Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Prins van Oranje (talk | contribs) at 18:36, 10 March 2021 (→‎What happens if a ''reliable source'' makes a false claim: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Propose to be able to cite application source code

Sometimes there are articles which are about an application or piece of software where it can be difficult to find reliable secondary sources describing application features, known issues, etc, as they may not even exist in the currently allowable list. I propose the idea that if actual source code is publicly available, that it should be allowed as a reliable source. The source code doesn't have a point of view, and cannot lie or make exaggerated claims (the comments might, but the actual code cannot). If source code can be pointed to, then it should be acceptable. For example, the GIMP article has a lot of references to gimp.org for release notes (which is technically not even allowed, as it a website promoting a product), but the GIMP source code itself is the source itself, and should be an indisputable source of whether or not a certain feature (or bug) exists. --Thoric (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This would be equivalent to a primary source. As to what a piece of code does, that probably needs interpretation by someone, eg that some piece of code contains a bug. So that is where a secondary source would be needed to avoid original research by the code reader/Wikipedia writer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thoric, why do you think that citing "a website promoting a product" is disallowed? It wouldn't demonstrate notability (because it's not independent of the subject), but it's just as reliable as citing a politician's campaign website, or a tweet from a celebrity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WhatamIdoing, some primary sourcing is allowed, we just don't want articles that only or primarily rely on sourcing from the primary website as that would be self-promotional/lack of notability.
But if there is software bug or the like, we want 3rd parties to explain that bug, we absolutely do not want editors to go and point that out , as that would be original research. --Masem (t) 23:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a software bug, we want someone who is not a Wikipedia editor to point that out. We don't need Wikipedia:Third-party sources for that; if there's a bug in Microsoft Windows, and they post a note about the bug on their corporate blog, then it's fine to cite that non-independent website.
I strongly agree that the overall article needs to be WP:Based upon sources that are independent and (ideally) secondary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But that said, the severity of the bug could be an issue. Coming from video games, I have seen situations that have escalated to WP problems of players upset over a small, trivial bug that most sources have not discussed, that the developer has stated exists but do not have time for resolution on. We could source the dev to say this bug exists, but if no 3rd parties are talking about it, is it really significant? We don't want WP editors to be trying to determine what are the most critical bugs in a software program if there's no guidance behind that. --Masem (t) 23:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source would still be reliable for that claim. A non-independent source doesn't carry much WP:WEIGHT, so it might not be included in the Wikipedia article at all, but the source is still reliable and still able to verify the claim. The problem of being able to fully verify trivial, insignificant details in sources that are reliable for those trivial, insignificant details is exactly why Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. It's reliable; we still might not use it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we're not talking about notability (something which is subjective), but talking about a fact (something which is objective, true, or false, and not an opinion), then why are primary sources not allowed, especially if we are talking about a feature of a software application? Why do we require use of a secondary source to cite such a thing, when anyone can see that it is true or not? --Thoric (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because primary sources usually require interpretation which is often a violation of Wikipedia policy. If they don't require interpretation, there is still a question of due weight: if something is only found in a primary source, does it really belong in an encyclopedia article? Just because something can be found in a reliable source doesn't mean that we should or must include it in an article. ElKevbo (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Everything requires some modicum of interpretation -- including the comprehension and rephrasing of a secondary source. We accept that skilled wikipedians comprehend highly technical secondary sources on a regular basis, even when the subject matter may be too technical for someone without knowledge in that area to adequately comprehend. Plenty of wikipedians are skilled enough in different programming languages to at least be able to point out something like, "There is source code here indicating support for feature X (citing line of code). The documentation describes how to use feature X (citing application documentation)." I understand that saying something like, "When running the application, I can find and use feature X", is considered to be original research, but citing a reference to the source code is little different than citing a research paper. --Thoric (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respected publishing houses

