source into a reliable source, provided the self-published source is stable (like a book). A Wikipedia article that was praised by several reliable publications would not be reliable, because it could deteriorate after the favorable mention. --Gerry Ashton 04:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of various examples. Awhile back, someone posted this, and in the Adnan Hajj photographs controversy article bloggers had uncovered some scandal involving doctored photographs, and many major news outlets gave them credit for it. This is uncommon, but a clear exception.
Above, there is a debate of the acceptability of a developer wiki, Mozilla Wiki. This reminds me of this citation where the official NetBSD site linked to an official mailing list announcement. (It also reminds me of something where Theo de Raadt, founder of OpenBSD and hence a documented expert, put a mailing list archive on his personal website documenting his dispute with other NetBSD developers and hence founded OpenBSD. However, this was not used for a WP:NPOV reason, namely that the NetBSD people preferred to keep quiet rather than share their side of the story. Note that it would not have been hard to find a link to prove that the website was indeed Theo's.)
A more common problem, I think, is musicians who use Myspace as their official website. A link from a more reliable website could prove that it was indeed the musician, and hence an expert on the subject.
I also remember some situations where websites that you would expect to be self-published actually did have limitted peer review processes. Sometimes it was just author approval before they could contribute, and sometimes it was much better. Anyways, not all fan sites / blogs / wikis / message boards / mailing lists are strictly self-published, although they usually are.
Also, I wonder, does archive.org count as stable? Or is archive.org copyvio? The closest case law I could find showed that Google cache's were apparently not copyvio according to US law. Both google and archive.org allow opt-out via robots.txt. In any case, permalinks to a specific versions of Wiki articles is possible.
Sorry for the long response, but I am still not sure that all of the things I mentioned are reliable enough to use without in-sentence attribution, even with the help they received from reliable secondary sources.
— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 13:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Where are we lumping online sources in with self-published sources? All I can find is this section:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, anonymous websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. See below for exceptions.

  • I can't see anything there that prevents online newspapers or magazines being used, since they are not "self-published books, personal websites, anonymous websites, or blogs". Hope that helps. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 19:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I was only referring to the title of the section, "Using online and self-published sources", which seems (to me) to imply that online sources are self-published. Thanks, Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 20:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
That's clarified by the text itself though, yeah? It's titled that way to let you know online sources are discussed. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 20:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you do make a good point. However, I do think it would be clearer if it was retitled to "Self-published sources" or "Self-published sources (online and paper)". The latter is from WP:V. Thanks, Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 20:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Then this should be the same. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 21:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I just changed it to the WP:V title, "Self-published sources (online and paper)", although you are free to revert if I misunderstood you. (Not that others are not free to revert as well.) — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 22:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible replacement

I suggest we replace Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources and all of its subsections with the following, titled as "Self-published sources":

In general, self-published sources, or sources without any editorial oversight, should not be used. Sources that are generally self-published are blogs, messages boards, mailing lists, and wikis. Fan sites and other personal websites are often self-published as well. Even in the field of books, beware of vanity publishers.

There are some exceptions. Self-published sources may be considered reliable enough to use when the following three criteria are met:

  • The material is provably significant to the topic at hand. This could be proved if a reliable secondary source, like the New York Times, discusses the source in relation to the topic. It could also be proved if multiple reliable secondary sources applaud the author as an expert on the topic, and there is evidence that the author did indeed write the source. In other words, the lack of editorial oversight can be made up with recognition by other reliable sources, and possibly expertise and attributability.
  • The material is relevant to the topic at hand. This is generally met by the first condition, but please remember that a source can be reliable in one area and not in another.
  • The material is attributed as being the opinion of the self-published source its author. While this might not be necessary if other reliable sources prove that the reliability of the self-published sources is very high or if there is corroboration from more reliabe sources, it is generally a good idea considering a self-published source can only represents itself. It is not uncommon for self-published sources to be biased.

You should ensure that the version of the self-published source remains in the same version recognised by the secondary sources. A wiki, for example, may change at any time, but it is possible to permalink to an old version.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 17:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather us keep it simple and positive: "Self-published sources are considered reliable only in specific circumstances:" then the three bullet points and a directive to the proper portion of WP:V/WP:ATT. We shouldn't be recommending against self-published/primary sources as much as pointing out the times that they're acceptable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
How about, "Self-published sources, or sources without any editorial oversight, are only considered reliable when the following conditions are met:", followed by the rest?
WP:V and WP:ATT apparently have a portion of what WP:RS currently has to say on the subject, which seems rather confusing and in conflict with a number of exceptions that have consensus. The restriction of "in articles about themselves" misses the point, in my opinion, as it is often appropriate to use a self-published source in another article as a source for its opinion (as a primary source), providing you can prove that their opinion is actually significant. Similiarly, if all you have is the self-published source, it is probably not appropriate to even have an article on it, and I think this argument should be made with reliability, not notability.
But anyways, since WP:V/WP:ATT do discuss this, and policy overrides guideline, I should probably go direct them to this discussion.
— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 18:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
AMF, that change would have to be made at a policy level, not here. This page has to be consistent with NOR and V. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin has hit the nail on the head. This guideline is designed (or should be designed) to amplify and further explain what is meant by "Reliable Sources" as concieved in WP:V and WP:NOR... To the degree that WP:RS is inforcible, it is because of what is stated in the Policy, and not what is said here. Thus, whatever we say here must be consistant with the policy pages. Should WP:ATT be made Policy, this page must and will be edited to refect what it says. Blueboar 19:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Which is why I tried to draw the attention of WP:V/WP:ATT editors here, see here and here. Also, both policy and guideline should reflect consensus, with policy reflecting a higher degree of consensus than mere guideline. Given past discussions, I am not even this topic has enough consensus to be part of actual policy, although I could be wrong. In any case, is there any reason not to discuss it here, rather than on WT:V or WT:ATT, considering it is not even clear which policy page it should be brought up on if it were brought up on one of them? — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 20:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
V and NOR have a lot of support, but RS doesn't, and the reason, or at least one of the reasons, is that this page has been edited too much and has become unstable, so it can't be trusted. It's therefore very important not to add anything else that might contradict the policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The policies can be changed. I really don't think the current wording on exceptions for the no self-published sources rule has enough consensus to be policy anyways (see above). If people seem to like my suggestion, other than concerns about contradicting WP:V/WP:ATT, I will probably suggest shortening the WP:V/WP:ATT sections on the topic to something along the lines of "Self-published sources should generally not be used, but see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Section for exceptions." Rest assured I would suggest this on the WT:V and WT:ATT talk pages before changing them. If it is agreed that this is a good idea, or at least that the details on self-published sources aren't agreed on enough to be policy, then it would cease to be a contradiction. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 22:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Refactored major typo (see below). Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 23:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
"Self-published sources should generally used" ???? That goes against established consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
That was a typo. I meant "should generally not be used". Self-refactoring to correct it.... Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 23:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

