Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Academic and media sources

We currently say, Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers.

This has been a long-standing consensus version, and I approach what I am going to say with some trepidation. The thing is, academic and peer-reviewed publications are generally held to be more reliable than media sources. This view is reflected in WP:MEDRS, which explicitly disqualifies media sources as preferred sources, but it surely applies to other topic areas (art, literature, religion, politics, media studies, business, information technology, industry, engineering etc.) as much as it does to medicine. (For one, I can think of a few press reports on Wikipedia that contained fundamental errors – some of them documented in Signpost articles – that an academic researcher would have been unlikely to make.)

The present wording, "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available" appears to say as much. But it first restricts it to topic areas like "history, medicine, and science" and then seems to level the playing field altogether: "but they are not the only reliable sources in such areas" -- making editors think there are no differences in reliability between scholarly works and press or online articles, and no reason to make an effort to seek out the former in preference over the latter. This is reflected in the sourcing of many of our articles.

I would like this policy to direct editors to make a bit more of an effort to consult books and scientific journals in areas where they are available. Media and online articles are valuable, but they cannot replace books and scholarly works; and if we ignore the scholarly literature in topic areas where it is available, we are not representing the sum of all human knowledge. Thoughts? --JN466 15:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that one online source (academic or other) makes a mistake should not, in my opinion, lead us to conclude that all online sources are inherently unreliable. So I question your two mentions of the word "online". But I agree that the wording in question is inadequate. The idea that one category of source is more or less reliable than another (as opposed to a statement about what is and is not a reliable source) is raised, but without producing a conclusion. By the time we reach the end of the long list of qualifiers, usually ... the most reliable ... where available ... but they are not the only ... may also be used ... particularly if, there's something there for everyone, and it seems just about anything goes. This is, after all, a policy document: the passage should make plain statements. Firstly, what is and is not a reliable source, and secondly, what preferences apply should sources in more than one category exist. PL290 (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you summarised my concern well. I agree that I did not express myself clearly when I referred to online sources -- I meant material that is only published online, by websites that have enough basic editorial oversight to qualify as low-end RS, but are not the work of major media or academic institutions. --JN466 12:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Here is a proposal:

Academic publications, such as peer-reviewed journals and books published by well-regarded academic presses, are usually the most reliable and most valuable sources in the topic areas where they are available. However, they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. This includes books published by reputable publishing houses as well as mainstream newspapers, magazines, and journals. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.

This would replace the following policy paragraph:

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.

Also see Wikipedia:IRS#Some_types_of_sources. I do not think the proposed policy wording would require any change in the WP:IRS guideline. Views? --JN466 13:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree in principle with the proposal. One aspect that could usefully be tightened up is making explicit in this paragraph the requirement in the first paragraph that we consider "the creator of the work (for example, the writer)". Suggest "This includes books by reputable authors published by recognised publishing houses...". Even the most reputable publishing houses sometimes publish questionable fringe views, if only as a talking-point. For example, The Design Inference. . . dave souza, talk 13:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose any wording that downgrades non-academic sources. Things are bad enough at the moment, with some editors trying to impose scientific point of view. I wouldn't want to see the policy encourage it, because it risks giving the green light to leaving out POVs that for various reasons might not be found in scholarly texts, but which are nevertheless regarded as important by reliable sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, Slim (per medical articles), but consider the counterexample occurring at Hugo Chavez. The academic press so far is lagging, and reflects largely left-leaning publications (in fact, far left), yet the editors who own the article reject all other mainstream pubications-- even though dozens, scores and hundreds contribute to due weight of mainstream reliable views-- with the claim that only academic press should be used. (And curiously, some of the same editors who frequently decry "US or "corporate" bias in the mainstream news media are more than happy to cite text to the partisan website, Venezuelanalysis.com.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... on re-reviewing the two sets of wording side-by-side, I do see that JN's proposal is downgrading the wording, and agree with Slim. Medicine and science have some differences in this sense from other areas, wrt RECENTISM, sample size, replication of primary studies, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, underrepresentation of academic sources is a more widespread systemic problem in Wikipedia than overreliance on such sources, but it depends on the topic area. Broadly speaking, bearing in mind the entire range of scholarly research, there is widespread consensus in society that scholarship – generally speaking – produces better informed, more detailed and more reliable work than journalism, and the policy should reflect this. Academic writers are subject matter experts who have invested years of training in the fields they cover; the same cannot be said of journalists covering the same field. Having said that, I would strongly oppose any editor arguing that only academic sources should be used, and that the entire public discourse that happens in the media, and the findings of the media's investigative research, should have no place in Wikipedia – especially in a field like politics. I don't think the proposed wording would support any editor in making that argument. It states clearly that non-academic sources may also be used. --JN466 14:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As always, we need to find the right balance. I have seen abuses in both directions. There are attempts to give a lot of weight to scientific claims that contradict the findings of actual scientists, merely because their supporters are making a big splash in the general media. And there are attempts to exclude mention of highly notable disputes because they are related to science and there are no scientific publications on them. Neither is OK. When Anne Elk's theory of brontosauruses becomes the latest craze and all major newspapers write that this "theory" revolutionises palaeontology, then the following obviously will apply:

• Any factual, scientific claims about actual dinosaurs must be sourced with a bias for academic sources.
• Academic sources are fine though unlikely to exist for the dispute between Anne Elk and the palaeontological establishment. So we use general media for that, taking care not to automatically accept what they say about the science. Hans Adler 14:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

My point is that we shouldn't report what the laypress says about primary studies-- that haven't been subjected to secondary review or replication subject to larger sample sizes-- in the fields of medicine and science, except under very special circumstances, while we have literally hundreds of mainstream reliable sources presenting human rights abuses, consolidation of power, rampant crime and corruption, and decline in democracy in a current politician, which hasn't yet made it into the academic press. We must accord due weight to mainstream, published, reliable points of view. And, we must also weigh biases in academic presses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a sensible point, Hans. I would argue that the dispute between Anne Elk and the palaeontological establishment is a topic area that has not (yet) been covered by scholarly sources, and that this is taken care of by "in the topic areas where they are available". I would not mind adding a subclause that makes that clearer. --JN466 14:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

And your proposal allows the Chavez article to continue its bias against hundreds of mainstream reliable sources over what has been published so far by the left-leaning academic press, hence I oppose. Specific guidelines for medicine and science articles address sources in those types of articles, and contemporary politicians are more likely to be covered by mainstream reliable sources such as the news media. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

We cannot let the problems of the Chavez article drive the wording of a global policy. On the other hand, I don't mind adding a sentence to the effect that journalistic sources are indispensable to cover current affairs and notable controversies in any field, be it science or politics. Might that be a way to address your and Slim's concerns? --JN466 14:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I edit mostly medical articles, and only one politician, while Slim edits many more controversial contemporary topics; I'd like to see what she has to say about how representative the Chavez situation is of other similar contemporary articles. I suspect it's pretty common, and the "academic press" argument here is being used to suppress mainstream points of view. I suspect we have similar at the Catholic Church, where recent sexual abuse issues haven't yet been covered by scholarly sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The thing we have to be wary of is writing policy with only some examples in mind, because this would be a sweeping change across many different kinds of articles (and therefore many different kinds of POVs), and no matter how carefully you tweak the writing, you risk it being used to exclude legitimate POVs. Two examples I can think of:

(a) Editors who were followers of a cult leader tried to argue that only academic sources should be used about that figure, and that the Los Angeles Times was therefore not a reliable source. The reason, as I recall, was that the LA Times had published a photograph of the leader's enormous house.

(b) The Jesus articles: editors regularly argue there that only academic sources should be used. This sounds reasonable until you realize that the specialist academic sources are mostly biblical scholars, and the biblical scholars are mostly religious people, including high-ranking church figures.

The danger, as Sandy points out, is that reliable and important POVs are excluded when you focus on scholarly sources, because the academic press is slow to publish, or because it's the academic views themselves that are being criticized. We have to make sure this policy safeguards all reliable points of view, not just academic ones. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Jayen, can you say exactly what benefit you would see in changing the wording? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see editors make it a matter of course to research the available scholarly literature on a topic they are writing about in Wikipedia, to look for sources in google books and google scholar, as well as newspapers and websites. We are losing much valuable content when editors don't do this, and it takes a little more effort. --JN466 14:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The presence of intellectual-methodological-theoretical-ideological nexuses in the social sciences and humanities is relatively non-controversial institutionally. Universities tend to be loathe to fire controversial opinion leaders of the left or right, as long as they make their required publication outputs. I find controversy over recent events to be slightly humorous (give it fifty years, we'll find out what really happened). It sounds like there is a discipline specific problem in non-historical social sciences which excite controversy in the general public. Losing the emphasis on HQRS for fields like labour history, industrial relations, human resources, economic history, history and philosophy of science, psychology would be catastrophic, and invite the newspapers into a domain where they should not be present. But at the same time we have a problem with "contested" fields of politics. Drop the barrier, and watch the non-academic "think-tanks" and stable reputable (but yet non-RS for WP purposes) partisan sources line up for a bite at the cake. A problem. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The think tanks already have a large bite of the cake, even when they are clearly partisan and to the exclusion of other reputable sources published in sources like Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs; hence, we need to give more beef to other mainstream reliable sources, not less. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Scholarly publications are certainly important sources, but they aren't perfect by any means. To repeat some points already made here, they can be years or even decades behind other sources, they tend to be focused on disproportionately on academic issues, and they have biases of their own. Even within a single article, scholarly papers may be the best available sources for a point of theory while newspapers may be the best sources for events or quotations. I also notice that the proposed wording drops the qualifier, "published by well-regarded academic presses". There are peer-reviewed journals with poor reputations, so we should avoid implying that they are all of the same high quality.   Will Beback  talk  21:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Will, you have that the wrong way round. The proposed wording introduced the qualifier "published by well-regarded academic presses" (red is the current policy wording). Otherwise I agree with your point; scholarly and press sources are often complementary. I would also be interested in your views on the discussion of Proposal 4, below. --JN466 22:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Academic publications, such as peer-reviewed journals and books published by well-regarded academic presses, are usually the most reliable and most valuable sources in the topic areas where they are available. However, they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. This includes books published by reputable publishing houses as well as mainstream newspapers, magazines, and journals; mainstream media sources in particular are indispensable to adequately reflect public opinion and current affairs in Wikipedia. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.

Does that address your concerns? --JN466 14:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please use Wikimarkup to highlight the changes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've now highlighted the added passage in bold font. --JN466 15:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

But wasn't something dropped? If so, could you show it as struck? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The bolding only highlighted the change compared to Proposal 1 above. Compared to the present policy wording, these are the changes:

Academic and peer-reviewed publications, such as peer-reviewed journals and books published by well-regarded academic presses, are usually the most reliable and most valuable sources in the topic areas where they are available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but. However, they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable Non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears inthey are respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers.This includes books published by reputable publishing houses as well as mainstream newspapers, magazines, and journals; mainstream media sources in particular are indispensable to adequately reflect public opinion and current affairs in Wikipedia. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. --JN466 15:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Policy

Jayen's proposal

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.

Academic publications, such as peer-reviewed journals and books published by well-regarded academic presses, are usually the most reliable and most valuable sources in the topic areas where they are available. However, they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. This includes books published by reputable publishing houses as well as mainstream newspapers, magazines, and journals; mainstream media sources in particular are indispensable to adequately reflect public opinion and current affairs in Wikipedia. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.

J, could you say which parts would imply what kind of change? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Some changes are just streamlining the wording; e.g. "university level textbooks" are subsumed under academic sources and don't need explicit mention. The listing of "other reliable sources" flows better and is more compact.
• Adding "most valuable" and removing the limitation "such as in history, medicine, and science" makes clear that if I write about Doris Lessing, Deep Purple, Monty Python, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, Harry Potter, New Age or the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, it is just as good an idea to look for books and scholarly sources as it is when writing about physics, or medicine.
• The explicit mention of mainstream media as an indispensable source for public opinion and current affairs addresses the fact that academic publishing generally lags five or ten years behind the times, and provides a stronger basis for covering notable controversies. At the same time, it weakens the case of those who would like to use the press as a source for science proper, by indicating what the main strength of press sources is. --JN466 16:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

• A university-level textbook needn't be an academic source.
• I would say adding "most valuable" risks over-valuing them compared to other sources.
• I have no objection to adding the mainstream media sentence, but I would want to see it worded a bit differently, more along the lines of your earlier suggestion, e.g. "mainstream media sources in particular are indispensable for the coverage of controversies, whether in science, politics, or elsewhere." But I would worry about anything that implies they're not good for other things, because we can't foresee all circumstances.
• I wouldn't object to removing "such as in history" etc.

As for your concern about encouraging editors to look for better sources, perhaps we could just add some words to the existing policy to remind them to do that? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't mind dropping "most valuable"; "most reliable" can stand on its own.
• A sentence on looking for book and scholarly sources would be very useful.
• Do you think we ought to explicitly mention university-level textbooks? I thought between "academic sources" and "books published by respected publishing houses" we have it covered.
• For the media sentence, I offer this wording: ... respected mainstream media sources in particular are indispensable to adequately cover public opinion, current affairs and controversies, whether in science, politics, or elsewhere. --JN466 19:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am opposed to dropping the reference to medical and science articles; they have their own carefully developed guideline pages, which reflect and complement WP:V, and dropping them will encourage overreliance on primary sources. And I would strongly oppose any wording like "mainstream media sources in particular are indispensable for the coverage of controversies, whether in science, politics, or elsewhere", considering some of the laypress misreporting of medical controversies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The three examples that policy currently mentions are history, medicine, and science. There is nothing special about these fields compared to other fields that are the subject of academic study. As for these areas having their own guideline pages, that is not true:

• There is no separate RS guideline for history articles; attempts to start one at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_(history-related_articles) never got off the ground.
• Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(natural_sciences) was a proposed guideline that has so far failed to win community support.
• WP:MEDRS is an actual guideline that will stand regardless of what we do here. Commenting on press sources, it says, "the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs and historical information in a medical article. For example, popular science magazines such as New Scientist and Scientific American are not peer reviewed but sometimes feature articles that explain medical subjects in plain English. As the quality of press coverage of medicine ranges from excellent to irresponsible, use common sense, and see how well the source fits the verifiability policy, and the general reliable sources guideline." That is compatible with the wording proposed here.