WP:SOURCETYPES emphasises scholarship and academic sources but does not mention works published by respected publishing houses, although this type of source is mentioned explicitly in WP:SOURCES: Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: *University-level textbooks *Books published by respected publishing houses [...]. I suggest adding a very small bit of text to this page as follows: Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications and respected publishing houses. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.--JBchrch (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JBchrch, I think that SOURCETYPES is aiming at a particular kind of article. Think about what SOURCETYPES says, and now imagine how you would apply that to an article about whatever new song is topping the charts this week, or this summer's big film. No scholarly sources exist for those subjects, right? The whole paragraph is predicated on that tiny little caveat: "When available..."
We want to have a sort of hierarchy, in which scholarly sources (if any exist) outrank non-scholarly sources on the same subject, secondary sources outrank primary sources, independent sources outrank non-independent sources, recent sources outrank older (and therefore potentially outdated) sources, etc. In that hierarchy, a scholarly book outranks a non-scholarly book. This doesn't mean, however, that the "outranked" source is unreliable or unusable. We could write that scholars say X but popular culture says X+Y, or that the independent news report accuses the CEO of fraud but the accused denies it all, etc. SOURCETYPES could probably use some clarification, but it doesn't need to repeat every type of reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turtles

Do we have any explanation yet of how we avoid the turtles all the way down problem when using reliable source A to establish source B is reliable source B?

It seems like we would need some independent means of evaluation as a starting point to first establish a starting reference point of sources which we could then use to justify other ones. WakandaQT (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of Wikipedia editors is ultimately what determines whether a source is considered reliable. Source evaluations from other reliable sources, such as the International Fact-Checking Network (RSP entry), are regularly used as data points, but there is no need to outsource editors' decisions to third parties. — Newslinger talk 10:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on the acceptability of a source

I've started an RfC on the acceptability of a source and would greatly appreciate if a few editors who are deeply familiar with sourcing on the English Wikipedia might pop over to the particular RfC and offer perspective. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any rules or guidelines around the reliability of sources that produce hate speech

Hi all

Are there any rules or guidelines around the reliability of sources that produce hate speech? Would sources by definition be unreliable sources because they publish hate speech?

As an example The American Conservative is used as a reference 32 times on English Wikipedia and has published several articles that would to me clearly fit within the UK (where I live) legal definition of a hate crime. I'm including this as a definition of hate speech rather than to bring in legality of sources in different places.

Some example articles from their website:

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of an existing rule of this sort. Indeed, I don't think English Wikipedia yet has an agreed-upon definition of unacceptable hate speech (the laws in the UK are, of course, not a substitute). Presumably something can be derived from the now-accepted Universal Code of Conduct (which applies to contributor conduct, sure), to propose such guidelines regarding sources.
It seems to me they would still need to be specifically disqualifying particular items rather than whole media outlets, or we may find whole countries left without a single reliable source to cover local topics, because they also casually publish pieces which would violate those guidelines. Ijon (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ijon:, thanks very much, its interesting to include the Universal Code of Conduct in this discussion. John Cummings (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Foreign language sources

I did a quick search of this guideline for the words "foreign" and "language", didn't find anything. I believe we are allowed to use foreign language sources. Should we perhaps add a sentence to this guideline explicitly stating this? Also, are foreign language sources addressed in another guideline somewhere? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae, you are looking for WP:NONENG, which is part of WP:V. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there it is. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification or amendment to WP:HEADLINES

Far too often, I've come across text that's only supported by the subheading of the article--and not by the main body. It is my understanding that subheadings are often written for click bait purposes and by the same copy editors who write the headlines. WP:HEADLINES should encompass sub-headings too. Any thoughts or objections on this? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. If the headline or subheading isn't quite supported by the text body then it fits the spirit of WP:HEADLINES. Chillabit (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep context in mind when arguing claims

I'd like to add this to the project page with the above heading. The section WP:CONTEXTMATTERS or WP:RSCONTEXT deals with 'reliability of source' whereas this section would deal with the issue of biased generalisation of claims.

