Wikipedia talk:Blogs as sources

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note[edit]

This isn't a new anything. It's just a central reference for this one specific type of RS. rootology (C)(T) 03:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a guideline[edit]

This page literally only reprints what a guideline and a policy already say. Hence, it's a guideline. rootology (C)(T) 03:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This should be an essay, for now at least. Even if it says the same things as guidelines one editor can't call it a guideline without the community's backing. If you want to make this a guideline, you should go through this process. ThemFromSpace 03:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... but I'm not proposing anything new here. It's just a central reference point for one specific type of RS, drawn from what is already guideline and policy. What is there new to propose, exactly? rootology (C)(T) 03:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how doing a copy-and-paste from other guidelines makes this a guideline itself; especially when they've been added only by only one person. I thought that is what essays usually do. For example, what would stop me from me from adding another segment from another guideline? There really is no consensus for this. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 03:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)You're proposing that this page is a guideline, which it hadn't been before. Anytime a page is set up with the "guideline" template, it should go through a community review. ThemFromSpace 03:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the last segment? where does that come from? Do U(knome)? yes...or no 03:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a distilling of what both pages say. But see my below reply. rootology (C)(T) 03:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, the box should not say it's a guideline at the moment. After some time, when there is a more stable version, and consensus has been built, the box can be inserted again. --Cs32en (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems sort of rules lawyery. Blogs are RS in and of themselves, per another guideline and policy. But I'll leave the essay tag, if everyone disagrees. My primary point of making this was so that the next time someone says, "BLOGS ARE NOT RS!" there would be a convenient central location to point out they're flat wrong. Let's get consensus, then, for the tag in name to go with the reality of it. :) rootology (C)(T) 03:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not good form to place a {{guideline}} on a page you create, regardless of a belief you may hold that your creation effectively iterates existing policy & guidelines without bias, choosiness, or persuasive commentary on your part. Actually, blogs are not RS in and of themselves; blogs most certainly can be RS in and of themselves. :) –Whitehorse1 03:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think it's a little premature to tag this as a guideline, but I applaud your efforts in drafting this. –xeno (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I flipped it back from essay, but to the Proposed tag. rootology (C)(T) 03:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems reasonable. –xeno (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Co-sign. –Whitehorse1 03:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. --Cs32en (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion[edit]

Good idea to create this page. I think it would be best to have the texts transcluded, otherwise there would be inconsistencies when the content of the original sources changes. If transclusion doesn't work, then links to the respective chapters are probably the second best solution.--Cs32en (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I specifically didn't do that, and included the permalinks to the pages in question from each version, for reference. The blog provisions on the RS and BLP side are pretty solid at this point and have been in place for quite some time, so there won't be much 'drift' on that front. rootology (C)(T) 03:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The mere fact that the text might be different from the source would lead a lot of users to double-check, and others may simply argue that the page was unreliable by pointing out that the text is not transcluded. Sadly, some editors use every available tactic to make their case look credible. --Cs32en (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great idea, thank you! I might change some things, but it's good so far.... Bearian (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to use blogs as sources[edit]

The guideline should also say something about how editors should refer to blogs. Because the sources are often not important with regard to the content of the article, and often generally unknown, an attribution in the main text such as "According to X ..." looks odd with regard to the style and may convey the impression that X would be somehow important or that people should know this person or institution. --Cs32en (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically didn't do that. Some sites/companies do everything blog formatted. Off the top of my head: One video game publisher here, and some sites have blogs that are almost always RS, such as Politico. Then we have http://blogs.abcnews.com/ of course--news reporting on politics, but just happens to be formatted like a blog. rootology (C)(T) 03:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a sentence such as "According to James Smith..." should only be used when James Smith is well known or relevant with regard to the article. For example, "According to Paul Krugman..." would be fine in an economics article, with a reference to his blog. In other cases, it is better to have all names in the footnotes. --Cs32en (talk) 03:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leave as essay and other thoughts[edit]

Since this doesn't create new policy and is only a synthesis of existing policy, making it a guideline in and of itself is irrelevant: it should state why existing policies support it.