More generally speaking, we shouldn't write a policy that allows editors to define areas where the press should be ignored as uninformed, versus areas where the press must be used as a vital counterbalance to systemic bias in scholarly sources, according to their personal preferences, while all the while claiming that policy backs them up. Making the wording here so elastic that anyone can use it to justify anything does not help the project; it just creates endless strife. We have to strive for some measure of consistency, at least in a global policy. So, use science sources for science proper, and use the press to cover notable controversies, social aspects and current affairs. Even if the quality press is wrong, according to an editor's view (cf. the endless debates about global warming skepticism), if it is a notable controversy, it should still be covered -- as should the criticism of press coverage from sources that claim to be better informed.

And this does not mean that if a tabloid announces yet another new miracle cure for cancer, that it must be covered in Wikipedia. At the same time, it does mean that if Hugo Chávez has an exceedingly poor reputation among large sections of the high-quality mainstream press, then it should be covered in his biography, even if the published academics all love the man. --JN466 03:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not comment on history (not my area); here is Science. While I appreciate that some of these changes may address the ongoing POV and disruption at Chavez, I doubt that they will have any effect, as editors there routinely cleanse any text unsupportive of Chavez, even if from scholarly sources, and I oppose any wording that reduces the importance of MEDRS, as a carefully developed guideline that complements this policy page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what has changed since July, when we last discussed this section at great length and came to the current wording. This is especially as what people were trying to accomplish then (as now) is really more a matter of WP:NPOV and its associated guidelines (WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, etc.) than of verifiability. Why hasn't this been settled already? Or are we simply hoping that a different cast of editors will reach a different conclusion? RJC ^Talk_Contribs 04:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean this discussion in July? The present wording essentially dates back at least to April. --JN466 05:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it's been discussed at great length in the past confirms to me what I said in my response to the original post in this master thread: it's trying to achieve too much, and ends up full of qualifiers and ultimately lacking a clear policy statement. Perhaps it's trying to act as both policy and guideline. In my view, we should reduce it to some plain statements about what is and is not a reliable source, supplemented by further plain statements identifying a hierarchy of source categories (academic, media, etc). If, when a given source exists ("reliably") in more than one of those categories, editors are indeed required to choose one rather than another, the hierarchy should make that plain. Language such as "usually ... the most reliable ... where available ... but they are not the only ... may also be used ... particularly if" is not the stuff of policy and should be relegated to the related guideline, WP:RS (discussed below). PL290 (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

A hierarchy would allow editors to exclude sources lower down for that reason alone, and that will not always be done for good reasons. There's a constant attempt on Wikipedia to elevate scholarly sources over non-scholarly ones, and while out of context that seems supremely sensible, in context you too often see it done to remove criticism of the way the scholarly sources are approaching things. Or to highlight issues the scholarly sources don't want to highlight, or are too slow to deal with.

Practically speaking, it would be impossible to create a hierarchy that would make sense. What would count as academic? Someone with a job in a top university, any university, any college or seminar? Someone who used to have such a job, someone who's never had one but is read by academics? Peer-reviewed well, peer-reviewed badly, non-peer-reviewed? Someone working in a university but published by a non-academic publisher? Someone not working in a university but published by a top academic publisher? There's no magic line between good and bad sources along academic lines, because there are good and bad academics.

Source choice boils down to common sense, not wanting to push a POV, and above all intellectual honesty, none of which we can legislate for. All this policy can do is present what we mean by reliable, meaning "good enough," and hope that intellectual honesty wins the day. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I knew the word hierarchy would not be popular (I don't advocate it myself) but that is precisely what the current wording (imprecisely) achieves: Academic publications, such as peer-reviewed journals and books published by well-regarded academic presses, are usually the most reliable and most valuable sources in the topic areas where they are available. However, they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Non-academic sources may also be used, That wording has established that non-academic sources are second-rate: A is usually best, but B may also be used, therefore B is lower in the hierarchy. PL290 (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's unfortunate that it's worded that way, but at least we do make clear that non-academic sources are reliable too in the same areas. I'm arguing that we must not write anything else that entrenches a hierarchical view. Otherwise we end up with the kind of situation we saw in the climate change articles: relatively junior academics being regarded as acceptable, with writers for the New York Times and BBC being rejected. And I mention that only as an example, not to make a political point. The same thing is happening in lots of areas. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree: see new proposal 3 below. PL290 (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "relatively junior academics". NYT and BBC have the better science writers, but even they get things wrong. I think that especially in global warming related science, we need to stick to peer-reviewed sources to make sure that exaggerated claims and misunderstandings stay out of the articles. Awickert (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I actually like the idea of a hierarchy, because of how it can work in a logical flow-chart-like manner. Consider the following scenarios:

• Someone sees a news article on science or medicine and writes what they read in an article. Someone else looks at those changes and gets the original paper. If the paper and the news article agree, they can use the paper to further expand the article. If they disagree, then the news article is removed (per game of telephone), and the information in the scientific article replaces it. I think that this kind of valuing of articles will help keep up the factual integrity of WP. In other words, non-scientific sources are reliable for scientific topics until they are found to contradict the original sources that they supposedly represent.
• How about a story about people's feelings about the science? Here, now, the news sources are primary pieces of information, as the scientific articles have no bearing on this.
• How about non-scientific sources criticizing scientists? I would disagree with SlimVirgin here and say that these are not acceptable. Especially in climate change, a lot of criticisms have are based in nothing but a misunderstanding of the basic mechanisms that control climate. Scientific journals have the comment-and-response process in which others can write in with their concerns about a particular article, providing a peer-reviewed high-quality document that refutes a paper. Until this happens, there is no good reason to believe that (especially in a political hot-button area), criticisms of the science are reasonable. Awickert (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hope I haven't just added too much onto a stale thread, but I was just told about this page, and wanted to add my 2 cents. Awickert (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Consistency with related guideline

The "equivalent" paragraph at WP:RS currently says:

Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite scholarly consensus when available. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.

Quite a difference. Food for thought as we consider what the right wording is, and also about the wisdom of duplicating the same level of detail in more than one place. PL290 (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC) PL290 (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let's add the second half of WP:RS, for reference:

Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable. However, it is understood that even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors. Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis. When using news sources, care should be taken to distinguish opinion columns from news reporting.

* For information about academic topics, it is better to rely on scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources. News reports may be acceptable depending on the information in question; as always, consider the context.

* While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.

* Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing.[2]

Let's also bear in mind that this present page is policy, while WP:RS is a guideline that is supposed to follow WP:V policy; where the two differ, it is WP:RS that should be made consistent with WP:V. Even so, the current version of WP:RS is more to the point than what we have here in WP:V. --JN466 19:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Since V governs RS, I'd say we should decide changes here and bring the latter into compliance if necessary. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 3

The paragraph we are discussing needs to be considered in the context of points already made by the section in which it appears. This proposal reproduces the whole section, giving markup to show the change to this paragraph. I suggest that the main points are already made by the preceding paragraphs.

Reliable sources

The word "source" as used in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability.

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made.

The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.

When identifying a reliable source for a topic area such as history, medicine, and science, do not assume that scholarly material is necessarily suitable, since it may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field.

Self-published expert sources are regarded as reliable in limited circumstances [...]

PL290 (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• No, this does not work. Whether a publication is electronic or not is of no concern to this policy; the key is whether the source is published, in the sense that it is not self-published. If a source is superseded by more recent research, then that does not mean it is not irrelevant, or cannot be used. This proposal is entirely misleading. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Nope. Some fields have a long tail (history). Some fields have a short tail (medicine). Current or Proposal 2 have better policy level content. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• I must be misreading, because this proposal doesn't work at all. Please clarify-- it appears to completely downgrade MEDRS and encourage lay media for bio/med articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. It's in complete contradiction with the spirit of the proposed change. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Non-starter. Electronic vs paper only matters in the sense that they need different types of archives. Even the first line is factually incorrect: The New York Times is not a publisher but a newspaper, from the similarly named publisher The New York Times Company. The nub of value in this line however is that we need to distinguish the article from the publication and the author for purposes of V and RS. I would contend that it is the article which must be available for verification and which must be reliable for the support of the assertion against which it is cited. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 4

Maybe we are trying to do too much here. Here is an alternative proposal, keeping it simple:

Policy

Proposal

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.

Academic publications, such as peer-reviewed journals and books published by well-regarded academic presses, are usually the most reliable sources in the topic areas where they are available. Non-academic sources may be used as well, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. This includes books published by reputable publishing houses as well as mainstream newspapers, magazines, and journals. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.

This is comparatively bland, but keeps it general. It allows guidelines like WP:MEDRS latitude to address the finer points, and also works well for those topic areas that do not have an academic literature devoted to it. --JN466 13:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Getting better, but I still don't like the fact that specific reference to well-developed guideline pages (medicine and science) is dropped. This wording gives us no idea when we might use non-academic sources, as spelled out in MEDRS, or when we might use media sources for contemporary politicians. Waiting for additional feedback ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Good. :) Where do you see a specific reference to WP:MEDRS in the present policy? The mere mention of "medicine" as an example of a topic that has academic coverage does not indicate to the reader that there is a content guideline for that topic area. The only guideline linked to in the present policy is WP:IRS, and that then has a link to WP:MEDRS. In terms of the hierarchical structure of our policy–guideline system, that makes sense to me. --JN466 14:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

More detailed guidance of the kind you have in mind for Chávez-type situations and medical articles is probably better housed in WP:IRS. This can better differentiate between situations where press articles are not so good as sources (medicine) vs. situations where press articles are vital sources for covering current affairs (Chávez, climate change). To some extent, WP:IRS does this already, but we might want to do some fine-tuning in WP:NEWSORG. --JN466 14:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Too little improvement. This still carries an implicit bias against e-form journals and books that is hard to justify. It also still unjustifiably implies that all categories of articles (systematic review, literature review, original research, reader comments, author responses, letters, obituaries) are of equal reliability, and it still attaches more significance to the publishing house than the imprint or editorial board. Considering the broad spectrum of imprint quality within individual publishers this makes no sense at all. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow. In which part of the wording do you see a bias against books and e-form journals, either in the proposal, or in the present policy text? --JN466 18:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"...may also be used..." implies (at least to me) that it is a lesser option. "...Academic works, published in either paper or electronic form, ..." would avoid that.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, now I see. I've always assumed that sentence about electronic media refers to websites like http://www.music-news.com and such. If a peer-reviewed journal is only available in electronic format (I can think of at least one example, which is highly regarded in its field), then it is still a peer-reviewed journal in my book. However, if an academic wrote something on his blog, or put up an unpublished paper on his website, then I'm not so sure Wikipedia would want it used as a source (it would be a WP:SPS). What examples did you have in mind? --JN466 19:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I tend to come at these things from a hard-science perspective, but musicology too has a formal academic side. The point is that whether I pick up a printed paper journal article or download a scan of it from a trusted archive doesn't change the reliability of that article. Publishers know that their readers know this and derive more and more of their revenue from providing that trusted archive themselves, but libraries and others do it too. I can get the Journal of Musicology or The Journal of the American Musicological Society either in e-form from JSTOR or on paper by walking into a university library. I don't need to rely on Rolling Stone or Billboard for formal semiotic analysis. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

We need to stress that, in principle, only reputable peer reviewed scientific journals are acceptable as sources. When such sources are not available (e.g. in case of breaking news; despite Wikipedia usually not bringing the latest news per WP:NOTNEWS, sometimes we still want to write about a news story), then we can use other sources, but the information must not be fundamentally in conflict with what can be distilled from peer reviewed sources.