May I point out that self-published sources may be unreliable, but are not necessarily so, and established publishing houses turn out plenty of crap too (e.g. James Frey). In my area of interest, gliding, some self-published books are widely considered the most authoritative references (far better than the official government publications which are riddled with errors). So I would not want to see some well intentioned policy formulation throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Also, personal blogs from respected experts in a field can also be reliable sources (blog comments are garbage, of course). The web documents itself, and depreciating all web content is not a forward looking strategy. Major newspapers are already having fits dealing with the transition to on-line media, and book publishers are not far behind. Let's not put all our eggs in the wrong basket! Dhaluza 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki has to assume that self published stuff is unreliable unless evidence of quality is available. What sort of evidence?--the credentials of the poster are important; use of the material by other experts is good evidence. In my areas (US history and military history) well over 50% of the self-published stuff on the web is unreliable. Rjensen 21:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we have to assume anything, we just need to apply appropriate skepticism to all sources. Naturally self-published sources are in general much less reliable than mainstream published sources, but the reliabilities are not 0% and 100% by any means. And ignoring all self-published material creates a commercial bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaluza (talk • contribs)
Dhaluza, not all web content is self-published. Both the current version of this section and my version only apply to web content that is self-published. However, my version recognises that things like blogs are usually, but not always, self-published, while the current version assumes that all are self-published.
Both my version and the current version acknowledge experts, providing they are writing in their field of expertise. But how do you know they are experts? They can lie about their credentials. But if other reliable sources acknowledge the author as an expert, that is trustworthy. How do you know if they are indeed who they say they are? If a reliable source points at their publication as theirs, that is good enough. In my version, that is one way to meet the "provably significant with respect to the topic" criteria. The present version goes on to say you can only use self-published sources in articles about the author, which severely limits acceptable areas of expertise, and even then only if it meets certain other criteria. My version removes the "in articles about themselves" limitation, while still insisting that they can only be used as primary sources for their opinions, i.e. with prose attribution, as long as you can prove that their view actually matters, per WP:NPOV#Undue_weight.
As for sources that are not self-published, that is covered by other parts of WP:RS.
— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 23:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree — Blogs and self-publishers should only be used to attribute opinions and analysis to the self-publisher (unless more widely recognized by other RS); and of course, only relevant people's opinions are relevant. Just do not frame expert too narrowly. If something affects a particular group, the group's opinion is expert enough to discuss how it affects them, regardless of whatever outside experts may say. I would also suggest "demonstrably significant" rather than "provably" because this is a more reasonable criteria. (e.g. provable to who and what standard?). Dhaluza 00:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 : ) People can be assumed to be experts on themselves, albeit biased experts. The main questions are: a) does anyone care about them? and b) are they who they say they are? As for expertise on other things, if someone is acknowledged as an expert rocket scientist, then their opinions about rocket science matter, but not their opinions on brain surgery. "Demonstrably significant" is probably a good change, but I really do not know of a good way to demonstrate or prove significance without acknowledgement from other reliable sources. As for demonstrably/provably to who and what standard, I think that is best covered in WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiple definitions of Self-published

There are multiple definitions of self-published in WP:ATT and WP:RS (plus the ones still at WP:V and WP:NOR). I created WP:SPS to point to one definition, and found that WP:SELFPUB points to another. I don't want to inject a merger of these definitions into this merge discussion now, but when the dust settles, we need to address this too. Dhaluza 02:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have notice this as well... it stems from having competing guidelines and proposed guidelines, and editors who change what they each say to fit their POV on the issue. To my way of thinking we need to first make sure that WP:V and WP:NOR agree (as they are offical Policy)... and then make sure that WP:RS conforms to them (as this guideline is essentially a sub-page of those two policies). Since WP:ATT is not yet offical, I am less worried if it says something different... when/if it becomes policy then we can and should conform to what it says. Blueboar 14:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Created essay

Since I do not know when WT:ATT will have calmed down enough to suggest change to that policy, I created an essay on this. Please feel free to go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Self-published sources User:Armedblowfish/Self-published sources to suggest changes or whatever. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 20:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC), 17:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggested on Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Another_suggestion, so feel free to add your opinion, whatever it is. That said, I am seriously considering just giving up for now. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 03:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Guest Editorials

On National Union of General Workers a section critical to the union has been removed because an editor thinks that an editorial from Metropolis is not reliable source. The reliability of the magazine is not in dispute in this case, but the editor has stated in the talk page that because the editorial section of the magazine sometimes allows readers to write editorials (under editorial supervision) that, in this case, the author is not reliable. The author is an English teacher in Tokyo who noted that the Union's actions would negatively impact her salary, and the salaries of all foreign employees in Japan.

This issue makes me concerned that guest editorials ie. those not written by professional columnists, would not be considered reliable sources in Wikipedia. Thank you in advance for your comments Sparkzilla 07:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

To save interested editors time:
This Metropolis "commentary" (appearing under a regular series entitled "The Last Word") is not an editorial as is claimed (in that it does not express the opinion of the editor, editorial board, or publisher). Neither has there been any reference to it as being a "guest editorial" until now, nor being under any form of editorial supervision. It is described only as a "commentary" and this one expresses the opinion of the writer, Angela Smyth (a pseudonym and credited only as an English Teacher in Tokyo) - Ms Smyth can claim neither expertise nor notability. Furthermore, the tone of the article (beginning: "It was with great dismay that I read in The Japan Times that..." and the fact the the print edition of Metropolis' "Last Word" section includes the following:
"Would you like to have The Last Word? Send your thoughts and contacts details to thelastword@metropolis.co.jp"
places, I believe, this "commentary" firmly in the framework of a readers' contribution, or, in other words, a "Letter to the Editor" and not an editorial nor "guest editorial". My understanding is that "Letters to the editor are not reliable sources. Thanks. David Lyons 07:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The original article [25]. The most recent Last Word article [26]. The full list of other Last Word commentaries is in the right-hand side column. As anyone can see they are hardly letters to the editor.
David Lyons has no idea whether Angela Smyth is a pseudonym. As a teacher in Tokyo, she can claim direct expertise that her salary would be affected by the union's actions. Sparkzilla 07:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
A pseudonym? No, I wouldn't have known except for Sparkzilla's unsigned user contribution on the union talk page of 11:09, 26 October 2006 in which (S)he states (Check your user contribution page, Sparkzilla):
"The teacher chose to write under an assumed name due to the fear of reprisals from the union."David Lyons 08:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Problems of reliability with the Metropolis article

I have other reasons why I think that the source mentioned above from Metropolis magazine(http://www.metropolis.co.jp/tokyo/581/lastword.asp) fails to meet Wikipedia standards for reliability and shouldn't be used as a source in the article National Union of General Workers (these have been outlined on Talk:National_Union_of_General_Workers).