That said, I'm a little concerned about the "inclusive" tone of this, especially the nutshell. Blogs are almost never reliable sources, and are always primary sources when used. They are sources of last resort, only to be used when traditional sources are exhausted. There are times when they are good sources, or even the best sources, but those cases extremely rare and are why we have things like WP:IAR. SDY (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your wording in incorrect, and statements like what you wrote here--sorry, you're wrong--are why I made this page. "Traditional" is dying, as more and more newspapers fold and go 100% digital; IAR has nothing to do with this, as if anyone ever tried to IAR a source into an article, right-minded people would call for their heads. IAR does **NOT** apply to article sourcing. It simply cannot. IAR and/or any high-minded archaic Wikinonsense take a backseat to BLP and doing our articles right. I'd block even Jimbo if he tried to muck up an article like that, let alone anyone else.
What you describe is contradictory with guidelines, policy, practice, and precedent. Blogs are NOT exclusively primary sources, that's just a fiction. A blog is just a layout of a website. Did you look at the examples I posted here? What I wrote here is 100% in line with WP:RS and WP:BLP. "Blogs" are no more or less good than any other source. "Blog" is just a technical description for the formatting and style structure of a website. rootology (C)(T) 04:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A blog is like the editorial page of a newspaper-it is reliable only as a source of opinion, not as a source of fact, and an encyclopedia is about facts, not opinions. Sometimes those opinions are notable facts in themselves and that's where blog-sourcing is useful. Blogs as formats allow for rapid posting of new information without a cumbersome editorial process involving academic things like, y'know, fact-checking, that are part of what makes it a reliable source in the first place. That said, there are some blogs which are posted by people with a professional reputation to protect who are going to make that effort anyway. These are a tiny exception and we can allow them when they're obviously appropriate. 99.9999% of blogs are not appropriate as sources. The insistence on these things allows travesties like this to be used as sources, which is not an example of what I would call a reliable source. Call me old fashioned, but I don't think the Opinion page is ever going to be a reliable source for anything but someone's opinions. If they don't have the confidence to call it an article, I don't think we should have the confidence to call it a reliable source. SDY (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point, and everyone goes back to the "editorial" bit. That blog you link is clearly defined as an opinion piece; hence it can be used as that if it's appropriate. If not, not. The "blog" nature of it is 100% irrelevant. That wouldn't pass RS even if it was a New York Times article. The whole "blog abuse" nonsense we see is especially egregious when you consider how many non-major news sites use the format. Just to pick video gaming, for an example: http://www.wowinsider.com/, http://kotaku.com/, http://www.gamespot.com/news/index.html -- and all use a blog style format. rootology (C)(T) 05:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And as an aside, "If they don't have the confidence to call it an article, I don't think we should have the confidence to call it a reliable source." What are we going to do when more and more sites go to the most popular format for websites today? Tell them "No RS" because some of us don't like the formatting structure? rootology (C)(T) 05:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another slightly prominent news site in a pure blog format: http://news.aol.com/ Here's another: http://www.nola.com/news/ The Times-Picayne, the major New Orleans news source. And another: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/ -- look closely at that one, it's all blog-formatted once you get past the landing page. And another, in San Diego: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/this_just_in/ You look at the main page, it's fancy. But behind that? All blog. That's all blogs are--publishing tools. The point of this page is to basically stop the silliness. If the three gaming sites I linked, for example, had a fancy landing page, but used interactive blog-publishing tools on the back-end and per page, no one would blink twice. Are these RS? Or are they not because they're blogs? rootology (C)(T) 05:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This, from the Rocky, isn't a blog entry. It allows for comments, yes, but that doesn't make it a blog. This, from the Picayune, also does not call itself a blog. This, from the vosd, also does not call itself a blog. This is broadly an application of WP:DUCK. If it looks like, waddles like, and quacks like journalism, we can use it even if it does say "blog." Otherwise, we can just find another source. If that's the only possible source, it may simply not be worth including in the article, especially for a BLP. Adding a response to your first comment: how they choose to format it is not our business. As for the concern that it's a "popular format", WP:RS isn't about convenience of sourcing. If the website ceases to be a reliable source, we'll just have to find another. Lowering our standards because it's inconvenient is not something I will ever endorse. SDY (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to fix something broken as designed[edit]

I say this as someone who helped to form this policy in the first place, that the whole concept that Usenet, blogs & other transient media are presumed unreliable unless proven otherwise is a bad idea. What we should focus on, instead, is the reliability of the author. Recognized experts should always & unhesitatingly be used no matter which medium they select -- Usenet, blogs, Twitter or Facebook in this case all would be acceptable if the writer is obviously acceptable.