E.g. when the CRU hacking incident story broke, one obviously had to write something about climate science using newspapers as sources. It is then important to filter out statements from those sources that are in conflict with established science that could not in any way have been affected by that incident (i.e. assuming that the scientists had falsified data, which later turned out not to be the case). Then after a while, scientific journals will retract articles once it is clear that the results are bogus. If that doesn't happen while some newspapers still suggest that the results may be bogus, we cannot consider the newspaper stories to be reliable, unless there is evidence that the editorial standards of the journals may have also been compromized (e.g. if many scientists accused of fraud also happen to be the editors in chief of the leading journals). Count Iblis (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What is to be taken as a "respected mainstream publication". I'm sure many would take the New York Times as an example, but it is only respected as a newspaper (respected for reporting on events as they are understood at the moment, for example, Sadam's weapons of mass destruction), not as a source of (for example) scientific opinion or fact. These vague descriptions are going to lead to unending debate over what they really mean on Talk pages. Brews ohare (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. We must distinguish science and medicine from other areas, even with the NYT, which is often dramtically wrong in the field of medicine, and at odds with peer-reviewed secondary medical sources but reliable on more contemporary issues like Chavez. Perhaps this means we need to specifically link to the medicine and science guideline pages, which were developed based on broad consensus across Wiki, and posted to every forum we could think of (in the case of medicine) as they were being developed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Count Iblis, what about a topic like Transcendental Meditation? TM practitioners have produced literally thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles investigating the benefits of TM. They far eclipse in number the studies of TM that have been published by outsiders, some of whom, I believe, have criticized the integrity of this body of research. Are you saying that the pool of peer-reviewed literature should suffice to produce NPOV coverage of TM? This would exclude books written by religious scholars, published by university presses, and it would exclude the viewpoints of the entire press. What about notable figures in art and literature, and their works? I agree that too little use is made of peer-reviewed studies in this field in Wikipedia, but is it reasonable to exclude newspaper content like book reviews, author interviews etc. as sources, just because there is a wealth of peer-reviewed studies on a prominent author or artist? --JN466 17:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"Peer reviewed" isn't the only factor in a field like TM: almost anyone can get anything published. The question is whether results of primary studies are reviewed by secondary sources, which may reveal problems with primary studies, even if published in peer-reviewed journals. If a controversy is significantly broad to have been covered in the laypress, we can use media sources responsibly, but primary studies unreviewed by secondary sources in a field of TM is precisely what we should avoid, and the laypress frequently gets it wrong when analyzing and reporting the science. Google scholar is somewhat useless for locating quality sources (it even includes Wikipedia), but PubMed lists 283 secondary reviews of TM, so it seems unlikely we need to rely on the laypress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In our present article on TM, the fees for TM training for example are all sourced to newspapers. --JN466 18:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not "medical" info-- it is the kind of info that can be sourced to other reliable sources (unless peer-reviewed sources are also available, in which case, they should be used). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I still think that Hans Adler's comment above, 14:11, 13 September 2010, outlines a very sensible basic approach. I'd welcome suggestions on how we can translate that into a policy wording. --JN466 19:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines, which you linked to earlier as an example of a content-specific sourcing guideline along with WP:MEDRS, does not really help editors identify the most reliable sources in science, the way WP:MEDRS does for medicine. WP:SCG is concerned with citation formatting, not with identifying reliable sources. --JN466 19:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks (I was part of developing MEDRS, but not SCG); I added MEDRS to See also, but removed SCG. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. By the way, good job on MEDRS. --JN466 19:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that fringe/pseudo science subjects are exceptional cases, especially when we are not dealing with the "hard sciences". Secondary reviews as SandyGeorgia points out can be used, but I would say that this has to be done with care. One has to demand that those secondary reviews are not inconsistent with established science, which in turn is what one can distill from peer reviewed sources. So, the secondary source may invoke basic physcis to point out that a peer reviewed study on TM is bogus. Then I should be able to trace back those physics arguments to the peer reviewed physics literature and verify that the debunking done in the secondary non-scientific source is correct. Of course, we don't have to demand that one actually do this literature reseach. What matters is that we trust the secondary source enough that we can skip this step. But the moment we've doubts about this, we should not use that secondary source. Count Iblis (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Another factor worth keeping in mind is that other topic areas – in the humanities for example – may not have secondary reviews and meta-studies of the kind common in medicine. In medicine, many peer-reviewed journal articles report the result of statistically designed studies testing a hypothesis (e.g. does the treatment have a statistically significant effect, or not). Peer-reviewed journal articles on music, art or literature, for example, do not have that kind of structure, and do not lend themselves to meta-analyses in this way. Whatever wording we have in this policy has to work for all our topic areas. --JN466 21:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears likely that borderline cases like Scientology are going to be adjudicated by Admins. Because such review is fraught with non-objectivity, shooting from the hip, and "me too" crowd behavior, some new rules need to be set up for such review that will insure a careful reading of the sources and arguments, more rigid than leaving matters to the whims of those that happen to assemble. Brews ohare (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Another go?

Shall we have another go at this? The ongoing climate change disaster currently in arbcom's lap is at least partly caused by the equivocation in this policy about press and scholarly sources. We should be clear that scholarly sources are preferred for science proper, and that respected mainstream media are excellent for current affairs and BLP coverage. Science and reporting aren't the same. --JN466 23:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I fear the outcome of reviving this discussion for that purpose would be to make this policy page into a proxy war for the arbcom case. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 00:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if we could say something sensible like: "Scientific sources should be used for science. News sources can be used for popular opinion about science, information about scientists, the history of issues, etc.", then I think that this repeated ad nauseum controversy could be settled. Awickert (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I was hoping that even editors from across the spectrum of opinion in that case might agree that the division of labour proposed above is a sensible and workable solution. --JN466 01:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Awickert's solution sounds sensible and is close to my views.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 5

Here is another proposal. It reverses the sequence of two paragraphs in the present policy. At present, we have "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." before the listing of sources. The proposal reverses this sequence, listing the various types of sources first, and then explains how context affects which type of source may be most suitable in any given situation.

Current policy

Proposal

The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.

Academic publications, such as peer-reviewed journals and books published by well-regarded academic presses, are usually the most reliable sources in the topic areas where they are available. Non-academic sources may be used as well, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. This includes books published by reputable publishing houses as well as mainstream newspapers, magazines, and journals. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In topics which are the subject of scholarly research, the most authoritative sources are academic works that have undergone scrutiny by a community of experts in that field. High-quality mainstream media are equally valuable sources for topics such as current affairs, or biographies of living persons. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing scientific findings, evidence, facts, legal issues, and arguments. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.

Does this come close to what we need to say? --JN466 01:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"Academic standard works and review articles are the most authoritive…" not in the humanities and some social sciences where the expectation is that original scholarly articles and original scholarly monographs are the most authoritive. Humanities has a tradition of non-peer reviewed field reviews, the silly buggers. "Standard works" are often selected for teaching canonicity and for the availability of mass market paperbacks. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That is true, and I considered adding a phrase to address publishing habits in the humanities and social sciences, but couldn't find a neat and succinct way of expressing it. If you can think of one, please add it. --JN466 01:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Support now, I like it. It is general and covers the requirements of wikipedia. It can be instantiated in guides to specific areas of scholarly activity if there's a need to. It is nice clear language. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose.I would add that newspapers are good sources for reflecting the shape of a debate within a certain professional field, or a scientific community, or any other such groupings where people may have discussions which are reflected and reported somewhat in the public sphere. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

We could add, "or the popular reception of science". Would this address your concern? --JN466 02:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Support with reservation per above: from a "hard" science viewpoint, this is good. Fifelfoo brings up something I didn't realize for humanities, but I think that it can be taken care of by restructuring the proposal under the good, general wording of "In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." Awickert (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, between the humanities issue and the worry of things like practically-unreviewed conference papers in some science fields, how about we change "Academic standard works and review articles" to "Academic works that have undergone scrutiny by a community of experts in that field" or something that is similar and less wordy. Awickert (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Updated with your wording. --JN466 02:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, struck my concern. Awickert (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it might take some time to get this right, if we want to do it. It arose from a concern (which I think is trivial) that some editors might try to argue that some nonsense in a newspaper article is reliable against an established scientific view in a hard science. I think you can always bulldoze such attempts by simply trundling out the scientific literature, but it might be better to provide a uniform way of handling it if that is possible. --TS 02:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think something in stone here will be good, because I have often run into issues with (a) newspapers, (b) crackpot unreviewed conference abstracts, and (c) people telling me that my scientific sources are primary sources and so per WP:PSTS shouldn't count. If a solid guideline will reduce these issues, then it will help free up time spent rehashing old arguments, and allow for more time to be spent writing articles. (That is, I agree with TS in principle, but think that we need to be more obvious.) Awickert (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I hate to mention this, but the proposed version is longer than the current version. Is there any way to trim this so it is at worst the same length? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

On an initial scan, I can't think of a way to cut it down while preserving the meaning. Someone cleverer than me might. Awickert (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

A little earlier in the relevant section, we speak of sources "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". This more or less duplicates "In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." If the difference in length is considered an issue, we could look at dropping "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" from the earlier sentence, which would reduce the increase in length. On the other hand, some editors may be attached to that wording.

We could drop "as a rule of thumb" in the proposal; it would be no great loss.

We could shorten "biographies of living persons" to just "biographies".

We could shorten "books published by reputable publishing houses" to "books by reputable publishers". --JN466 21:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I support the proposed new version.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Support as rightly characterizing the preferrability of academic sources. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Too wordy - Sorry folks, I agree with KillerChihuahua. Taken in the context of the section in which it appears, much of this belongs not in the policy but in its supporting guideline. This is what I emphasized earlier with proposal 3 above. That actual wording was universally rejected, and I accept that it was off the mark, but the main principle still applies: we need clear policy statements here. It's the guideline's job to elaborate on how to comply with the policy. PL290 (talk) 08:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Further to KillerChihuahua's comment about the length, here is a shorter version of the proposal. This keeps the essential points, but strips out some redundancies. It is still marginally longer than the present policy wording (by 21 words), but I don't think the matter can be compressed any further:

Current policy

Proposal

The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.

Academic publications, such as peer-reviewed journals and books published by well-regarded academic presses, are usually the most reliable sources in topic areas where they are available. Non-academic sources may be used as well, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. This includes books by reputable publishers as well as newspapers, magazines, journals and electronic media. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In topics which are the subject of scholarly research, the most authoritative sources are academic works that have undergone scrutiny by a community of experts in that field. Quality mainstream media are equally valuable sources for areas such as current affairs or biographies of living persons. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing scientific findings, evidence, facts, and legal aspects; the greater the scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.

Could you live with this, KillerChihuahua? --JN466 10:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Still supportFifelfoo (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment here, but I'm not seeing any clear benefit. What is wrong with the current wording that the proposal is intended to fix? Proposal five would make non-peer-reviewed literature, including material by academics, in some way second-class, and that's most of the sourcing that's used on Wikipedia. That may not have been the intention, but it's how I'm reading it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Have also been mulling this over, the change in order doesn't seem to me to give a clear benefit. The part describing "academic works that have undergone scrutiny by a community of experts in that field" might seem to imply peer review, but it would perhaps more appropriately apply to reputation in the field. Possible phrasing would be "academic works or authors with a good reputation in a community of experts in that field." I'm also concerned about "High-quality mainstream media are equally valuable sources for topics such as current affairs, or biographies of living persons", as the mass media are frequently agenda driven and will give wide coverage to dramatic allegations then ignore eventual refutation of the allegations as no longer exciting and news-worthy. Perhaps "High-quality mainstream media can also be valuable sources for various topics including current affairs, and biographies of living persons." . . dave souza, talk 12:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Dave, either of these rewordings is fine by me. The intent certainly was not to denigrate academic works; the first sentence names "peer-reviewed journals and books published by well-regarded academic presses" as examples of "academic publications", and thus highly reliable sources. As for the problem we are trying to fix, see e.g. the comments by Tony Sidaway, dave souza, and Awickert above. Briefly, media reports on science are not as reliable as the scientific literature itself. To give some examples, interesting studies may prematurely be reported as scientific breakthroughs; claims may be aired in the media that do not have support in the scientific community, or presented as major controversies even when 98% of scholars are in agreement; issues that depend on an understanding of statistical significance may be unduly simplified, or misrepresented. When it comes to matters of science, media sources are less reliable. Many unproductive arguments occur in various topic areas because editors insist that a press article that departs from the scientific consensus should be given equal weight to that consensus. --JN466 12:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm again reminded of the Prem Rawat situation. There was an effort there to reject non-academic sources, and a corresponding effort to change this policy and RS to degrade newspapers as sources, because editors there wanted to use high-quality newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, to describe his expensive lifestyle, something that his supporters wanted to avoid. Academic sources, of course, would not dwell on these details until years after the newspapers had exposed them, if ever. This is why it's important to make sure the mainstream media aren't limited in their use, because they act as whistle blowers, and you never know where the next whistle is going to need to be blown. Secondly, a great deal of high-quality academic material is published without being peer-reviewed. Thirdly, there are serious problems with the peer-review system, and it most certainly pays no attention to neutrality, so there should never be a focus on it for WP's purposes. Peer-reviewed sources are one form of source among many that we have to consider. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The proposal explicitly says that high-quality mainstream media sources are equally valuable for topics such as current affairs and biographies. Both of these categories apply directly to an article like Prem Rawat, a figure which is the subject of a biography here, and has been a subject of current-affairs reporting in the press. In my view, the proposed wording precisely rules out the kind of argument you are describing, i.e. that scholarly sources should be used to the exclusion of media reports in a case like Rawat (and intentionally so). --JN466 12:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It also isn't the intent of the proposal to unduly privilege peer-reviewed academic sources over non-peer-reviewed academic sources. As you say, a peer review process is no absolute guarantee for high reliability; the quality of peer review varies in different fields. --JN466 12:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Any issue the media discusses comes under current affairs, so it's hard to see what the difference would be. I'd like to avoid any language that will give editors carte-blanche to dismiss sources they don't like. As for the peer-review issue, these words "the most authoritative sources are academic works that have undergone scrutiny by a community of experts in that field" privilege peer-reviewed sources. Some of the best sources are books by academics working alone. Peer-review depends entirely on who the reviewers were, and we rarely know that. Some are great, some are terrible, so it's no guarantee of anything—quite the reverse, because there are problems with material being rejected because off-message in some way. Plus, Wikipedia isn't an academic journal. What we do here is try to find the highest quality, most-informative, most-appropriate sources, and try to make sure we cover all POVs. You can't legislate for that in policy except in general terms. Remember that most editors read policy in order to stop other editors from doing something, so whatever words you add, you have to look at them from all angles, including the bad-faith ones. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Science is science, and current affairs are current affairs. For the current-affairs aspects of science, including biographies, media are a good source, but they are not a good source for the science itself. Many topics in society, such as politics and religion, straddle both domains, and the proposal makes clear that both types of sources are valued for them.
  • As for "the most authoritative sources are academic works that have undergone scrutiny by a community of experts in that field", dave souza suggested an alternative wording above: "academic works or authors with a good reputation in a community of experts in that field." Would this address your concern? --JN466 13:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• What is a good source for the science itself? Example: a drug, FDA-approved, peer-reviewed this, peer-reviewed that. Who decides which scientists are worth listening to? Who decides which off-message voices may be included? I want to be guided by The New York Times telling us "Scientist X is saying there are problems with this drug, but the FDA and the peer-reviewed journals won't listen." Your proposal would inadvertently silence him. You would argue that it comes under current affairs by definition once the NYT reports it, but other editors might argue no, it's the science that's being discussed here, and that's not allowed unless it's in some peer-reviewed paper—which in effect leaves the drug company that developed the drug in charge of the flow of information.