What it boils down to is that little information is given about the identity of the originator of the article, which raises questions of attributability and confidentiality. All that's stated about her is that she's an English teacher in Tokyo called "Angela Smyth". No information is given about her background, experience, nor the company she works for. A photograph of a lady with her face obscured by her hair accompanies the article.

In addition, this English teacher discusses health insurance, financial and business issues in the article, areas in which she doesn't appear to have any expertise. And on top of that, I've pointed out that, to date, there are no other reliable, published sources to corroborate her opinions. Collately 08:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The teacher is a reliable source for a claim that the union actions will affect her paypacket. Sparkzilla 08:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

These are the main reasons why I think that the reliability of the sourced article is questionable.

I'd also speculate that the information actually given about this person can't be relied on, because an English teacher's contract would probably forbid them from speaking to the media. Collately 08:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's speculation. Sparkzilla 08:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also add that as the article comes from a company publication and website, it should be treated with caution, as it could be being used to advance a particular political, corporate or institutional viewpoint. Collately 08:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, in that case we can't trust any newspaper or magazine at all! Now I wonder if you two could shut up for a bit and let people who actually know about WP:RS answer the question... Sparkzilla 08:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm, excuse me, would you mind not cutting up what I've written please? The issues that I'm talking about are separate from the issue of "Guest editorials", which is why I've put them in a separate section. And I want to hear from an admin about the points that I've raised.

Please don't change and cut this up again.Collately 09:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect to this page, the issues are not separate. Please follow Wikipedia standards when discussing issues. If you dont like your text being cut up in response to the individual points you raise -- do not post here. Sparkzilla 09:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I have a separate list of points that I'd like an admin to deal with. The issue wasn't so much about cutting up my post as removing the headline without my permission. Please refer to Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines to learn more about etiquette on here. If you don't like me re-inserting things that I originally wrote but you deleted, do not post here.Collately 09:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact you only have one point that is relevant to the discussion on this page -- whether an English teacher is a reliable source. The other points you mention are invalid (one is pure specualtion and the other (about coporate interests) is plain nonsense. furthermore, that issue is very similar to the one raised above, so it should be in the same section.
FYI, I don't need your prermission to edit anything, especially to make it conform to Wikipedia standards. I see from your posting history that you are new here. You are the one who needs to review Wikipedia etiquette. Sparkzilla 09:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

SUMMARY With respect to WP:RS the issues are 1. Are guest editorials and commentaries (those by non-professional commentators) allowable as sources for claims when in reliable publications and 2. Is a teacher a reliable source when she discusses how a union's policies directly affect her? Sparkzilla 09:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Further it has to be ascertained whether this is indeed a guest editorial (many respectable publications make it very clear at the outset of an article that it is an editorial or guest editorial. Secondly, whether an anonymous English teacher is a reliable source for informed criticism. David Lyons 10:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I have SEVERAL points that are relevant to this page (ie reliability of sources):

  • Scant information about the originator of the article.
  • Their expertise.
  • Lack of other sources with a similar viewpoint.

These points raise questions about attributability, confidentiality, expertise and corroboration (see WP:RS#Non-scholarly_sources).

Plus, an English teacher speaking to the media is valid because it means the name and photograph of the originator are probably false. And an article advancing a viewpoint and coming from a company website is also valid (see WP:RS#Partisan.2C_corporate.2C_institutional_and_religious_sources).

Finally you do need my permission to edit and "summarize" things that I've written. Please refer to WP:TPG#Behaviour_that_is_unacceptable, specifically "Don't edit others' comments" and "Don't misrepresent other people".Collately 00:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Which of these are considered reliable sources

On the Global warming controversy there has been some POV questions. One thing that would help a sliver of those problems is help with an explanation about which of the following are reliable and unbiased:

This is a short list of sources on the page that are in constant conflict. Assistance would be great. -- Tony of Race to the Right 14:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, no blogs are reliable, and that would include the ones you link to ... There is however, some consensus to say that there are two exceptions: 1) those of well known journalists posting what are essentially op-ed pieces in blog form on the web page of a sponsoring (and reliable) newspaper and 2) those of experts hosted on an accademic website (such as a departmental accademic website). The argument for making these exceptions runs as follows: The instututions hosting the blog are essentially lending their reliability credentials to the blog... they are "backing" the blog. The consensus is growing... but as yet not there are enough people who disagree with this argument that it will be a while before such sources are definitively considered reliable. in any case, I do not see that your sources properly fit into these exceptions. Blueboar 20:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
RealClimate, a blog run by identifiable (and in several cases notable) academics, has been used as reference material for years in some climate related articles. Dragons flight 22:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Blueboar has a different reading of the exceptions to me. Besides which, the factsheets at Exxon Secrets cite reliable sources, so cite those instead. The rest I can see a case for using opinion, I'd be wary about facts, I would imagine at the very least you would have to make any facts sourced a direct quote, i.e. World News Daily said: "this". They all have a bias, but then so do most newspapers, but with facts it's working out if they have fact checked or not. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 22:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
As it goes, I can get hits on Mother Jones, NewsMax and World Net Daily at google scholar, so other people are citing them. That would lead me to think we can too. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 22:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
"...can get hits at google scholar..."; That simply means people are citing them for their own purposes, not that they are reliable sources, correct? Scholarly texts on lobby groups would cite what would otherwise be unreliable sources, correct? -- Tony of Race to the Right 19:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually I kind of agree with you Tony (shock). Also academics are terrible at being lazy and using poor secondary sources rather than the original. With Newsmax I think we need to distinguish between when they are acting as a newswire and their own editorial material too. --BozMo talk 19:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment on use of blog as source

In the Srebrenica massacre article the blog (of one of the editors, no less) is used both as a source and included in the External links section. I've raised the issue on the Talk page.[27] What makes it a bit more difficult is that although the link is to the blog, the source is third party material (UN and government publications and such) copied onto and commented on the blog. However, given that the editor in question is on one side of of a heated discussion on a controversial issue, I'm not sure that the blog fairly represents the UN & govt. reports in question. Any comments on this.

  • Is this an appropriate source?
  • Is is appropriate that the blog of an editor of the article is used both as a source and listed in the links section?