Theories dealing with subjective interpretations and implementations need to be contextualised in concrete conditions. This contextualisation needs to account for specific historic development and overlapping characteristics without trying to extrapolate to other contexts with different historic backgrounds and conditions. There are a set of topics that are contentious due to the nature of their implementation and corresponding effects. The contention could arise from the lack of contextualisation, the fallacy of mixing theory with practice, giving WP:UNDUE weightage to certain examples or because the point of view is not supported by WP:RS. Due to this, editors will almost inevitably confuse opposing views, based on different contexts, as violating neutral point of view. If you think you've spotted one, please spend a moment before trying to report them straight to the incident noticeboard and consider dispute resolution. Vikram Vincent 09:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having some difficulty understanding the proposed text. Could you provide an example of how this would be applied to article content? — Newslinger talk 10:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Newslinger I would prefer to keep the examples on my user subpage due to the contentious nature of the topics. User:Vincentvikram/Always_keep_context_in_mind_when_arguing_claims Vikram Vincent 10:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is covered by Wikipedia:No original research § Synthesis of published material (WP:SYNTH) in a more general way. Is there something missing from that policy (or other existing policies and guidelines) that would be covered by the proposed text? Since this guideline is focused on evaluating the reliability of a source, guidance on matters outside of this scope would probably fit better elsewhere. — Newslinger talk 11:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Newslinger Noted. Which venue would be appropriate? Vikram Vincent 11:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it would be best to complete the essay at User:Vincentvikram/Always keep context in mind when arguing claims before proposing any changes to policies or guidelines. Since the proposed text discusses a range of topics (content disputes, conduct disputes, and dispute resolution procedures), it would be challenging to include the text into a policy or guideline page in its current form. You would most likely have more success by breaking the proposed text into smaller portions that can be implemented as amendments to existing policy/guideline sections, if you can identify any policies/guidelines that would benefit from clarification.

The policy village pump is the most visible venue for policy/guideline suggestions, and my advice is to start a discussion there (after completing the essay) to determine if any portion of the essay content can be incorporated into a relevant policy/guideline. There is a possibility that there would be no consensus for any changes, and if that is the case, there is nothing wrong with adding the essay to the essay directory. ​— Newslinger talk 21:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Sorry, I missed a word. — Newslinger talk 08:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Vikram Vincent 04:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Anything legitimate it has to say is redundant and not needed per Newslinger, the userspace essay is a WP:COATRACK for pro-Marxism-Leninism material, and the whole origin of this "contextualization" stuff is to aid and abet POV pushing. Per the history related at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vincentvikram/Yes Marxism-Leninism: Originally, there was an ANI thread about a user who was pushing a Marxist-Leninist POV and WP:NONAZIS was invoked as a point of comparison, and Vincentvikram was defending the user; the reported user (not Vincentvikram) has since been topic banned after another ANI thread. [1] Vincentvikram created a draft essay after the first ANI thread called "Yes Marxism-Leninism" which was clearly a WP:POINTy counter to NONAZIS. I nominated it for deletion at MfD. Vincentvikram moved it to his userspace and later changed the framing to be about "contextualization", but the tide was turning against it; finally before it could be deleted by the discussion, he deleted the nominated page as CSD-U1 and recreated it (or something very similar) under the new name User:Vincentvikram/Always keep context in mind when arguing claims. I consider this a clear attempt to evade the MfD process, and if anyone wishes to nominate the new version, I'll support this; but I gave up at that point. Crossroads -talk- 04:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Crossroads while your entire commentary is fine, your sentence the whole origin of this "contextualization" stuff is to aid and abet POV pushing is toxic and far from the truth. My PhD work has been around historical thinking and my interest stems from there. You attributing motive where none exists is against WP:AGF. I think you need to redact that sentence and apologise cause this is not how an editor treats others irrespective of the disagreement. Vikram Vincent 09:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What happens if a reliable source makes a false claim

As an example, I've found several reliable sources which claim that Japan's birth rate in 2019 was its lowest in history.[1][2][3]

However, this claim is completely false, Japan's birth rate has actually increased since 2005.[4][5] Should there be any dicussion as to whether this source is still as reliable, given that it has promoted false claims? Prins van Oranje 18:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Japan's birth rate hits lowest level since records began". The Independent. 2019-06-10. Retrieved 2021-03-10.
  2. ^ "Japan shrinking as birthrate falls to lowest level in history". the Guardian. 2018-12-27. Retrieved 2021-03-10.
  3. ^ CNN, Emiko Jozuka, Jessie Yeung and Jake Kwon. "Japan's birth rate hits another record low in 2019". CNN. Retrieved 2021-03-10. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ Kinmonth, Earl (2019-01-29). "[Mythbusters] Foreign reporting on the Japanese population and birth rate reaches a new low | JAPAN Forward". japan-forward.com. Retrieved 2021-03-10.
  5. ^ "Fertility rate, total (births per woman) - Japan | Data". data.worldbank.org. Retrieved 2021-03-10.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources&oldid=1011406394"