  I think this is a problem in general with the attitude toward science sources on Wikipedia. There's never enough focus on who is financing the research. We seem to regard drug company X, which pays for all or most of the research you find about its products in peer-reviewed journals, as being a necessarily better source than unpaid Scientist X who tries to warn people in The New York Times that there might be an issue. To my mind it's fundamentally wrong-headed to favour the people with the money, simply because they're the ones who can afford to finance the trials, but it's what we almost always end up doing, and I'd hate to see our policy follow suit. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Your approach would lead to Jenny McCarthy being favored over every medical study ever done re vaccinations. We're not the National Enquirer, here. Your concern about "people with money" translates to "people who actually know enough about what they're talking about to have a respected position within the scientific community"; those without are often crackpots who don't hold such a position for good reason. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• The specific example you give would fall under Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Popular_press today, which takes the same approach as the one proposed here: "the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs and historical information in a medical article." A notable controversy in a paper like the NYT ought to be fine by that standard; an article in the National Enquirer or the Daily Mail would fail it. And rightly so. --JN466 15:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• But certain editors already won't allow the NYT or the BBC as sources in these articles. The last thing we want to do is enshrine that in policy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Jayen, there is a danger here of policy being made by what is essentially a lobby group on Wikipedia who push in favour of scientific sources of their choice over others that offer a critique. We can't allow any particular lobby group to make policy, just as in the real world lobby groups don't get to write their own legislation. The policies have to apply to all articles, all angles, all POVs. Scientific or scholarly point of view has been widely rejected on Wikipedia, and we saw what happened when it was tried on Citizendium. Any shift in an emphasis toward favouring peer-reviewed sources (or sources that the academic community has decided are on-message) over other academic and non-academic sources will need wiki-wide consensus, and will almost certainly not achieve it.

  Wikipedia policy has to make sure the off-message, contrarian, whistle-blowing sources get a look in too, within reason. I'm not including you in any lobby group, by the way. I can see that you're just trying to clarify things. But it's important to predict how your words would be misused. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Thank you; and I'm with you in spirit on getting this right. One possibility is that we could add "notable [science] controversies" to "current affairs and bibliographies of living persons", to expand the scope within which we say that high-quality mainstream media are "equally valuable". I would hope editors might agree that if something hits the NYT, it is "notable" (taking global warming as an example, I find the NYT is cited both in the global warming FA, and in global warming controversy). Like Awickert, I'll think further about this. --JN466 17:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • We could also incorporate some of the points suggested by Awickert, below (i.e. that media sources have a much faster response time, and are vital sources for the public reception of science) in the WP:NEWSORG section of WP:IRS. --JN466 18:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• If the media is reporting on something written about in peer-reviewed sources, the latter are to be preferred in the same way that secondary sources trump tertiary sources. If the problem is that media sources contain information absent from academic sources (e.g., a person's lavish spending habits), I don't see how a preference for academic sources would prevent utilizing the media sources. The academic sources do not deny the person's prodigality, so there isn't a conflict. The issue seems to arise solely when the media repeats claims that the scientific community contests, as with global warming. The accusation seems to be that the supposedly academic sources are not operating according to strict standards, one side saying they are unfairly excluded from publications, the other that their opponents' research simply isn't up to par. A dispute over whether the standards of peer review are being met does not seem to invalidate a general preference for peer-reviewed sources. People are not excluded for being "off-message" as often as is sometimes reported. Almost every particular case I have seen where someone has claimed that the scientific establishment is suppressing their work has turned out to be a crank peddling snake oil. Exceptions are rare and identifiable and mainstream media coverage of those claims is noteworthy when it comes to article content. But none of this speaks against a general preference for academic sources. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 13:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• "Some of the best sources are books by academics working alone." Yes, yes they are, and scholarly monographs are sent out by academic presses to readers by scholarly editors. The number of times I hear colleagues moaning about reading a monograph for Press X and not getting that workload recognised... The commercial presses also have readers and editors, but tend to be read for commercial success or not getting sued. The first process constitutes peer review. "Academic works or authors with a good reputation in a community of experts in that field" worries me, I can see "Kevin doesn't have a good reputation," coming up almost immediately. In fact I can see myself using it on an article very rapidly to amplify an existing argument about an expert being considered FRINGE by the majority of the field. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Good point; I can see that that wording might be prone to misuse. --JN466 15:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• But there are academics who write outside that process too, Fifelfoo, and we want to be able to use them as sources. Wikipedia is not an academic journal. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• If wikipedia were an academic journal then I'd heartily support us using material published by academics outside of the academic and commercial publishing mechanisms. We would be claiming expertise and a peer review process to authorise authors to draw disciplinary conclusions from such original research. Sadly, instead of being authors with authority to turn bad sources into good through disciplinary analysis, we're an editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• An idea for non-reviewed academic sources: if they end up being cited a lot (and therefore probably important for WP), the fact that others in the field read and cited that work can be construed as a "review lite" in the current framework. Might take a little rewording, but it seems like something like this might solve that conundrum. [In spite of the e/c, I think this lines up well with what Fifelfoo is saying above ("being authors with authority to turn bad sources into good through disciplinary analysis")], Awickert (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Responses to the above: First, mainstream newspapers often screw up in reporting the science, (yes, even NYT and BBC, though they have a better track record). In this case, the "2ndary source" is decidedly worse. I can produce examples. Second, I don't like the tone of this debate being about "scientists try to push a POV, so we shouldn't let scientific sources be regarded of more highly than other ones when discussing science." SV, while peer-review sometimes "breaks", I think that your view of it is incorrect (it seems that you think it is a bunch of yes-men pushing a status quo, when it is quite the opposite in my experience). And when it does break, the comment-and-reply process kicks in. Scientists have no scruples about going after each other if something seems wrong. The bottom line is that we need to start with sources that are highly-scrutinized, and move on from there. I have spent so much time pulling pseudoscience and quackery out of articles because someone wrote a book about it that it makes me want to puke, but other books are extremely good sources as noted above. However, the books that are good sources are consistent with the peer-reviewed literature, so there should be some way to make this mesh. Bottom line: if something like this doesn't get implemented, I'll end up spending all my time removing blatantly incorrect arguments and getting yelled at for being part of some kind of "science cabal/conspiracy/etc.," and my current semi-wikibreak will continue indefinitely (I am basically only watching this discussion) because the status quo sucks for me. Please, just give me something so I can write science without having Randy in Boise come in and tell me that the BBC news overturns years of work when the reality is that they don't know the physics and screwed up the terminology. Awickert (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• You make a very good point. So tell me: if we find the words that help with Randy in Boise, can you help to find the words for the following kind of example? A series of drug companies finance multi-million-dollar trials into drug-type X. Everything's peer-reviewed, research all paid for by the drug companies, all seems well, the companies are raking in billions, all the stats say lives are being saved. But some patients are feeling unwell on this drug, perhaps irrationally so, and a series of articles start to appear in high-quality media, some written by physicians who themselves took the drug, saying "Hey, I feel really sick on this stuff." Currently those sources are allowed by this policy. But in fact they are being kept out of articles because not scientific, not peer-reviewed. There are some trials that indicate problems, but they're dismissed as maverick primary sources that no one serious followed up on. So, tell me—and I mean this as a serious question—how can we satisfy your concern, whereby we mostly keep Randy in Boise out of articles, but satisfy mine, whereby we want to hear from Randy in Boise when he's not feeling well but multi-billion-dollar sources are telling him he's just being silly? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• That's a hard one. I agree that in your case, the news media can act as effective whistle-blowers, and on something like that, waiting for the slow-as-molasses scientific literature would be bad. OTOH, we need to write it in a way such that some random scientist can't say something crazy in an interview like "the Earth's mantle is liquid" and get it inserted with equal standing. I am working from home today, and going to go think about this for a while while working, because the conundrum seems important but the solution doesn't seem obvious. Awickert (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it maybe isn't as hard as I thought. While science can be defined as, well, "science", if there are concerns about a drug or something, that can also fall under "current issues". This would allow an article to be like "scientific studies say that this is good, but people are getting sick and worried" in the drugs case. In fact, I think that this is how User:Ceranthor, myself, and others worked it out in the volcano FA's that I helped him write: we used scientific sources for the geological background, but felt that there was no problem in saying (based on the news coverage of the event) that the monitoring system was inadequate or that scientists did not expect something to happen and it actually did.

With that in mind, how does this sound?:

• (1a) News are good for current events, and can cover scientific issues. (1b) News reports and interviews should be considered with appropriate WP:WEIGHT, but also with respect to the fact that they produce media much faster than the scientific community, and can therefore be important in events that are developing or ongoing. (2) Use of news articles for science/medicine should be restricted as much as possible to (a) basic facts, and (b) statements of opinion or concern with the state of science (e.g., medical expert example by SV); they should not be used on their own to provide new and/or independent scientific analyses.

Awickert (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the "should not be used alone" part would work for me, though I wouldn't want to see "should be restricted as much as possible," though I do appreciate the point you're making there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If I could just repeat one point and ask everyone to take this fully into account: the line between science and industry is nowadays very blurred, and the result is often that when we use science sources we are in fact using industry sources. As we try to come up with new words for policy, it would help if everyone could substitute the word "industry" wherever they see the word "science," just to check that the wording would still be acceptable. I'm not suggesting that all science equates to industry, but such a large slice of it does that we have to make sure we're comfortable prioritizing sources who are often financed by very powerful multi-billion-dollar interests.

I'm not suggesting that any source be excluded because it has powerful interests behind it (people can be right or wrong regardless of who's paying), but prioritizing such sources means we would be allowing WP to be used as a platform for those interests, which I hope is something no Wikipedian wants. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

We could say, "Quality mainstream media are equally valuable sources for areas such as current affairs, biographies of living persons, and the public reception of people, products, and ideas." This should give the whistleblower in the NYT a voice. We could expand further in the WP:NEWSORG section of WP:IRS. --JN466 18:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Don't care about paragraph order. Would prefer "media are also valuable sources" rather than the current "media are equally valuable sources", but not enough to make an issue of it. The careful distinction between scientific and current or biographical subjects should prevent any isses of the type which seem to be worrying SV. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Exactly what Killer Chihuahua says. Awickert (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Essentially the same logic as KC. Although my preference for "media are also valuable sources" rather than "media are equally valuable sources" might be stronger than the violent puppy's opinion. This is not a subtle distinction. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 6

Not a concrete proposal. Just some ideas for a direction that all sides might be able to work with. The third paragraph is the new one:

Current policy

Proposal

The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.

The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, but they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. The best sources for data in science, history, medicine, and other academic disciplines are usually scholarly sources, particularly peer-reviewed ones. Non-academic sources who write about this data may misreport or misinterpret it, and should therefore not be relied upon exclusively as sources of that data where academic secondary sources are available. Non-academic sources, including high-quality mainstream media sources, may be used to report and interpret the socio-economic, political, and human impact of research in science, history, medicine, and other disciplines.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You added para 3, and no other changes, is that correct? thanks! - KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Slim also dropped "such as in history, medicine, and science," from the 2nd paragraph, and then names those three subjects in para 3.

Thoughts:

• It's longer than proposal 5.
• After "checking or analyzing" I miss the mention of "scientific findings" that proposal 5 introduced.
• I've never liked the phrase "Academic and peer-reviewed publications". Peer-reviewed publications are one type of academic publications, along with academic books, and others. It's like saying, "fruit and oranges". I prefer "Academic publications, such as peer-reviewed journals and books published by well-regarded academic presses, ..." Moreover, university-level textbooks are later on listed among "other reliable sources", when clearly university-level textbooks are another type of academic source.
• "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, but they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." invites the problem we are trying to fix (e.g., citing the media on science).
• Paragraph 3 tries to counteract that problem, but restricts its deliberations to "data" that the media may misreport. It is not just "data" that the media may misreport; it is commonly also their significance, the arguments derived from them, and even the questions the data were supposed to answer ("X causes cancer!"; "X cures cancer!").
• The last sentence I like. :) --JN466 21:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Rather puzzled about "data", which at least in science is the raw information where this seems to be talking about the interpretation of data. This seems to be largely restating the second paragraph, and I'm not sure that going into detail about use of good quality media is needed. More significantly, sources does mean the author and the work itself, and it would be useful to be explicit that the reputation of both among experts in the field should be taken into consideration when assessing the reliability of the source for purpose. . . dave souza, talk 19:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 7

Taking into account your points:

Current policy

Proposal

The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.