But what about individuals who are not clearly reliable? We should follow the same steps as used with any other source: the more that the information has been subjected to serious review & discussion, the more likely it is reliable -- as well as the appropriateness of the medium. In other words, put yourself in the writer's place: if they wanted to be taken seriously, how likely would it be that they would publish it on an obscure blog instead of seeking a peer-reviewed journal? (Maybe there is no equivalent of a "peer-reviewed journal" in that given subject area.) There are a lot of possibilities in every non-obvious case, so using one binary case to make our decisions against is a bad idea. -- llywrch (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good as an essay... not as a new policy or guideline[edit]

Like other pages that summarize what is already said in various policies and guidelines, I think this is a useful thing to have... as an essay. However, since there are already policies and guidelines that discuss this topic (including WP:V), I really don't think we should have yet another to cover the same ground. Having too many policy pages all discussing the same thing inevitably leads to conflicts between the various policy statements. Heck, we have enough trouble keeping WP:RS conformed to WP:V... promoting this to guideline status would simply create another level of complication. Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was created to counter an oft-used misinterpretation. If we leave this as an essay, I'm sure people are going to continue to misinterpret existing policy and disregard this page because it's "just an essay". It needs to be promoted to have any useful effect. - Mgm|(talk) 10:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would this be new policy if it's a collection of old policies? The rest of the text is just "things to consider" and is not commands or prohibitions. What would it change? People would just "consider" these things, and then come to the same conclusion they would from reading the applicable policies (which are helpfully quoted here). Creating a new policy that just rehashes old policy is the worst sort of WP:CREEP, and invites conflicts if one policy changes and the other doesn't. SDY (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still an active proposal?[edit]

Just trying to clean up Category:Wikipedia proposals so wondering if this is still an active proposal or if it can be tagged otherwise? Hiding T 09:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

supplemental to RS?[edit]

i see only 5 people edited this article. RS was edited by hundreds. this can hardly be called supplemental to RS. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks like the editor who asked above if it was still active continued with their cleanup. The article history indicates they removed the proposed tag a while afterward since it was no longer undergoing active consideration and, unsure of the next step, ultimately opted to tag it as a supplement.
In this case, I think you're right. The supplemental-to-guideline tag implies a consensus it never received. What's probably closest is the limited feedback that was provided somewhat weighed toward non-adoption as a guideline, before discussion/interest petered out. Given that, the template stating "Consensus in its favor was not established within a reasonable amount of time" is a better fit. I'll place the correct template. –Whitehorse1 17:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this case[edit]

I think this is a clear case in which one should really consider a blog as a reliable source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Lane_Craig#There_is_absolutly_NO_critisism_of_William_Lane_Craig.2C_for_example_debate_style_and_opinions_of_other_philosophers I can't think of a better example.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLP we require the highest level of sourcing for content about living people. So no. It is not an example of where a blog might be appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page will probably need to be rewritten to reflect the current policies[edit]

If anyone wants to actually resurrect this "Blogs as sources" page, it probably needs to be significantly changed to reflect the current rules on WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP.

Within the years since the last major edits to this page in 2009, Wikipedia:V#Newspaper and magazine blogs has been added to clarify "blogs" published by reliable newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations. Wikipedia:V#Self-published sources has also been modified to clarify personal or group blogs. In addition, the relevant sections on WP:RS#Questionable and self-published sources are also different now, and have links referencing back to those sections on WP:V. Furthermore, WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB have also changed since 2009.

One suggestion we could do is a summary style of all those relevant sections on WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP. As of now, this page's "What is a blog?" section probably needs to make the distinction between the "blogs" posted by news organizations and the blogs from self-published sources. The "Things to consider" section also seems a bit outdated and redundant compared to the current WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB.

For now, I have added a for hatnote to this page, should anyone stumble here (like I just did), to the WP:V policy.[1] Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Blogs_as_sources&oldid=1137404031"