Regards Osli73 18:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As stated above... no blogs are currently considered reliable, but there is some growing consensus to allow for specific exceptions. In your case, you can cite the original UN and Goverment publications and not the blog Blueboar 20:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
This seems a rather extreme interpretation. An elected official communicating with constituents through a blog hosted on an official government web site, but without editorial oversight, would not be a reliable source by this definition, but absolutely should be. Dhaluza 22:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The important thing is the information. Simply cite the UN/government publications and leave the blog out of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. We should almost never use blogs as sources, and particularly not when the information is available in a reliable publication. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Disagree, the official document should be used as a primary source, and the blog should not be trusted for this primary source material. But the blog can be used for secondary source commentary on the document, as long as it is reasonably certain that the blog posting is meant as an official communication from the organization. Naturally if this is a biased source, it should be balanced with other less biased or alternatively biased sources to present a NPOV. But ignoring the blog posting, if it is relevant, creates a bias as well, if people on one side of the issue have less media access than people on the other. Dhaluza 22:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Badlydrawnjeff and SlimVirgin, I'm not sure I understand you correctly. The situation here is that the UN report is used as a source but that it is not made available online on the UN site. However, there is a copy available on some unrelated personal website (a blog, but that's not relevant, I suppose). I'd argue that giving the UN report as a reference and including a link to the copy on the personal website is not using the personal website as a source but giving a service to the reader by making the source (the UN report) more accessible and hence it seems fine with me. Do you disagree, and if so, why? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Two questions after reading the discussion above:

  1. is there some consensus as to wether or not a blog (allegedly) citing a published source (eg a government report) should be used as a source?
  2. any comment on wether or not it is appropriate to include a blog by active editors to an article in the External links section on a controversial topic?

Regards Osli73 12:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  1. No, a blog should not be used as a source, nor as a link... (with perhaps a few very limited exceptions) blogs are not considered reliable.
  2. The fact that the blog is by an active editor makes it even more unacceptable. I think this is discused at WP:NOR.
If you can find the UN report in paper, or on some other website that IS reliable, then you can use it... if not, you are out of luck. Even as a "courtesy link", blogs are out, and the self published blog of an editor is right out. Blueboar 13:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Please explain how to conciliate your last sentence with Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Convenience links. In my reading, that says that blogs can be used as courtesy links if we check their accuracy (though this is certainly not ideal). As I remember from the last time that this came up, there is no consensus on this issue. The essay Wikipedia:Convenience links and the associated talk page seem to bear this out.
Your reference to NOR is a mystery to me. I can't see how putting a copy of some document online can possibly construed research, so how does Wikipedia:No original research enter? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What is perhaps relevant to this issue is that the person who has posted a request here is someone who from time to time makes erroneous statements, and in one instance of particular relevance here he sought to give authority to a source (the report of the Dutch official inquiry into the Srebrenica massacre, also known as the NIOD report) whose authority had been challenged by remarking on the absence of a certain category of criticism ("non-Balkan" criticism).

Such criticism had previously been drawn to his attention. The blog referred to by him here carried referenced examples of the type of criticism that he claimed was lacking. This means of access to the type of criticism he claimed was absent was drawn to his attention. While continuing to call the presence of the External link to the blog into question on the article he misrepresented the guidelines contained in the Reliable sources article in his usual robust and authoritative manner.

If that link had not been present it would have been more difficult to find the information that disproving the assertion of a lack of criticism. External links are not source material substantiating the content of the article, they facilitate access to relevant and soemtimes important background material, as happened in this case. --Opbeith 17:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It does not sound like you are using it as an External Link ... it sounds like it is being used to demonstrate a point (either the existance or non-existance of a criticism... I am not sure which it is from your comments). I am sorry if it's exclusion makes it more difficult to demonstrate this point, but because it is a blog, it has to be considered unreliable no matter how important the point is. The only advice I can give is to hit the libraries and see if you can find another source for the same information. Blueboar 18:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


I'd like to reiterate two central issues here:

  1. The blog in question doesn't republish the entire documents, it republishes bits of text from the documents. Given that the editor of the blog is an active editor in a very polarized debate, I question how good such a source is.
  2. Simply by including a blog of an editor, even if were a legitimate source, seems questionable to me. Even if that may not be the intention, the article will then be promoting the blog of an active editor.

Cheers Osli73 10:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I was able to find better sources to replace 2 of the 3 srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com links by searching for quotes in Google:

I hope that helps,
Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 15:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Good job! The third UN document would be this one: www.un.org/peace/srebrenica.pdf . I guess now the list is complete and we can avoid using / listing the srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com. Cheers Osli73 15:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Government officials self-publishing

I found a glaring oversight in the guideline, so I was WP:BOLD and fixed it. Government officials often self publish without editorial oversight, and are actually the best sources for this type of information. For example an elected official communicating with constituents through press releases, web postings, or blog entries. As long as they use official channels, the source is relatively certain.

I added the following passage (touch-up or discuss as necessary):
Government officials self-publishing within the scope of their official duties, and using official government channels, but without editorial oversight, are also acceptable primary sources for reporting on the official acts of that person or group.

--Dhaluza 22:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree; I was thinking of putting something like that in myself. Chief executive officers such as presidents and governors self-publish by definition when they communicate through government channels, because no one has the authority to exercise editorial supervision. --Gerry Ashton 00:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
On the one hand, they sort of fall under the "expert" exception. Also, the process by which they became officials could be considered a very limitted peer review process, although not as good as peer review applied to their actual works. Also, note that many of them have aides, who may act as uncredited editors. The main question is what they are experts on, but you seem to have chosen a suitably limitted answer to that. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
An interesting aspect of the phrase "official government channels" occured to me. Many states require towns, cities, and other agencies to designate an official newspaper, and buy advertisements in those newspapers to post official notices about various topics (like the time and place of a town meeting). So that is a case where a newspaper would be an official government channel. --Gerry Ashton 07:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, but in this case, the newspaper is not exercising any editorial oversight, they just post it as-is. This bring up another good point, which is that open letters and other such items of advertising, while published in a RS are not to be used as a secondary source. Dhaluza 12:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
You probably need to think about a distinction between elected officials speaking on behalf of government as a political entity and non elected professionals within government who maintain government as the administration of the state, since the two have very different motivations for communicating with the public. Elected politicians have a political message to communicate whereas crown/ civil servants haven't (or at least shoudn't have).ALR 12:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we have a similar situation here in the US with NASA scientists' like James Hansen on global warming. But I don't see that the distinction makes a difference, because the limitation is "within the scope of their official duties" which should cover both cases, no? Dhaluza 02:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Quotability of dubious autobiographical claims?