The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing scientific findings, evidence, facts, legal issues, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Academic publications, such as peer-reviewed journals and books published by academic presses, are usually the most reliable sources where available. Other reliable sources include books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. The best sources for data in science, history, medicine, and other academic disciplines are usually scholarly sources, particularly peer-reviewed ones. Non-academic sources may misreport or misinterpret the data and its significance, and should therefore not be relied upon exclusively as sources of that kind of material where academic secondary sources are available. Non-academic sources, including high-quality mainstream media sources, may be used to report and interpret the socio-economic, political, and human impact of research in science, history, medicine, and other disciplines.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• I still think "university-level textbooks" belong with academic publications (and in fact needn't be mentioned separately), but that isn't a big deal. Apart from that one quibble, I think it is well-written, and hits the mark. --JN466 22:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Although, Slim, thinking back on the LA Times example with the $400,000 house, and your warning that we have to anticipate ways in which policy wordings might be abused, you are opening a door there with "Non-academic sources may misreport or misinterpret the data and its significance, and should therefore not be relied upon exclusively as sources of that kind of material where academic secondary sources are available." Someone could argue that you need a scholarly source to get the house price right, and to interpret what it means. :) (Unfortunately, I am not joking here. I have seen arguments precisely like that being made.) --JN466 22:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, good point. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• I thought I'd removed that. Error. It's gone now. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • No prob. --JN466 00:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good to me! Awickert (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good. I remember the concern being raised that media sources are good for biographies, current events, etc. The current wording should imply that by omission, but someone may want that added. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree; the reference to press sources being valuable for current affairs and biographies is something I am missing here. We could tack ", and are generally valuable for current-affairs and biographical coverage" on at the end. --JN466 20:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• A thought: where academic secondary sources are available: I have often heard the argument that scientific papers and the like are primary sources, and so are unfavorable. To avoid opening that can of worms, could we remove the word "secondary"? Awickert (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• That would be something we'd want to avoid, the use of primary sources. Otherwise you could have any old scientific study, no matter how unknown, used in preference to a report about its subject matter in The New York Times. The point is that where journalists and scientific secondary sources are available for the basic subject matter, the latter would be preferable—not counting where there's interpretation of results going on in terms of a socio-economic-political perspective as described, where the journalistic source would be fine.

  One thing I wanted to ask, which is always worth checking before changing policy: could we have a few examples of the high-quality mainstream media being used as sources for scientific issues where they got the reports wrong? That is, some examples of the problem we're trying to solve here. I ask because the media tends to report these issues in response to requests from scientists: usually in response to press releases or interviews, including off-the-record interviews. So it would be interesting to see some examples of where they'd misinterpreted something. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• I am just about out the door. So a question for now: is an original research paper a primary or secondary source? If it is a primary source, then most of the scientific literature is unacceptable. If it isn't, but people who don't like it will argue via WP:PSTS that it shouldn't be used, then this guideline won't be doing its drama-reducing job. I will give examples when I get back - may be very late (or tomorrow morning) though. Awickert (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes an original research study is a primary source. They can be used cautiously on wikipedia. A review paper or meta-analysis of primary research study on a given area are preferable. The more recent the better.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Several issues with this. (1) We are contradicting ourselves by saying that academic sources are preferred, but are primary sources so are bad. (2) "Review" articles are often ambiguously-not-review-articles. Many put new ideas into play as well, and non-review articles often also include literature reviews. The journal Quaternary Science Reviews is full of non-reviews! (3) In many parts of the geosciences at least, few true "review" articles are written, and these cover only a small portion of the topic. In regional geological studies, there are almost never review articles. (4) As mentioned above, review articles in the humanities are often not peer-reviewed! (5) Because journal articles are peer-reviewed, they have already been through scrutiny, and therefore do not give only the author's opinion.

I think that modern scientific articles therefore have to be considered in a slightly different way than, for example, historical texts, in which it would be easy to breach WP:OR by selectively quoting The Venerable Bede, for example: historians spend much of their lives studying the language and history so they can take primary sources in context, which is IMO a great reason to use their articles rather than the historical primary sources. Historians consider works written about history to be secondary sources, which is how I think that we should see scientific studies: we at WP do not perform our own experiments, but we take as sources the reports of those who do.

I'm trying to think of a good criterion: number of times cited, perhaps? I often wait 6+ months after an article is published to make sure that there isn't a comment made on it (these are published by the journal and are typically along the lines of "you are wrong"). Awickert (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Awickert the newspaper article is a non-academic secondary source. In a scientific article it would be best to cite directly the original paper or preferably a review which discusses his findings. It would be an ok source in a non-scientific article or section for discussing controversy or in a biography or such like.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I put that newspaper article in the wrong place (didn't see you replied so quickly); I was referring to SV's question. Sorry about that; if you could strike your comment and my response, would be appreciated, because they are the result of my fumble. Awickert (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, if you can post me the dates for the comment(s) that you would like me to strike and then I will strike them, here or to my talk page. I made a couple of posts.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Support proposal 7.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Examples of the problem we're trying to address

Examples here, please, of the high-quality mainstream media being used as a source for scientific material on Wikipedia, where the story had misreported or misinterpreted the material:

Let's start here: [1]. Awickert (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC) [Missed part about being used as well; we've been fairly successful in making sure that this doesn't happen. The problem IMO is not that newspapers end up trumping science, but rather that the consistency with which the news/science source discussion resurfaces is such a massive waste of time. Awickert (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)]

Not the Daily Mail, please, because that isn't a good media source, except in limited circumstances. I'm looking for an example from the high-quality mainstream media. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A beautiful BBC example from Language Log, with links to many, many more. [2] An astronomical UPI blunder. [3] Hans Adler 23:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry, poor reading comprehension at this time of the night. I was responding to SV's earlier question for bad science reporting being used here, and missed the part about it being used. Hans Adler 23:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• You don't necessarily need to have the media misreport or misinterpret something (although unquestionably, they sometimes do) to have a Wikipedia dispute about sourcing science content to media articles. To be honest, many disputes around the use of press sources in this project will likely look more like this one: [4][5]. --JN466 00:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I've seen editors say they're often having to correct material cited to the press, so it'd be good to see some examples of where good newspapers are getting things wrong. I don't mean publishing things editors don't like (e.g. the climate-change dispute), but actually getting it wrong. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope our science editors will be able to come with some convincing examples. If not, we should drop back to proposal 5. The example I offered above [6][7] is really about editors using media anecdotes to synthesise a point about science, rather than reflecting coverage in authoritative sources dealing with the question. That happens a lot around here -- editors haven't read any of the scholarly literature, but want to contribute, based on something they have just read in a paper. --JN466 00:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't come up with an example because the request was for current issues. We're pretty effective at removing those, but it would be much easier (and less painful) if there were a more straightforward guideline. Awickert (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This diff, citing this NY Times article, see this blog post for description of misinterpretation. Yobol (talk) 08:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This diff, citing this Guardian article which cites a "review" which alleges conflict of interest by industry studies. This "review" is nothing more than a self-published lit search on a personal website (and a god-awful one at that) that would never pass peer-review but is cited as fact by the press. Note the NY Times also cites this "review" and is cited in one of our articles for that purpose as well. Yobol (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Does WP:PRIMARYTOPIC trump WP:V?

Please answer this simple yes/no question:

Does WP:PRIMARYTOPIC trump WP:V?

This deals with my attempts to change the first sentence of the page Pig (disambiguation).

Thank you in advance for your kind short answer, along with any comments you might like to make. Chrisrus (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are usually considered exempt from content policies such as WP:V (as any content should be not only verifiable, but verified at the linked articles)... Blueboar (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I understood "not unless the content isn't verified at the articles". Any content on disambiguation pages not verified within the listed articles may be removed. Is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The decision to declare the primary topic of that dab page to be either just "domestic pig" or "the family Suidae, including domesticated and wild pigs" is a matter for editorial judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with WhatamIdoing. Blueboar (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not correct. The decision is whether to declare the primary target of [[Pig]] to be either "domestic pig" or the disambiguation page itself. None of the various taxons with any claim to the term "pig" are under concideration. Chrisrus (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A disambiguation page is never considered the primary target article (in fact, they are not considered "articles" at all... they are considered "Navigation pages"). I still do not understand where WP:V fits into the debate. What is the verifiability question? Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The debate in question is whether to direct "p-i-g" searchers to domestic pig, or to send them to pig (disambiguation). Whichever way it goes, the unverified statement "Pigs are any animal of the genus Sus" is on the top of the disambiguation page now, but will change no matter which they choose, and the rest of the taxon-based articles and the situation about their relationship to the word "pig" will be done in the first section. We are still waiting for that discussion to end, but either way it's not going to be Sus. It might even be Suidae, as you suggest, although if you read it that doesn't seem likely, and so your characterization of that discussion is not correct. Nevertheless, the statement that "pig=sus", which is at the top of the disambiguation, is being supported by no one, and has not been verified anywhere, yet stands at the top of the disambiguation page. Your point that Suidae would be truer, but it's not as common a target referent for searchers as domestic pig, so editors are debating what do change it to, and until then I'm being told that the unverified statement must stand as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines trump WP:V - it doesn't matter that the statement is wrong because it must stand there until The Heat Death of the Universe or unil they either deside what to do, whichever comes first. Chrisrus (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

none of which is really a WP:V issue. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly right Blueboar. Disambiguation pages are primarily navigational aides and reflect the current arrangement of article titles. Assuming that there will be some page moves resulting from the current discussions, the disambiguation page will be updated after the moves have been completed. Unless someone has access to a crystal ball, to edit the disambiguation page before the discussions and page moves have been resolved could risk biasing the discussion as a fait accompli. older ≠ wiser 15:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan of action. I think we can close this thread Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The statement that "Pigs" is primarily or most properly defined as the genus Sus has not been verified on the pages that the navigation page links to. No statement should be on a disambiguation page which is not verified on the pages it links to. In this way, WP:V applies to disambiguation pages. Good edits to disambiguation pages are often make on the grounds that something stated there was not supported by the article linked to. For example, just I other day, I removed the statement that "Pig" is the name of a character in Orwell's "Animal Farm". I did so on the grounds that the statement was not verified by the article. I went and read the article and saw that it was not so stated there, so I removed the statement on the disambiguation page. We do such things all the time. In this way, WP:V applies to the statements of fact made on disambiguation pages.

Changing the lead to Domestic Pig will not bias the discussion as a fait accompli because the discussion is only about whether to change the target of [[pig]] to Domestic Pig or to the disambiguation page itself. That it should continue to point to Sus (genus) is not being discussed there, as it's clear that Sus is merely one of several taxon-based articles with a claim to the word "pigs." Other ideas may also be entertained as to how best to help users choose from the several taxon-based articles we have about pigs in general, more or less narrowly defined. None of these changes in the discussion would change the fact that the primary on the disambiguation page should be Domestic pig, which I hope is self-evident to you, and you should know that everyone there is long past that point by now. Now, they are just discussing how and how much to explain the situation to the user and lay out the choices after first sending the likely majority of searchers to the domestic pig. Therefore, changing the lead of the disambiguation page from Sus to Domestic Pig will not risk biasing the discusssion as a fait accompli, and remove a statement from the disambiguation page that is not verified in the articles to which the disambiguation page links. In fact, changing the first line of the disambiguation page from Sus to Domestic Pig will help the discussion by getting that much out of the way, acknowleding their progress, and focusing them on the task at hand, which is how both to direct the rest of the traffic. Chrisrus (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Where do you see the statement that "Pigs" is primarily or most properly defined as the genus Sus ? The disambiguation page currently states A Pig is an animal of the genus Sus, which reflects the current arrangement of pages and seems to accurately reflect the lede of pig. Is that a problem? If not, what exactly is the issue? older ≠ wiser 16:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A Pig is an animal of the genus Sus at the top of the disambiguation page easily states as much in the mind of an innocent reader. It is like saying "A person is a Frenchman". Frenchman are people, but not all people are Frenchmen. Chrisrus (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

On a dab page, the phrase on each link, including the first one, is to be interpreted as "In one meaning of the word, "Pig" is . . ." and that meaning is the meaning that briefly and clearly distinguishes the associated article from the rest on the page. The phrase is normally a shortened version of the essentials from the lead of the article in question. So we are not claiming that a pig is ONLY that, in fact, the next phrase "it may also refer to" makes that clear. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, a more careful wording perhaps, but if disambiguation page guidelines suggest a wording that is not verified in the articles it links to, it would be in violation of WP:V, which would take precedence. It's just a guideline and WP:V is quite a bit more than a guideline, so if they conflict, a solution must quickly be found. If I can get agreement on that point, I'd not object to collapsing this thread. In a nutshell, ignoring for the moment the details of this case, statements on disambiguation pages must be verified somehow. Chrisrus (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The MOSDAB does not "suggest a wording that is not verified in the articles it links to." In general, a bit of imprecision for brevity is tolerated. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Or are you suggesting that the implied "In this meaning of the word" is required by WP:V. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

So your answer is "theoretically yes, but there doesn't seem to be any danger of that happening, and does not seem to be happening in this case" or some such? Chrisrus (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No. All I am saying is that I don't see a conflict between WP:MOSDAB and WP:V in this case. The text on the dab page should accurately, but concisely, describe the (presumably) verified information in the article. While I believe WP:V should generally have precedence, because the primary purpose of a dab page is navigational and not informational, there might be instances where a detailed application of the "rules", but not the "spirit", of WP:V might be limited. For example, footnoting is not encouraged on dab pages. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) @Chrisrus, I'm confused. Are you saying that the statement A Pig is an animal of the genus Sus is incorrect? Why? I think your comparison with person/Frenchman is confusing. One common meaning of the word "pig" is that it is a generic term for species in the genus Sus. Another common meaning refers specifically to the species of domestic pig. I'm really not sure what your point is. Are you saying it the statement that a pig is an animal of the genus Sus is unverifiable? Really? older ≠ wiser 19:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::If it really bothers you, try instead Pig often denotes an animal of the genus Sus. It may also be... Of course, check that the linked articles supports the assertions. Given that editors tend to change article lede paras with great abandon, it is possible that they will occasionally remove support that once was present, but we shouldn't construe that as a question of V for the dab page. It's just version history. If you think wp:MOSDAB or wp:Disambiguation need to change, discuss it on those talkpages, not here, please. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone please edit Pig to make the first sentence better reflect the fact that the article is about the genus Sus, not "the pig" whatever that is. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Folks... unless someone is seriously contesting the statement that "a pig is an animal of the genus Sus", then this simply is not a WP:V issue. Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"A Scotsman is a human" is a correct statement. "A human is a Scotsman" is not. "A pig is an animal of the genus Sus" is like saying that a Human is a Scotsman. Some of them are, but not all of them. No RS that we have tells us that this statement is correct. The new ones call all Suidae "pigs" or "true pigs", although some older ones said "Suinae", but zero said you had to be Sus to be a pig. Therefore, the statement "a pig is an animal of the genus Sus" at the top of the disambiguation page as the primary, or even a primary definition, does not pass WP:V guidelines because it is not a fair summary of the articles it links to, is not supported by the RS's in those articles, and has not been verified anywhere. Although Disambiguation pages are not directly sourced, they are beholden to WP:V indirectly by having to be verified by the articles they link to. Chrisrus (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The root of this continuing content dispute seems to be the first line of the article Pig, which is about the pig genus Sus. Someone please edit the article to fix the first line. I suggest The pig genus Sus includes domestic pigs and their wild relatives... 69.3.72.249 (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Access to sources addition

Should this section also address the use of online sources that become unavailable (i.e. dead webpages)? 68.146.81.123 (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There's something about that in WP:CITE, but you're right that we should allude to it here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:Linkrot is the main page for that problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Third-party source

The phrase "third-party source" first appears in the section Burden of evidence,

"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

While reading it I realized that I was unfamiliar with the term. So I googled it a bit to get an idea of what it might mean, and was only able to come up with legal terminology.[8] Perhaps someone would know of a reference that defines the term "third-party source" or "third-party" in the way that it is used in this policy? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

See wikt:third party, second definition, Merriam-Webster, first definition, etc. It's later defined parenthetically as "independent", but in general, if we don't supply a definition, then the ones in your favorite general-purpose dictionary apply.

(I thought that this policy once provided a link to Wiktionary for that term...) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Since "third-party sources" may be unclear to some like me, and it appears 4 times, perhaps a footnote for clarification might be useful? Here's one possibility,

"If no reliable third-party sources^[1] can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

1. a third-party source is one that was written by authors who are not principals involved in the subject

--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I will note that this is the core statement that connects Verifiability with concept of Notability... And our various notability guidelines seem have all settled on the phrase: "Reliable sources that are independent of the subject" with very good effect (ie people seem to understand what is meant). Perhaps we should be consistent and adopt that phrasing here? Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to clarify what is already there. The phrase you brought up is the first time I've seen it and it's not clear to me. For instance, how can a reliable source be independent of the subject if it is about the subject? Anyhow, how do you feel about adding the footnote? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As is spelled out more fully in WP:IRS... The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, paper, document, book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). So... if we were working on an article on the subject: Fraternal Order of Hedgehogs, a book written by a member of the fraternity might well be considered reliable... but it would not be "Independent of the subject". The same would be true of the fraternities website, or a press release issued by the Grand Poobah, these are caused to be published by the order itself, so they are not "independent" of it. If these are the only reliable sources on the Hedgehogs, then we should not have an article about it. We need someone outside of the fraternity to have noticed it and commented upon it. Blueboar (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Since there is more than one meaning of "source", I need to revise the footnote. Would this work?

"If no reliable third-party sources^[1] can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

1. "third-party sources" refers to authors or publishers that are not principals involved in the subject

--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyone here besides me that is leaning towards supporting this clarification footnote or who has an idea for a better footnote? If not, there doesn't seem to be any point in proceeding. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't that pretty much amount to "if you don't know what 'third party' means, then here's what the dictionary says"? And if so, why should this particular term be called out for a dictionary definition, and not any of the other terms that people might not be familiar with? We're not, e.g., defining "verifiable", even though it's defined on this talk page about once a month, or "quotation", although the difference between paraphrase and quotation eludes some editors, or "self-publishing", which has been the subject of extensive debates.

You seem to have been able to figure out the dictionary definition; don't you think that anyone else who's confused could do the same? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't figure it out myself from dictionary definitions, especially since the term "source" had 3 different meanings: one referring to people/authors (which corresponds best with the dictionary definition but wasn't what I had in mind for "source" when I read the term in the sentence), one that is the publishing organization (e.g. journal etc.), and one that is the article, book, etc (which is what I had in mind for "source" in the context of that sentence and which doesn't fit the dictionary definition of "third-party" in my opinion). You might note that in my proposed footnote it mentions authors and publishers but not articles, books, etc. It's interesting that you didn't mention that in your criticism. Maybe you don't understand the situation as well as you think. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed removal of the phrase "third party"

My position is that the phrase "third party" is entirely unacceptable, and I do not consider myself to be bound by this policy until that detestable phrase is removed. I find Bob K31416's footnote just makes the matter worse; it means that we can't have an article about algebra unless we can find a reliable source written by someone who does not understand algebra. Anyone who makes a living doing or teaching algebra is particularly unacceptable as the author of a source that establishes the notability of algebra. Besides, this policy is about verifiability, not notability. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it means that an article on algebra that is only sourced to Diophantus or Gerolamo Cardano would only be using first-party sources. Any future scholar that is an expert on algebra but has written a work that incorporates the works of those that are credited with creating algebra would be third-party. --MASEM (t) 04:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, Please note that clarifying the term "third party" would help your cause if you were right. While it's unclear, it's more difficult to attack. Maybe that's how you were motivated to attack the term now, because its meaning has been clarified in this discussion. In any case, clarifying it will lead to being better able to determine whether or not it benefits Wikipedia and in the meantime, clarification with the footnote will help the reader understand the current policy. So please continue making your points about why you think "third party" should be removed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

And dislike of a policy or part of a policy is not an excuse to ignore it. Dougweller (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Masem is right. A little history of the term might be illuminating: The classic "third party" in a dispute is the judge before whom a lawsuit is being presented. Wikipedia doesn't want to be written from the perspective of either the "plaintiff" or the "defendant". You just need to adapt the concept to the specific circumstances, e.g., we don't want to write "Microsoft, according Microsoft's marketing department", or "Algebra textbooks, according to textbook publishers". We want Microsoft and Textbook according to people who aren't getting paid (or some other benefit) for promoting (or denigrating) these things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If a term needs a footnote to explain how we're using it, that's not ideal. Any reason we can't simply refer to "secondary sources" here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PL290 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The primary/secondary/tertiary axis is different from the first/third-party axis (which itself is different from dependent and independent.)

Specifically, secondary sources are ones that are transformative of primary and other sources; that is they just don't repeat details (as with primary sources including what most third-party news sources often do) but analysis them, critique them, derive synthesis from, and so forth. Almost by necessity, all secondary sources will be third-party, but not all third-party sources will be secondary. It's important to understand that difference as secondary sources are important to NOR and Notability, but WP:V only requires that we have a third-party talking about the topic to avoid vanity and conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs) -13:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

One article that I have on my "to do list" is a short one about the armoured train ambush in 1899 during the Boer War when Winston Churchill was captured. The most reliable account of the ambush was the one written by Churchill himself (he was a war correspondent), though there are number of sources that refer to the incident (for example, who actually catured Churchill). How should one approach such an article, especially when most of the details of the actual ambush are themselves derived from Churchill's writings, and Churchil was not one to hold back from promoting himself? (The ambush itself was a minor action in the war - the real significance was that Churchill was captured as a result of the ambush). Martinvl (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguable, Churchill's account is the primary source, but as you've said other people have referred to the account, that means there's likely third-party sources to augment to Churchill's version. It doesn't matter if the bulk of the info is coming from Churchill's writings, the point on WP:V and third-party sources is to assure that we've got more than one voice (Churchill here) to assert the topic at hand. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What we are saying is this... if the ONLY account of this ambush was Churchill's, then we should not have a separate article on the ambush. That does not mean we can not mention the ambush in other articles and cite Churchill's account. For example, it could (and to my mind should) be used in the bio article Winston S. Churchill. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The point that I'm making is: is the distinction a useful one within this policy? You have agreed that all secondary sources are, by definition, third-party. Currently the policy uses the term third-party source in ways that leave its meaning unclear (which gave rise to the present discussion). I'm suggesting we could substitute the familiar, well-defined term secondary source without changing the effect of the policy, and that by doing so, we would clarify the policy for our community of editors who need to understand and apply it practically. But if the distinction is indeed one this policy needs to make, then it needs to define its use of the term, and the applicability to the policy, in an introductory Third-party sources section. PL290 (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

PL290 wrote "You have agreed that all secondary sources are, by definition, third-party." Absolutely not. For example, the report of the 9/11 Commission is a secondary source because it is a synthesis and analysis of documents and testimony presented to the commission. But, because it s a US government commission, and because the Pentagon was attacked, the 9/11 Commission was a first party source. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems you're using the term in a different way from Masem. PL290 (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I agree with Jc3s5h. It is possible to have 1st party, secondary sources. That's an example that captures the difference quite well. Another is directory commentary on DVDs - first party but secondary source. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

One big objection I have to "third party" is that it is a legal term, referring to a legal person. Arguably, the United States government is a single legal person, as is the Russian government, the Chinese government, etc. Because these governments are involved in nearly everything, a large proportion of our articles are affected. Just for instance, the United States is currently holding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in connection with the September 11 attacks, making the US government a first party to the attacks. This mean that all of the following must be regarded as first party sources: FAA air traffic voice recordings, National Weather Service forecasts and data for the areas attacked on 9/11, every federal court ruling, the 9/11 Commission, all the technical tests on wreckage by NIST, any notices to mariners the Coast Guard might have issued in the wake of the attacks, and the list goes on. In short, using the term "first person" changes the test from "are the human beings who actually wrote and published the material disinterested in the topic?" to "are the human beings who actually wrote and published the material employees or contractors for a legal person who could be regarded as a first person?"

Given this and your reply to me above, if we are to cease to use the term third-party, what is it that you think the policy should say? PL290 (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

While "Third party" is a term that has a legal meaning... it has other meanings as well. In this case we are not using it as a legal term, we are using it in one of its other meanings. Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I would use "independent" or "disinterested", and clarify that we want sources that have no financial, contractual, egotistical, or ideological motivation to favor a certain point of view. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you have a point. This conversation shows that the term third party is open to various interpretations, some of them colloquial, by different readers. Even if the dictionary definition is used, it's not clear who the first and second party are. All of this makes the term inadequate for conveying the intended meaning of the policy. It would be helpful if you would propose amended sentences here so that others can consider the effect. PL290 (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I would support either keeping things as they are, or changing to "independent". I don't think it really matters which we use as they mean the same thing. Blueboar (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"Independent" is not the same as third-party. There are "Dependent" third-parties, such as the television network that broadcasts a show, or a news network reporting on a story about a sibling company of an overarching parent conglomerate. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not just a matter of substituting one word for another: neither term has meaning unless put in a specific context. Let me put it another way. Consider the general case: forget sources, forget Wikipedia; you are reading a policy. The policy is applicable to your relationship with an organization. Without going further or even considering what kind of policy it is, we have already introduced two parties: you and the organization. And, to return to WP:V, a policy applicable to your (the editor's) relationship wtih an organization (Wikipedia) and how you go about sourcing articles, both of those parties are highly relevant in discussions about where content is sourced from. Substituting a term such as independent does not help, since the independence of these two parties is relevant in exactly the same way (but still nothing to do with the point under discussion). Hence to succeed in conveying this point, the policy must make some very clear introductory statements. Those introductory statements are going to need to identify precisely what parties are referred to by any chosen term the policy then uses. That's why I think it will help if some wording is proposed here. PL290 (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to PL290's request, I suggest the following change in the Burden of Evidence section:

If no independent<ref name="independent">An independent source has no significant financial, contractual, or ideological ties to the topic that would make it favor a particular point of view, or has clearly established a reputation for ignoring such ties (e.g. ''The PBS Newshour'' has a reputation for criticizing the US government despite PBS receiving some government funds).</ref> reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

In the Reliable sources section remove "third-party" and the parentheses around "independent" and make another reference to the footnote. Elsewhere, replace "third-party" with "independent" and a reference to the footnote, with two exceptions.

In the Questionable sources section and the Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves replace "third-parties" with "others". Jc3s5h (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose reliance on a footnote. The policy should devote an introductory subsection to defining a term, and then use that term consistently throughout. PL290 (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think when you start out saying "third party-bad, independent-good", you need to stretch and stretch the definition of independent until you back into the definition of "third party" in the colloquial sense of not taking a side others have given above and I have given below. Let me make the case for "independent-bad": the word refers to the lack of relationship between a person, corporation, or organization and another person, corporation, or organization -- a dependency relationship like employment, family, funding, former employment, subsidiary, marriage, interlocking board of directors, etc. The problem is that independent doesn't refer to disputes, competing claims of fact, etc. (namely the content we edit) but to personal, corporate, or organizational identities.