Over on Barbara Schwarz, there's a dispute about whether autobiographical claims by the article's subject should be included in the article as background to the activities that make her noteworthy. Specifically, Schwarz makes the claim that she was born around 1956 in a submarine village beneath the Great Salt Lake in Utah, where she lived until she was kidnapped and taken into Germany at age 4 by Nazi agents. She says that she later married a prominent Scientologist, Mark Rathbun, whom she says was imprisoned on the false charge of having killed her. She cites these assertions as her reasons for pursuing a campaign of making a record-breaking number of requests under the United States' Freedom of Information Act, in pursuit of information from the US Government that would prove her claims. Her claims have been made in an article in the Salt Lake Tribune and in a self-written 92-part autobiography that she has posted to Usenet.

The disputants argue that the claims should not be mentioned because her "delusions [are] not supported by any RS whatsoever". While it's certainly true that the claims aren't believable, they're central to Schwarz's reasons for mounting her FOIA campaign in the first place, and omitting them will leave the article without any explanations for her activities. Are dubious autobiographical claims citable in these sort of circumstances? -- ChrisO 22:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no... You can certainly use the Salt Lake Tribune article to back the fact that she makes these claims, as that is (I presume) a reliable newspaper. Her 92 part autobiography posted on the usenet can not be used... since usenet posts are not considered reliable. I would also point you in the direction of WP:FRINGE... if the only thing about Schwarz is that she is a looney who made lots of FOIA requests, I am not sure that she is really article worthy. Blueboar 00:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I had some initial concerns about her notability as well, but the article has been developed considerably over the last few months and I think it now falls on the right side of the line. It certainly meets the notability criteria. As for Usenet posts, WP:V says that "self-published books, personal websites, Usenet postings and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources" (note my bolding) because "we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them". In this case, however, we definitely know that Schwarz has written the 92-part series, because she's acknowledged it plenty of times, including in the Salt Lake Tribune article. I note that Usenet is cited uncontroversially in other articles such as Linux, where a lot of the early development work was coordinated through Usenet. -- ChrisO 02:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the points ChrisO made, she stands behind her posts and I think everybody agrees that she did write them. I've looked at the posts as more of an explanation of the ideas put forth in the court summaries. It looks like the two sources agree on the important facts regarding case outcomes and other legal issues. I feel that this basic agreement of facts between (what I believe is) a RS court document and Ms. Schwarz's usenet posts adds to their credibility in this case. Anynobody 10:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember that policies and guidelines do not care how a source is being used in a particular article, or whether the source is beneficial to the article or not... all we care about is whether a given source or type of source is considered reliable. Long standing consensus is that Usenet posts are not reliable. So... according to this guideline, and the policy it is intended to augment, you should not cite to a usenet post. It is that simple. Now, if you feel that the article really NEEDS to have the citation in question, you can always invoke WP:IAR. That's what that guideline is for. Have fun. Blueboar 15:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I meant as a courtesy link, for people interested in the rest of her background. Just to be clear, I do think this particular situation meets the exemption criteria cited by ChrisO and can be used as a source. If however it turns out that we are wrong, there is still enough information to keep the article intact in my opinion. In that case I'd still like to include a link to her usenet posts for those who may be curious, but not as a cited source in the article. Anynobody 21:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Historiography, nationalism and reliability

Historiography and nationalism are something we must address by stressing that modern, Western (free speech) and academic sources are preferable to old, politicaly motivated and non-academic. Particulary we should have a clear answer why Nazi, Soviet, imperial (Russian, German...) and such historiography should be approached with caution. I propose we add a section stressing that a scholar from country A writing about a matter concerning country A is less likely to be objective then scholar from country B (assuming country B was not significantly involved in affairs of country A), and that historiography becomes much less reliable when academia in a given country is subject to political censorship (totalitarian regimes being the most evident case). A tip of the iceberg of this is discussed in Marc Ferro, The Use and Abuse of History: Or How the Past Is Taught to Children, Routledge, 2003, ISBN 978-0-415-28592-6 [28]. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I would think that these are already cautioned under "Partisan, corporate, institutional and religious sources"... and even to a degree under "Extremist sources". Also, we have to remember that "old, politically motivated and non-academic" sources are not always unreliable as we define the term here. Their age and bias is not necessarily a reason to exclude them. For example, you would have to discuss Nazi propaganda in an article on the Nazi Party. While such propaganda is likely to be factually incorrect, the fact that it existed and said what they said is certainly reliable. As for general "Historiography"... if such sources are used, the article can point out how more recent scholorship contradicts the old source. It really all depends on how the source is being used in the article. Finally, I would disagree with the idea that modern sources are automatically less politically motivated... perhaps the motivation is less extreme, or one that the majority of people agree with, but it does exist. Blueboar 13:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Those sections (which are relativly new) don't mention anything about state-enforced historiography. For example, under Nazi or Soviet (or under today's Chinese, North Korean, Cuban and such) regimes nothing that does not fit the party line gets published, what gets published is censored and may often coinain propaganda. We should make it clear that such sources are not reliable. Of course, they may be discussed in special circumstances, and they often may contain reliable research - but on average one should not equate works of let's say Mikhail Pokrovsky or Walter Frank with modern academics like Norman Davies or Marshall Poe. I have seen - and still see - arguments along the line 'so he worked and published in Soviet Union? But he worked at University of Kiev! He was a notable Soviet academic! That does make him unreliable in any way!' (and so on, with the Soviet academics being the most notoriously cited). This must be clearly addressed, or such arguments and unreliable references will continue to disrupt Wikipedia.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There's one caveat here: we should definitely avoid bashing all sources just because. I remember certain Wikipedian claiming a book on early Middle Ages was not NPOV because it was published in communist Poland. Sure, there was censorship and full control of the press and other media, but that does not mean that if the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia says that 2 and 2 make 4 we should not believe it. I know this is extremely tricky, but I believe that there is no "one size fits all" solution here. //Halibutt 12:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a lot of research published in totalitarian (or similar regimes) was of good quality. The problem is with 1) obvious POV (ex. Marxist views in communist research potrayed as 'the only way' instead of one of several possibilities) and 2) slighlty less obvious (especially for outsiders) bias designed to produce 'the right history' - ex. eliminations of references to Polish-Russian conflicts in Eastern Bloc historiography, designed to create an impression of 'eternal friendship' between members of the Bloc (going as far as to erase inconvinient facts, and insert false ones: ex - no 'Polish-Russian wars', no 'Soviet-German cooperation', or 'Polish officers escaped to Manchuria'...). We must stress then there are cases where such research is simply 'guilty until proven innocent'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable Heading Structure

This guideline currently has its headings structured as follows (in part):