Mere advocacy of the same disputed point doesn't take away ones independence from the first advocate of the disputed point - it doesn't create a dependency relationship between one and that person, corporation, or organization. What it means it is you are, on this disputed point taking a side, and no longer are a third party, which is why third party is the appropriate term for "the guy not taking a side in the dispute". patsw (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The term third party doesn't necessily mean "the guy not taking a side in the dispute" at all. If I'm out driving and another car crashes into mine, the driver of that car is a third party, but may certainly take a side in a dispute and claim I caused the accident. Notwithstanding that, however, the phrase may well remain the best one if properly defined: would you care to propose an introductory subsection defining the policy's use of the term? PL290 (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In fact, classically, the primary purpose of the "third party" was to (ultimately) take a side. That's what judges are supposed to do, after all. A judge shouldn't be a principal actor in a dispute, but forming an opinion and choosing a winner is perfectly acceptable for a third party. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this affects your argument, but the guy who crashed his car into yours is the second party, not a third party; he's the other direct party to the event. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In terms of my relationship with my insurance company, he is a third party. What you have shown is one more example of how the term is inadequate unless defined to have a meaning within a certain context. PL290 (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The context is taking sides in a dispute. A car accident is a bizarre example having nothing to do with what we are discussing. patsw (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Patsw, I think your argument works in favor of using "independent". If a person with no stake in a disputed issue agrees with one of the positions, that is useful for Wikipedia; it helps us decide who is probably right and which point of view should be given the most emphasis in an article. Wikipedia is not obliged to take a position that no external dispute can ever be resolved. Sometimes there is a winner, and if the vast majority of independent sources say X is the winning position, Wikipedia should say so too. Never taking a position isn't being third-party, it isn't being independent, it's being indecisive. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Before I respond to your comment, do you agree with my definition of independent, or are you referring to another definition? patsw (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Third parties and verifiability, an explanation

• "Third party" is a colloquial term meaning "neutral party" or "disinterested party" or "the guy not taking a side". The example above of Algebra is a terrible starting point because there is no identifiable dispute among advocates or promoters of Algebra and it detractors. There might be a dispute over most effective means to teach it, and so in this case, a "third party" might be a firm hired by a school district or the DOE to evaluate the various methods of teaching it, or a magazine article explaining the controversy.
• Verifiability works in marginal cases for establishing existence and significance in conjunction with determining if the subject merits a stand-alone article (Wikipedia's term of art for criteria here is notability). So here, a "third party" can be necessary to verify the existence of the subject, and, if necessary, what's significant about this subject apart from the claims the subject makes about himself (herself, itself).
• Verifiability with attribution works in the core content of an article to identify what is claimed by whom. Perhaps other encyclopedias employ fact-checkers to personally verify information, but what Wikipedia allows is the reader is to see where its content came from. From context it should be clear if its source is advocate, detractor, or "third party".
• The development of this guideline came about to address articles which were well-written and verifiable, and even independent of the subject (avoiding WP:COI), but were written summarizing only the content created by its advocates (or its detractors). A point that perhaps is expressed too subtly in the guideline is there are the distinctions between the subject, and advocates who are independent of the subject (in a employment or organizational sense), and third-parties without a stake in the outcome who observe and comment without taking a side (or at least not letting their personal opinion affect their objective account). patsw (talk

The Basics: X-Party and Y-source are distinct categories

Party (colloquial, not legal usage)

• First party makes a claim
• Second party denies the claim, or offers another claim for which both claims cannot be true
• Third party observes, comments, etc. and doesn't assert or deny any claims, and doesn't have a stake (financial, ideological, etc.) in the outcome

Source

• Primary, a participant or an eye-witness giving a contemporaneous account
• Secondary, an account based on contact with persons who are primary sources, or on review of writings or recordings of primary accounts
• Tertiary, content based upon some combination or primary, second, and tertiary accounts. patsw (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments

One clarity: a secondary source can build on other secondary or tertiary works itself. But importantly is the idea of "review" (eg analysis and evolution of new conclusions, and not simple reiteration). --MASEM (t) 19:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As a minor point: Outside of a legal dispute, the existence of a "second party" is not necessary. If Grandma writes on her blog that she celebrated her birthday with a party today, she's the "first party" for that information. If you happened to see her at the birthday party (say, because you were working at the restaurant where the party was held), then you're the "third party". There needn't be a "second party" contesting the facts for a "third party" to verify them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point. The number of second parties may be zero, one, or more in the colloquial sense. In your hypothetical zero there are disputed facts. Alternatively, one person might have a dispute regarding the locale of the party, and another person might have a dispute with the date of the event. patsw (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC: removing "third-party sources"

On this talk page there's a suggestion that the policy should stop using the term third-party sources. The discussion has not resolved exactly how that term's application in the policy differs from secondary sources, or what parties it identifies, depending on the topic area. Should the policy continue to use a term other than secondary sources, and if so, how should it define its use of the term? PL290 (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments (third-party sources RfC)

(no threaded discussion here, please)

• Define if used. The NPOV policy covers neutrality of sources, so I'm not convinced WP:V needs to say more than secondary sources. However, if it does need to use a different term, such as third-party sources, it should devote an introductory subsection to defining its use of the term, and use it consistently throughout, so that our editors may gain a clear understanding of its applicability within the policy. PL290 (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Leave as is. User:WhatamIdoing's essay does a very good job of defining the terms. --JN466 11:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Threaded discussion (third-party sources RfC)

• I don't understand why you say that the distinction between "secondary source" and "third party" isn't clear. I thought Masem's explanation at WT:V#The_Basics:_X-Party_and_Y-source_are_distinct_categories was clear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Masem's explaination is pretty clear about first parties, third parties, and secondary sources. However, since the colloquial use of nth parties is derived from the legal usage, there is considerable freedom to adopt different meanings, particularly with the second party. Fortunately the second party is not important to this discussion.

I would especially emphasize that there is no implication of neutrality in the term "secondary source". Any source that was not an actor or eyewitness to the matter in question can be called a secondary source, because, of necessity, such a source is analyzing documents and testimony of actors and eyewitnesses, or of other secondary sources. For example, the prosecutor in a court case is almost always a secondary source, because the prosecutor is almost never an eyewitness or actor in the alleged crime, but the prosecutor would not normally be thought of as a neutral or independent party. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct... we need to maintain a neutral POV... but our sources do not. The ideal sources are reliable secondary sources that are written by neutral third-parties... but this does not mean that a biased secondary source should be ignored or forbidden. Blueboar (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• If "third-party" is to be removed, it might help if one could give a concrete example of how that might be done. How would that be done for the following sentence from Burden of evidence?

"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Similarly, if there is to be an introductory section for defining "third-party", it might help if a possible version of it could be shown. Please note that I offered a footnote for defining it and that small addition was not supported. I wonder if those who support the use of "third-party" without explanation, and who were against the footnote, could even make a definition of "third-party" that would be acceptable to a consensus here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

New essay

I've just move WP:Party and person into the WP namespace, complete with examples that I hope will be starkly illustrative. People who don't understand how a "third party" is different from a "secondary source" are encouraged to read it, and to ask questions there. (People who do understand the difference are encouraged to answer questions and improve the explanation.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent job! --JN466 11:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a good solution IMO. Even if someone doesn't like something about the present form of the explanation, it can be modified and improved like any guidance in Wikipedia and will always be there to help the reader. How about putting a wikilink to it in WP:V?

"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see this note before linking to Wiktionary, but as it's a brand-new essay, written by me, I don't think I'd be comfortable linking to it myself outside of the "See also" section. If someone else wants to, then I have no objection, of course, but I'll let others make that choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

[9] [10] --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very nice job, 'doing, although I found the section on "Combinatorics" a little opaque. Gatoclass (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I noticed a couple of edits to the lead today, about whether verifiability was the threshold for adding material to an existing article, or whether it applied to creating new articles. The answer is both. But there are other criteria, some of which apply only to articles as a whole (such as notability). I think the problem could be fixed with the change "The A threshold for inclusion..." Jc3s5h (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Awwwwwww yeeeeah! I like this idea. But I feel like verifiability only pertains to content. My reasoning on this is that there would be nothing to add if the article didn't exist due to lack of notability. Once the article exists then people can put content within the article if it is verifiable content. You can't put verifiable content in an article that isn't notable because it wouldn't (or shouldn't) exist. But that's what I'm gathering from this, but I'd like to see some more input. You can be bold and make your edit if you'd like though. Devourer09 22:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The WP:Notability guideline is focused solely on the creation of new articles and describes there how information on the subject should be verifiable. Adding different text here is going to lead to conflict. patsw (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB

I think the wording "Caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so" should be revised to insert "against original research" after "caution should be exercised." My concern here is primarily conceptual, such that I think a wikilink to the no OR policy is desirable. I've seen the argument that if a secondary source publishes a tweet that renders the tweet reliable. In fact a secondary source publishing a self-published claim does indeed support the argument for including the claim, but primarily because it is no longer original research. If tweets are inherently unreliable, then a secondary source that routinely publishes tweets is routinely publishing inherently unreliable material, if our argument solely references reliability. In fact one doesn't have to use that problematic argument to justify a requirement for a secondary source because one can rely on the straightforward argument that absent a secondary source it is WP:OR. Bottom line is that self-published sources raise as many or more original research concerns as reliability concerns.--Bdell555 (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOR is exclusively about bad behavior by Wikipedia editors (e.g., pretending that sources say X, when they actually say Y). Bad behavior by sources (e.g., assertions that Elvis is alive, or that everything they hear is true) is not a NOR violation, because someone (the source) actually made the the assertion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Patents

Should policy regarding patents as reliable sources be mentioned here? For example, if one or more patents are the only sources given for material about an invention, should mention of that invention be allowed in Wikipedia as part of an article? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Bob K31416's question is a matter of notability, not verifiability, and should be discussed elsewhere. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No, not necessarily. If it is part of a larger topic, the question is if inclusion of mention of patents is reasonable. And to that question, patents are primary sources for the invention they are about. They can be used to justify claims made about an invention, but that's it. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Patents are reliable for some information, but not all information. I have a problem saying that a patent "justifies" claims about an invention... all that a patent does is verify that an invention exists and that claims are made about the invention. For example... a patent for a perpetual motion machine would be a reliable source for the statement: "In his patent application, inventor Ima Crackpot claims that his perpetual motion machine works by harnessing the 'gravetic' motion of the earth." But the patent would not be a reliable source for the statement: "Ima Crackpot's perpetual motion machine actually works by harnessing the 'gravetic' motion of the earth". Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you're right, I meant that the patent can be used to justify what the inventor is claiming about the invention, not about the function of the invention itself. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Notability Internal to the patent itself, the patent, by definition is not providing an independent account of its significance. An independent assessment of its significance would be the starting point for editors to determine if the invention merited a stand-alone article.
• Verifiability This is obvious in the case of the patents of the United States. Except for early patents for which all official records have been lost, patents are eminently verifiable if one has its number.
• Reliable Sources This is where there is nuance: An editor summarizing a patent, absent a reliable source independent of an advocate of the invention, would have to write "the patent claims the device desalinates a liter of sea water with one joule of energy. If there were an independent evaluation of the device attesting to that, one could write "the device desalinates a liter of sea water with one joule of energy", or if that independent evaluation were dubious or disputed "According to X, the device..."
• I think existing text in these policies already cover our current practices and do not need modification. patsw (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a distinction between a patent application and a patent. Anyone willing to pay the required fees can write whatever he or she pleases in a patent application. A patent examiner will review the application; absurd patents will usually be totally refused. A typical outcome for an application with some merit is that some of the narrower claims will allowed and the broader claims will be rejected. Claim is a term-of-art in the patent field; it is an innovation which the inventor, and if the claim is allowed, the United States asserts is novel and useful; no one can practice the allowed claim unless they obtain a license from the inventor or the patent expires. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There has been a long string of absurd patents related to computers, and the USPTO has done a very poor job of researching prior art, to say nothing of excluding things that are obvious to practitioners. Litigation in this area has been in the US Supreme Court this year. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

While not particularly relevant to WP:V, any mention of trademarks should take into account the fact that several WP:SPA editors have added trademark WP:REFSPAM to numerous articles. An example here is an archived WP:COIN report. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, a patent application would be covered by WP:SELFPUB. patsw (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that patents are self-published -- and not merely the "application", but the final issued form. The specification (those long pages of technical description, which the patent agencies are not permitted to change, even if they literally contain "patent nonsense") is written and published at the direction of the inventor, with zero editorial control by anyone else. Patents can be published even if they're not granted; any inventor with US $300 can have it published by the US PTO whenever they choose. This is why we see patents "proving" that colloidal silver cures AIDS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

From the above, it appears that patent applications may be a form of self publication, but I'm not sure that granted patents would also be a form of self publication since a patent application can be rejected. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Issued patents would still be self-pub from the inventors. Patent reviewers are not fact checking the work (though will throw out ones that fail sniff tests like perpetual motion machines) and are only making sure the patent doesn't overlap existing patent space. While this may require the patent inventor to rework the description, it is still not being fact-checked, and thus a self-pub. --MASEM (t) 13:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Should patents be included in the first paragraph of Self-published sources (online and paper)? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As the list is not claiming to be fully inclusive, I don't think its necessary, unless there is a widespread problem of people using patents as key sources that SPS would disallow. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This edit motivated me to bring up the issue of patents. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A patent is definitely not a reliable source for the claim that taking an unregulated 'natural' substance cures sleep apnea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliable for what purpose? For the fact that one was issued? Yes (primary source). For making statements about their own content? Yes (primary source).

For claims that any given statement in the patent is actually correct in any meaningful sense — for example, that silver cures AIDS? No. US patent 6016450 says you can "heal living tissue with auras". Do you believe that? How about secret mind control? See [11] for one example of such a patent. Does that patent convince you that mind control exists? This one says that shining the right color of light on your body cures diseases. Do you believe that chromotherapy works? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A previous discussion can be read at in the archives. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. What do you think should be done regarding whether or not to mention patents in WP:V? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I'd write an essay explaining the situation, and not worry about explicitly adding the word to this policy. Alternatively, if you don't mind a little WP:CREEPiness, then it could be added to the laundry list at WP:SPS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Checkability or Verifiability?

Verify is the natural word to describe verifiability.

• Why would check be preferred over verify?
• For the advocates of check, is there a significant difference in meaning from verify? patsw (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be check - that means pay sources or ones behind some other accessibility wall would be improper. Verify is the right word here - it doesn't imply access, just that it is possible for someone - not necessary the specific reader, to affirm the source. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's used because it's a simpler word for people to understand. "Verify" would also mean you'd have to be able to see it, Masem. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It would also form a circular definition. Location (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think if you want to avoid using verify, then confirm is closer in meaning than check. To answer my own question, I think check does not mean verify but only attempt to verify:

• When I check X, I can discover X is true, X is false, or I can't determine if is X is true or false.
• When I verify X, that means I have discovered X is true (i.e. what appears in Wikipedia corresponds to what appears in the cited source)patsw (talk)

WP:PAYWALL covers the issue of whether just anyone should be able to access the source for free over the internet. I don't think there is a verb in English that conveys the distinction Masem wants (which also means that we can't argue from the option for "check" or "verify" to the appropriate policy regarding paywall sources). I would go with "check" in this instance, since it presumes less familiarity with the English language. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters. To me the two terms mean the same thing. We are saying that someone (not necessarily you) must be able to verify (or check) that a source supports what we say in our articles. In fact, I think we would make our point clearer if we use both terms in conjunction, as I do in my previous sentence. Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The irony is, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", yet the word verify derives from verus (true), and means "to ascertain, confirm, check or test the truth or accuracy of, to assert or prove to be true. It really isn't the right word. But nor is check, since that implies the same unless qualified in some way. What it comes down to is, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is that suitable sources say what we're stating here. To encapsulate that in one word, it would have to be sourceability or somesuch. I suspect it's a case of living with the imperfect term we have. PL290 (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not ironic: The content of the Wikipedia corresponds to its sources (i.e. verification), not to an editorial board's declaration of the truth. patsw (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

PL290, perhaps you are thinking of "WP:Attributablility". Location (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't, but that's an interesting find I wasn't aware of: a proposed merger of several policy pages, that opens, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." Maybe it's time to revisit that. PL290 (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability was always a poor choice of word, but people got used to it. That was why we started Wikipedia:Attribution, but it ended up being a huge time sink. People keep starting to revisit it then lose the will to live. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, then I propose the hypothetisourcifiability-check standard. We should be able to provide a source for a statement, at least hypothetically, and what we check is whether hypothetisourcifiability has been met—not whether the statement is true. This phrasing deals with the paywall issue while simultaneously avoiding a word that has its root in veritas. It is also jargony enough that we won't run into the problem involving WP:Notability, where we employ a word in common usage as a term of art. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Check and verify (CSI Wikipedia)

A doctor and a police office arrive at a crime scene. A little while later, the police officer asks the doctor:

• Did you check if victim is dead? Answer: Yes. I checked. The victim is alive.
• Did you verify the victim is dead? Answer: No. The victim is alive.

To check is to attempt to verify, or to use another word, to investigate. patsw (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Reasonability in WP:burden

Wikipedia:BURDEN#Burden_of_evidence works very well in cases dealing with small amounts of material. Editors can chalenge it, and other editors can back it up.

However, I'm dealing with this issue on Science in medieval Islam. A large amount of material was deleted that was originally written by a user who has a reputation of synthesis, bias, and misrepresenting what the source was actually saying. Nevertheless, I found many of his edits were completely in accordance with WP, so not all of his edits are bad.

The dilemma here is that article after article is being blanked (Islamic ethics, Islamic metaphysics, Islamic economics in the world) or almost blanked (Physics in medieval Islam, Science in medieval Islam), and the deleting editors have acknowleged that they are not necessarily investigating each of the hundreds of sentences they are deleting. In 4/5 of these articles the deleting editors made no attempt to rewrite the article.

So, if I think that the articles on the above mentioned subjects should stand, and that attempts to deleting the entire history of Muslim scholarship are a violating of NPOV, what sort of obligations does WP:UNDUE WP:BURDEN put upon myself? How much time would I reasonably be expected to have? Is there any obligation, at all, for the deleting editors to actually consider every sentence before deleting it?Bless sins (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

In those cases with which I am familiar, the material is being removed in order to provide a clean slate on which the article can be rewritten using appropriately documented material. Since allowing such undocumented claims to remain in these articles clearly damages the reputation of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, there is good reason for removing them. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Then you must not be familiar with Islamic ethics, Islamic metaphysics, Islamic economics in the world, where the articles were deleted and simply redirected (no attempt was made to "rewrite"). Physics in medieval Islam has also remained "a clean slate" since 18 July, when the material was removed, with no attempt to rewrite.

Also, I would appreciate your response to the three questions I asked above.Bless sins (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

UNDUE deals with balance between sourced material. UNDUE is not incompatible with the deletion of unsourced statements. I would strongly encourage you to find citations and add material back in as you are able to cite statements. Jclemens (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Almost every sentence of the material removed was sourced. And it appears it was sourced to reliable sources. No problems with specific material had been specificied (that hadn't already been removed). However, the editor had a history of misrepresenting reliable sources and synthesizing material, and on that basis the article was removed.

You seem to have responded to two of my questions (i.e my obligation is to find sources, and the material remains out until I find sources) - thank you for that. Can you respond to the third question: what obligation do deleting editors have? Are they required to, at the very least, read what they delete?Bless sins (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

My view is that material contributed by banned editors, where the banning was related to contributing unreliable material to articles, may be removed without considering the merit of the material; the WP:Assume good faith guideline states "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." Jc3s5h (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting (though lets note that the editor in question was not banned). I'm not sure how much the AGF applies - edits made in bad faith can still be acceptable under wikipolicy. In fact, on disputed articles most edits seem to be made in bad faith. So the question I guess would be, if an edit is made by a user who has previously edited in bad faith, but still meets wiki policies, then can it be deleted on the basis of previous bad faith alone? If you think yes, we can post this at WP:AGF for further clarification.Bless sins (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Correction

• In my original question, when I said WP:UNDUE, I meant WP:BURDEN, that is the policy I'm referring to. I apologize for any confusion.Bless sins (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hold on... are we discussing this at the right venue? Looking at the talk page, the reasons given for the removal of the content had nothing to do with WP:BURDEN... the complaint was misuse of sources... essentially that the material was based upon cherry picking quotations and taking the sources out of context. That relates more to WP:NOR (with elements of WP:NPOV thrown in) than WP:V. Blueboar (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, this case is so peculiar to me, I'm not sure where the discussion goes. This is about removing material based on who wrote it, not based on whether the material in question violates NPOV, NOR, Verifiability, etc. I've never seen such a rationale used on wikipedia before.

There are editors arguing that if an editor has a history of violating wiki policies, then each and every one of his edits (including "edits that are actually fine") can be deleted, with the implication that one can delete content on wikipedia without even bothering to read it. I don't think such actions are within policy. Another editor believes such actions may not be appropriate, so long as the history of violations doesn't deal with copyvio and BLP vio.[12]

Where can I clarify this?Bless sins (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

At Talk:Science in medieval Islam#Misuse of sources I gave a short overview of the problem, with two stunning examples of undue material that had been introduced by a problem editor (the editor is not blocked because they desisted after an RfC). The examples involve the problem editor adding sourced text to the effect that someone from 800 years ago is considered the "father of robotics" and "father of modern day engineering", and that another person from 1200 years ago described an early concept of relativity, which some see as a precursor to the later theory of relativity developed by Albert Einstein. There are lots more examples like this, although these two are among the worst. The question is, should a removing editor justify (per WP:BURDEN) the removal of each claim added by the problem editor, or, should a restoring editor be required to justify (per WP:BURDEN) the restoration of any removed claim. It's tricky because most claims have hard-to-access sources: for example, I have not examined the sources for the robotics and relativity claims just mentioned since I view them as nonsense. The problem occurs with other material that is not so clear cut. Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Instead of deletion, would the tag {{Disputed}} work?

2. Re "It's tricky because most claims have hard-to-access sources" - Suggest adding {{dubious}} to the disputed item, and on the talk page requesting the excerpt from the source that supports the disputed item. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding WP:BURDEN, the first sentence is

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

Perhaps this may need to be rewritten since it suggests that anything from any article can be removed without cause and the burden of evidence lies with the editor who restores it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you've captured the message I was trying to convey here. I do (sort of) agree with Johnuniq that going through every reference (given they're hard to access) is not reasonable. But I would expect the deleting editor to, at the very least, read everything he deletes. I would also like the editor to exercise some discretion and use common sense when deleting. In other words, there should be some burden on the deleting party to not go around questioning everything (in this case everything an editor wrote), but base questioning after carefully reading the material (though not necessarily verifying the source).Bless sins (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: The problem is that in this case there are many articles where hundreds of factoids have been added, and it would not be helpful to add {{dubious}} to a significant number of them. For some examples, see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup.

@Bless sins: I fully agree with your comment, and I would oppose any edits which suggested a cavalier delete attitude. There is no good solution to this problem: on the one hand, many examples of extraordinarily undue POV pushing have been documented (suggesting heavy deletions are appropriate), yet on the other hand, it is totally correct that many major advances were made by people from the Islamic world. I write "Islamic world" because I am most unhappy with attempts to label scientists according to their religion since such labels are rarely helpful and reliably assigned (knowing, for example, that a scientist was raised as a Catholic in no way indicates that their science was "Catholic" or influenced by Catholicism). Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Sentence on plagiarism, copyright violations

We currently say, Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles.

This is logically flawed: it is not the fact that we base ourselves on sources that prevents plagiarism and copyright violations. In fact, basing ourselves too closely on sources, without attribution or citation, is what causes plagiarism and copyright violations. Plagiarism and copyright violations occur when we use material from unnamed others and pretend that the material was the product of our own creativity. Naming the sources in itself does not prevent plagiarism and copyright violations either, but it does make it easier to discover them.

I believe the sentence would be improved if it said something like, Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Naming these sources in the article helps avoid plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles. --JN466 16:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggest changing "Naming" to "Citing", otherwise it suggests that the source should be put in the text, rather than in a footnote. Also suggest deleting "in the article", which seems redundant.

As an aside, I think that sentences in this policy like

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"

would be better written and more in line with dictionary definitions of "third-party" if they were rewritten as,

"Articles should be based on reliable sources that are third-party (independent) publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with changing "naming" to "citing", and dropping "in the article". That would give us, Citing these sources helps avoid plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles. --JN466 20:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, probably better like so: Citing these sources helps avoid plagiarism and copyright violations, and prevents unverifiable claims being added to articles. --JN466 22:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the point of the citations is to help us "identify" plagiarism and copyvios. Naming the source doesn't actually "help avoid" these problems in the first place; it only helps us find (and therefore remove) them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That is what I was trying to get at. Of course, if they're more easily found, this will also cut down on their occurrence in the long run, but your point is still valid. So: Citing these sources prevents unverifiable claims from being added to articles, and makes it easier to identify plagiarism and copyright violations. Agreed? --JN466 09:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well... plagiarism is coping material from a source without citing it... if we cite it, it isn't plagiarism (It may be a copy vio... but it isn't plagiarism)... So proper citation does "avoid" plagiarism. May I suggest... "identify copyvios and avoid plagiarism". Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:Plagiarism, too-close paraphrasing of a cited source is also plagiarism. So citing the source does not avoid plagiarism; the text has to be reformulated as well, avoiding close paraphrases. --JN466 02:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

AFAICT WP:Plagiarism and too-close paraphrasing don't say that close paraphrasing of a cited source is plagiarism. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"It can also be useful to perform a direct comparison between cited sources and text within the article, to see if text has been plagiarized, including too-close paraphrasing of the original.". --JN466 20:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like you're right. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Policy edit made, as proposed above: [13] --JN466 01:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Defining documents as sources

When making technical claims, formal defining documents are frequently the most reliable sources. In particular, secondary sources for computer instruction sets and operating systems frequently have significant errors. I believe that it would be desirable for Wikipedia to encourage the use of primary documents as sources of technical information in at least the following cases:

• Computer Architectures
• Laws
• Proprietary languages
• Proprietary operating systems
• Standards

I would not consider it appropriate to cite the above to establish notability. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I would usually give more weight to a primary defining source, as Chatul explains, if a secondary source says something like "Standard XXX states ..." and then misquotes standard xxx. However, sometimes the same words have several meanings, and good secondary sources are useful for pointing out contradictions or ambiguities among several standards and specifications.

In the case of laws, different acts passed at different times by different levels of government often conflict, and they may be completely or partially nullified by court decisions. Thus secondary sources are better for determining how all the potential conflicts have been resolved. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I was suggesting the use of, e.g., http://thomas.loc.gov, as a source for the text of a bill at a particular point in time, or as a source for the history of the bill; I agree with you that it is not a good source for judicial and regulatory issues related to the bill. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I will support this for electronics-related datasheets at least; I refer to these often, they are uncontroversial, and they have never (in my experience) been wrong. Awickert (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Chatul, this discussion belongs on Wikipedia talk:No original research, as I wrote to you on other talk pages. "No original research", not "Verifiability", is the Wikipedia policy that sets the standard on the use of primary -vs- secondary sources. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, for some of the technical domains you mention, when it comes to citing an elemental fact, why go anywhere else except the established single source (when it exists) (e.g. w3.org for HTML standards, oasis.org for certain XML standards) Secondary sources inherently carry at least a small risk of inaccuracy - their commentary might be based on a previous version, they might have gotten it 'wrong', they may have purposefully selected only portions of the source material - all to meet some need other than being the single repository of that information. A site that could be identified as a true 'mirror', perhaps, but again, why risk it when trying to establish a reference that can survive with wikipedia for years/decades/etc.? The primary source would probably not be a good meta-reference - market share, acceptance, criticisms, etc. of the domain at hand. (e.g. facebook wouldn't be a good self source for it's popularity, but is the only true reliable source for specifications related FBML it's own markup language...) Should this admonition be added at WP:Primary? Cander0000 (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Relevance tag?

Do we have a tag that can be used when some bit of information is verifiable, but not really relevant to the topic of an article? Or to question the relevance of information to the topic? Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Relevance note is what you want. Roger (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks... that is what I want. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)