5 Self-published sources (online and paper) 
    5.1 Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet 
    5.2 Self-published sources 
        5.2.1 Self-published sources in articles about themselves 
        5.2.2 Self-published sources as secondary sources 
    5.3 Partisan, corporate, institutional and religious sources 
    5.4 Extremist sources

This is unacceptable because "Self-published sources" occur at two different levels of the hierarchy. It is also unacceptable because partisan, corporate, institutional, religious, and extremist sources are not necessarily self-published. --Gerry Ashton 19:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree... I think the structure should be:
5 Self-published sources (online and paper)
5.1 Self-published sources in articles about themselves
5.1.1 Self-published sources as secondary sources
5.2 Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet
6 Partisan, corporate, institutional and religious sources
7 Extremist sources
We may need to do some cutting and pasting and rewording to make the structure work... but to me it flows better. Blueboar 20:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The section "Self-published sources in articles about themselves" limits the use of these sources so tightly that they can't be used as secondary sources, so the section "Self-published sources as secondary sources" is redundant if it is to be a subsection of the "...about themselves" section. I think the section is unnecessary. --Gerry Ashton 20:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Being BOLD I have reworked the headers, moved some things around, and deleted the duplicative statements... I have not made substantive changes to the text (beyond deleting the duplicative statements). Feel free to revert if you think I went too far. Blueboar 21:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflict between Policies

I have posted the following at the Village Pump, and on the talk pages for WP:V, WP:ATT and WP:NOR... as it relates to this guideline, I thought I would post it here as well:

I gather that WP:ATT is now considered Policy... a merging of WP:V and WP:NOR. I have no problem with this, but I do have a concern with how this is being done. At the moment all three Policies are up and running... and this is going to lead to confusion and argument. The three policies do not completely agree with each other (or to put it more exactly, they agree with each other in surface substance, but they differ in greatly in tone and emphysis). This is especially noticable in the area of reliability of sources (especially Self-published sources - a frequent area of controversy) and how they are dealt with. Look at them side by side: WP:V#Sources, WP:NOR#Sources, WP:ATT#Reliable_sources.
As a frequent contributer at WP:RS... a guideline that is supposed to help explain this particular aspect of Policy... I am seeing this conflict of tone writ large. Many of the questions we are asked involve parsing Policy statements and intent. Those of us at WP:RS agree that we need to conform what is said there to what is stated in Policy, but right now there is confusion as to which policy we should conform to.
I would therefore request that, if WP:ATT is indeed confirmed as Policy, we redirect WP:V and WP:NOR to that page. If not, please move WP:ATT back to "proposed" status until the community can reach consensus. I don't care which, but we need clarity and not confusion. I have posted this request at the Village Pump Policy Page as well. Thank you.

One thing that we should note... the tags that are on those pages, announcing the merger, are also claiming that this guideline will be demoted to a FAQ. I would disagree with that proposal. Assuming WP:ATT ends up being the active Policy page that determines what is said here, I still think there is a good reason to continue this page as a guideline. Reliability is a very contentious issue, and it helps to have a guideline that will further explain what the Policy page is talking about, and give guidance to editors dealing with the more complex issues that are involved. This page should certainly be conformed and edited to make sure that we are not in conflict with the intent of the guiding Policy (in this case WP:ATT) ... but I don't think we need to demote it from being a guideline. Blueboar 15:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: WP:V and WP:NOR have been replaced with WP:ATT

Please note that WP:V and WP:NOR have been merged and replaced by WP:ATT. While I support the merger, I am not completely happy with how this was done. It is apparently coming as a bit of a surprise to the larger community. Given the importance of these two Policies the proposal should have been shouted from the roof tops. So be it.

This does mean that we will have to make some adjustments here... pointing to WP:ATT as the overarching Policy being the first. We should also make sure that what we say is inline with both the substance and the intent of WP:ATT (I think it is, but we do need to make sure).

That said... I am disturbed by comments made by a few of the editors who worked on WP:ATT when I raised the issue of conflict (see above). Apparently it is the intent there to do away with this guideline as well... replacing it with a FAQ. The problem that I see is that doing this will be a step backwards. In recent months we have worked hard to shift this guideline's tone and structure: from being an "on/off" hodgepodge of rules and exceptions into a true guideline - focussed on discribing the range of reliability and giving guidance to editors on how to determine where in that range a given citation falls. This has not been reflected at WP:ATT. Blueboar 18:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, I respect and appreciate the work that you and others have done on WP:RS. These guidelines are crucial to those who are involved in contentious articles because they help to maintain certain standards. Just yesterday a very experienced editor and admin suggested that Usenet newsgroup postings could be cited in an article. TimidGuy 18:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I agree with Blueboar that WP:RS should remain a guideline. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 18:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Religious scholars are not reliable on all religions

Relgious dictionaries contain many mistakes, in my experience, because the religious scholar cannot be an expert on all religions. Religion movements, even the newer and smaller ones, are in most cases worlds on their own. Andries 19:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

And your point is? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Andries is probably saying that religious dictionaries are not the most reliable sources. Of course, a religious dictionary could have multiple scholars who edit it. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 20:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Here is my point [29]Yes, they do have 5 editors who write entries for 200 cults. Clearly these entries can never be all of good quality. I have bad experience with such religous dictionaries. Andries 20:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Dictionaries are tertiary sources. As such, they should be used alongside other sources. See Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#Types_of_source_material ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

How a religious scholar can be an expert on more than >50 religious movements is beyond me. Andries 20:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that anyone is arguing that, Andries. Dictionaries and encyclopedias, both of which are tertiary sources, are based on secondary sources. In my research, I found that most, if not all Dictionaries of Religion, have footnotes and references to secondary sources, such as peer reviewed articles, books, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
How does my addition contradict policy? Andries 21:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
By placing your viewpoint about these sources in the guideline. Scholarly sources are regarded as the most reliable for Wikipedia articles (See WP:ATT#Reliable_sources), and your viewpoint about these scholars being experts or not in a specific religion is just your opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
yes, of course, the right scholar in the right kind of publication. My edit emphasized that and that is in complete accordance with policy. Andries 21:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Also note that there is no point in adding material to this guideline, as it is being superseded by WP:ATT and WP:ATT/FAQ ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Replacing this guideline has not been well-advertised or agreed upon. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 21:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I know, but eventually we will get there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed that bullet point. We are not making similar comments about other scholars, such as sociologists, scientists, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking back at this dispute, I think it's a wonder we can all agree on the page enough to keep it as a guideline. I really don't think we could get a strong enough consensus to promote parts of it to policy on anything but the most general statments. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 21:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. That is why there is an effort to replace this with WP:ATT/FAQ. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Being a FAQ attached to a policy is almost the same as being policy, isn't it? — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 21:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not. The idea is to make ATT/FAQ into a guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
That's nice to know. Still, WP:RS provides extensive guidance, and combining all of that with other material would result in a rather large guideline FAQ. Also, I am not sure if RS is suitable to be explained only in question/answer format. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 22:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
RS does NOT provide "extensive guidance." It (a) repeats the policies, or (b) contains meaningless or trivially true waffle, or (c) contradicts itself and the policies. If there is any good guidance among all this, it certainly isn't "extensive." Seriously, the people who are defending this page need to get a grip, because it's causing a lot of confusion. It should never have been created in the first place. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

To say in the lead that this page represents a "consensus interpretation of policy" is absurd. Either the policies are simply repeated here — and that's only because I added them ages ago — or else the page goes off on tangents that end up contradicting policy and itself because there are too many people editing it and too many changes. It has anything but consensus. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Armedblowfish, stop removing everything I add. It's the consensus thing that's new, so if you want to add it, you should discuss it on talk. I'm trying to restore what was there before. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I added a couple disputed tags from Wikipedia:Template_messages/Project_namespace. Why not leave the material, with the disputed tags, while we talk about this? — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 22:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, can you point out where this page contradicts policy? And more importantly can you point out where it contradicts itself?
I would disagree that it does not reflect consensus... it certainly reflects the consensus of those who regularly comment on this page. Perhaps what you mean to say is that it does not reflect —the consensus of those, such as yourself, who participated in the creation of WP:ATT. That said, consensus itself is in in the process of changing. For example, there has long been a feeling that "NO blogs are reliable" ... however recently that consensus has begun to change... there is a growing consensus that some blogs, under specific circumstances, may be reliable. Blueboar 02:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I also disagree that it does not reflect some degree of consensus... probably more than the reliable sources section of WP:ATT. SlimVirgin removed the old Non-scholarly sources section of Aspects of reliability from WP:RS/rewrite. I personally thought that was the best part of this page, but I might be the only one. And hey, if it does contradict policy, that's okay, policy overrides guideline, but it does document a lack of consensus that should probably be discussed. "While we strive to build consensus, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and its governance can be inconsistent." (from Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines) — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 03:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Emphatically No... this page must not contradict Policy. That is why I support the merger of V and NOR into ATT... we now have only one policy to conform to instead of two (thus limiting the possibility of contradition). The whole point of doing the rewrite was to shift this guideline away from "rule making", and to change it into: 1) a more in-depth explanation of why the rules are the way they are, and 2) a place where editors can go for further guidance to help them understand how to apply those rules to what they want to say in an article. Policies set the rules, guidelines explain them further. If the "rules" change, we must change the explanations to match them. As I see it, this guideline (should it survive the attempt to subsume it) should be seen as giving commentary on the intent of the reliable sources section of WP:ATT. Blueboar 16:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It should conform to policy... but at the same time, a contradiction indicates a lack of consensus that should be dealt with in some way other than simply changing it to conform to policy without other explanation. (Like changing it to conform and attempting to bring the minority into the majority, discussing the reasons for the lack of consensus, compromise, etc.) Other than that I guess I agree with you. I don't really think the Non-scholarly sources thing contradicted anything, unless you count ideas not mentioned in the policy as being contradiction. In any case, do you think WP:RS/rewrite should be marked with {{proposed}}, {{essay}}, or {{historical}}? — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 16:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Second sentence

The second sentence states "This page is a guideline, not a policy, and is mandatory only insofar as it repeats material from policy pages.", yet this is true of all guideline pages and similar qualifications are already stated in the large guideline tag right above it. Why is this necessary or proper for this page? —Centrx→talk • 18:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This page no longer represents consensus. That is why the disputed tag. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Then revert it back to the last stable revision and the new changes can be proposed and considered on the talk page. What exactly is the problem with this guideline? Also, this doesn't address the original question that is the subject of this talk section: Why is there this further qualification on a page that is already tagged as "only" a guideline? —Centrx→talk • 20:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I wish there was a "last stable version", Centrx. There isn't. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This page is messy, contradicts or re-invents policy in many areas, and has been the source of a lot of aggravation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This is highly active page, but there have been weeklong periods in which there have been no edits, and much longer periods in which there have been no disputes. "Stable version" does not mean "Version you agree with"; if there are problems with the page, they should be discussed and fixed, they do not throw the status of the entire page into dispute. —Centrx→talk • 21:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
There are two reasons that the second sentence was added... the first is that this particular guideline has (in the eyes of some) taken on the aspect of a pseudo-policy. Even though it is only a guideline (and always has been only a guideline), some feel that it is viewed as having the authority of a policy. The second is that there is a movement to subsume this guideline into the new policy WP:ATT and its attendant FAQ. Repeating and highlighting the fact that this is ONLY a guideline, can be seen as a way to weaken the arguments of those who wish to keep this as a guideline. Blueboar 20:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Jossi... please point out where this page contradicts and "re-invents" policy? Blueboar 20:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I can see that you have made a recent attempt to make it conform with policy, by referring to the current formulation of WP:ATT, that is great, Blueboar. But there is wording that it is confusing or not described in policy elsewhere (i.e. "Partisan, corporate, institutional and religious sources", or text such as "The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all", the "Scholarly" section, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course we changed the article when WP:ATT became the guiding policy... this guideline was a sub-page of WP:V and WP:NOR... so when those were merged into ATT, this guideline had to reflect that merger. It now should be seen as a sub-page of ATT. As for the confusing wording and things not described in policy... do you feel that these contradict the policy? (and if so how?) Or are they simply things not discussed elsewhere? (and if so, do you think they are wrong?) Blueboar 21:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles as sources

Didn't this guideline once spell out explicitly that Wikipedia articles themselves are not considered to be reliable sources?

Am I mistaken? Or is this now addressed somewhere else, and if so, where?

(In another venue, someone has cited Wikipedia as if it were a reliable source, and I'd like to point out that Wikipedia itself does not accept Wikipedia as a reliable source... but can't find what to point to). Dpbsmith (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it did.... quite enphatically too. Please see WP:ATT, which is the over-arching policy that controles this guideline now. If it is not mentioned there, ask on the policy talk page and they can tell you why it was removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 21:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Merge notice

It has been pointed out that nearly everything on this page is also covered in the policy for Attribution and/or its faq page. It has also been pointed out that we have so many policy/guideline pages that it gets confusing to new users. Hence, the intent is to double-check that this page has basically become redundant, and merge/redirect it into WP:ATT. Comments on this are welcome. >Radiant< 08:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I support this merge. Among the ideas that have been expressed at WP:ATT is the idea of (eventually) changing the FAQ page from being a list of examples into a broader "advice" page discussing things like how to assess the reliablility of sources (focusing more on what IS reliable, and under what circumstances), the different ways a reliable source can be used (and misused), explaining statements of opinion vs. statements of fact, etc. The hope is that such advice could eventually end up as a guideline. I like this idea... It actually sounds a lot like what some of us were trying (unsuccessfully) to do here with the re-write. Blueboar 16:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If "nearly everything" is included, could someone point out what the few things are that aren't included? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
No one has been forthcoming with that, Milo. I would suggest we merge and fine tune ATT/FAQ as per Blueboar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The only things that I find discussed here that are not (yet) in ATT are the discussion of tertiary sources, and the section on convenience links. I think the first should be added to ATT in some form, and the second works better in the FAQ. Other than those, I don't see much difference. The big difference between ATT and this page is tone and emphysis. After the recent re-write this guideline stressed more the fact that judging reliablility was not always an "on/off" thing (ie "this" is always reliable and "that" is always not reliable) ... we harp on the fact that there is often a range of reliability depending on how one wants to use a source. This discussion, too, is more appropriate to discuss in a broader "advice page" type of FAQ or guideline than on a "rule based" guideline or policy such as this was (and ATT is). Blueboar 17:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

RS contradicts WP:ATT

The first paragraph of section "Partisan, corporate, institutional and religious sources", contradicts policy as defined in WP:SELFPUB. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The deleted text reads as follows:
The websites, print media, and other publications of political parties, companies, organizations and religious groups should be treated with caution, since they may be used to advance particular political, corporate, institutional or religious viewpoints. Of course such political, corporate, institutional or religious affiliation is not in itself a reason to exclude a source.
I think it's good to identify appropriate purposes for such groups. So we could restore and reword as follows:
The websites, print media, and other publications of political parties, companies, organizations and religious groups should be treated with caution, since they may be used to advance the viewpoints of the group or organization. While a source should not be excluded solely on the basis of group or organizational affiliation, such sources should be treated as non-objective and primary sources. As such, they are appropriate for purposes such as referencing the official positions of the group or organization, or to cite the affiliation of an individual.
Or something like that. I think it's better to sketch out boundaries to help guide individual judgment. --Ishu 12:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The extent to which we need to work on this depends on the timing of the proposed merge of this guideline into WP:ATT and its attendant FAQ... if this merge is going to happen soon, I would say we should simply cut the text and point to ATT. If, on the other hand, it is going to take a few months to prepare for the merge, then we do need to reword the section so that it conforms with ATT. Blueboar 13:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Request to add Bulgarian interwiki

bg:Уикипедия:Благонадеждни източници Thank you, --Vanka5 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The page is not protected. —Centrx→talk • 02:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User-submitted content

Could we add a specific sentence or two about user-submitted content in general? It comes up a lot in discussions about online topics. Something like "User-submitted content has no editorial oversight and is not reliable- this includes wikis, weblogs, and user review websites". I think this would fit well under WP:RS#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet --Wafulz 02:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to know that this guideline is probably going to be merged into WP:ATT. You really should raise this issue there. Blueboar 13:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary reliable?

Is Urban Dictionary a reliable source? Should it never be used? Christopher Connor 10:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

An interesting question... In some ways Urban Dictionary is like a wiki (which we consider unreliable) as it is compiled through user contributions. However, suggested entries are reviewed and voted upon prior to publication... the question is if this review can be equated to a true peer review/fact check process. My personal view is that it is a borderline case that falls just on the side of reliability... others may disagree. Ask about this at WP:ATT. Blueboar 13:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Mercator.net

Grateful if people could express an opinion on mercator.net which is being used as a single source for criticism of The Economist, based on what appears to be an OpEd piece.

TIA

ALR 22:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

ALR... ask at ATT. Blueboar 13:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT

This page doesn't really say anything that WP:ATT doesn't include, so I would like to redirect the shortcut WP:RS to WP:ATT#Reliable_sources. Any additional information or advice that editors here feel would be helpful could be added to WP:ATT/FAQ, which accompanies the policy but which still needs a lot of work. This page would be left for historical interest as NOR and V are, or it could be redirected to ATT.

Does anyone have objections? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I do. I'm rather concerned about this "streamlining" of policies/guidelines being increasingly confusing and ill-advised. I think having a separate page discussing what is or isn't a reliable source is not only appropriate, but necessary.--LeflymanTalk 09:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Leflyman, that would be discussed at WP:ATT/FAQ. The thing about this page is that there really isn't anything on it that's not covered by ATT, so its existence is causing some confusion. Is there anything here that you feel isn't dealt with elsewhere? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be okay to have V and RS both redirect to the same section. I think in the end people would stop using V and would prefer to use RS, given that it's more description of the section. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's a good point. Hiding Talk 13:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No objection from me... Oh... check the examples page that is attached to this guideline... there may be some things worth dragging over to the FAQ.
For those who are concerned about not having a page that specifically discusses reliability... one of the goals is to re-vamp the FAQ and create an "advice and guidance page" on that subject. The idea is that such a page would be firmly in sync with WP:ATT... ATT would state the rules (ie what is and isn't reliable) while the advice page would give examples, and discuss the grey areas (it would also advise editors on things the difference betweeen statements of oppinion vs. statements of fact). This "advice and guidance" page might eventually become a "guideline"... although I am currently thinking that keeping it as an essay/FAQ which is clearly a sub-page of ATT would actually work better. A lot of editors think of guidelines as being pseudo-policy. Since the idea behind the revamped FAQ would be to offer guidance and not rules, I think it might serve its purpose better if it were not a guideline. We will have to think about that. Blueboar 13:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • See also "merge notice", a couple of sections up. >Radiant< 13:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there's no point to this page any more, it should be re-directed to WP:ATT#Reliable_sources. Jayjg (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks everyone. I'll go ahead and do that today. Blueboar, I agree that we should milk the RS examples page for advice to add to the FAQ, and I think I also agree that it might be best not being a guideline. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Probably... not definitely... time will tell. But that is how I am leaning. Blueboar 18:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong object. Discarding RS page needs an input by the entire community. I think redirecting WP:RS away from it shows as bad judgement as archiving currnet disputes on this page.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that RS is not being "discarded" ... it is an intrigal part of the new WP:ATT Policy. All this redirect is doing is changing where the rules are to be found, not the rules themselves. Blueboar 18:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not. For example, in WP:ATT there is no mention of tertiary sources. -- Vision Thing -- 22:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no clear census on this redirected. Can someone reinstate it as a guideline? -- Vision Thing -- 22:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -