Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by K.Q.1997 (talk | contribs) at 22:39, 7 April 2021 (→‎Question about reliable sources and liberal bias: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Canary

Burrobert, Selfstudier, Bobfrombrockley, Shrike, can you (quickly) agree that there is a consensus one way or another on The Canary or do we need an RfC? ~ El D. (talk to me) 16:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that, based on the examples provided by editors and the mixed responses from editors, it is unfair to characterise The Canary as generally unreliable. That could mean listing it as having no-consensus with a summary of the concerns that some editors have raised, or, possibly, removing it from the Perennial List. Burrobert (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nocon, opinionated, biased plus attribute. For now.Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Until New RFC , RSP listing shouldn't be changed. Anyhow there are clearly no consensus to consider this tabloid as reliable --Shrike (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on some things from above. It should be described as biased, opinion should be attributed and, yes, there is no consensus to regard it as generally reliable. Burrobert (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The place for this is WP:RSN, where there is literally a discussion on this in progress - David Gerard (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I killed the discussion because it was going around in circles and had been for a little under a month. The OP of the RSN should have placed it on RSP to begin with as we are simply trying to make sense of RSNs. If anyone feels that the result is unclear or think they have something to add, place create an RfC and once it has finished running get an administrator to close it. ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion had a margin of 1 editor in a 23 editor discussion pushing for general unreliability (over no-consensus and general reliability). The previous 10 editor discussion had a 2 editor margin for general unreliability. A significant margin for general unreliability can only be gained by looking at older discussions. Given the small width of these margins, I feel 'no consensus' would be most accurate. Does anyone disagree? If so should we hold an RfC? ~ El D. (talk to me) 20:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El komodos drago, If you want to change RSP entry please do a proper RFC Shrike (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable, I will RfC in the morning. Good night, ~ El D. (talk to me) 21:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find the following unsatisfactory: we had a discussion about ‘’The Canary’’. An editor interpreted that discussion as showing ‘’The Canary’’ was GU and added it to the Perennial list. Another editor disagrees with that assessment but is required a start another RfC to change the listing. Is there no process for resolving disagreements about the interpretation of RSP discussions? Does the first editor to update the Perennial list get to make the decision and other editors then need to create new RfC’s? Burrobert (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right there, the fact is that it is in the RSP as unreliable without an RFC so I think perhaps it ought to be taken out for now until the RFC is concluded.Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re This discussion had a margin of 1 editor in a 23 editor discussion pushing for general unreliability (over no-consensus and general reliability). The previous 10 editor discussion had a 2 editor margin for general unreliability. A significant margin for general unreliability can only be gained by looking at older discussions. As I noted in the discussion (now archived here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_321#The_Canary ), there have now been three discussions at the RSN and over those discussions 21-23 editors have argued GU, 4 for a use-with-caution approach, and 8-11 for GR (the lower figures are for those who explicitly opted for a position, the higher figures includes those I'm interpreting that way but were not explicit). In this discussion alone, the margins are: 13 GU, 3 NC, 6-7 GR. I know consensus and votes are different ans don't know what sort of numbers would look like consenus so am just saying the margin is much higher than 1. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, older discussions give a much higher count for people saying that it was unreliable. In terms of the most recent discussion, I counted 11 editors[Canary 1] either leaning towards no consensus or reliability and 12 editors[Canary 2]. Now I am not saying that my maths is perfect (I managed to miss my own !vote for instance) but either way that doesn't seem a very large margin. In the discussion before that, there was a margin of 2 for unreliability. What we do with that I will leave up to others but I personally feel that a contentious categorisation should be settled with an RfC. ~ El D. (talk to me) 14:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our numbers are close (I think I missed one GR/NC that you counted and I counted one GU that I think you missed) but I had been thinking of the margin in terms of GU vs GR rather than GU vs GR/NC, so I understand now. I have no experience in how consensus is identified in such cases so draw no inferences from this! BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose any change in RSP and anyhow such change should be done by uninvoloved admin not one of the participants in the discussion --Shrike (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger: You entered Canary in as unreliable based on what you knew at the time, see anything in here that would change that or should we just get on with an RFC and see where that goes?Selfstudier (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​I've marked the "generally unreliable" classification for The Canary as disputed in Special:Diff/998766619, and I've requested a formal closure of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 321 § The Canary at WP:RFCL. Let's revisit the classification after the discussion is formally closed. — Newslinger talk 23:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ BOD, Burrobert, Jelvi, Selfstudier, Thucydides, Deb, Jontel, ImTheIP, G-13114, NSH001, Mujinga
  2. ^ Iridesant, GPinkerton, Shrike, Guy, Guy Macon, Buidhe, Alssa1, Dweller, Vici Vidi, Alexbrn, Sceptre, and you
So it is closed?(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_321#The_Canary) and suggests an RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was closed in response to my request, but it is not an RfC, since the request for comment procedure was never used for the discussion and it was never advertised through the feedback request system. Unfortunately, the closing statement is not particularly helpful for the purposes of determining a classification: "Note this close is not alone a reason to change the WP:RSP label to no consensus, rather I suggest editors look to previous discussions to determine a consensus, as there is not one in this kludge of a discussion. The best way forward would be to start a standard RfC on WP:RSN, though, which will provide some structure to this discussion." I've started a proper RfC at WP:RSN § RfC: The Canary, which should hopefully settle this. While the RfC is in progress, I've cleared the status in the disputed entry. — Newslinger talk 03:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction

What do folks think about using The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction as a reliable source for personal information - like authors' WP:DOB? While it has been published as a book, it appears to have about 200 contributors, some appear to be scholars and some seem to be any old shmoe off the street authoring articles under pseudonyms. This smells a lot like WP:USERG to me. What do folks think? Toddst1 (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book version will be an RS in the field. The dates are likely to be accurate too - David Gerard (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The link above mentions pseudonyms, but only in the context of having cross-references for biographical entries of science fiction authors who use pseudonyms (e.g. there is an entry for Richard Bachman, which identifies Bachman as a pseudonym of Stephen King and provides a link to King's article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's been widely cited per google scholar.[1] Worldcat shows the print book is in a number of academic libraries.[2] It has full-time editors, inclusion criteria, and a means for reporting errors. Contributors are identified, and many are professionals in the field. I would consider it reliable. Schazjmd (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Source "bear" that is now a big topic.

So in the past few months, I have heard SO much about sources like Fox News not being reliable per RS. I fully support that right now. However, I have heard a lot of editors use examples of Fox News being Pro Trump, which helped it be unreliable. It is time to possibly do some reconsideration since sources like CNN now support the President? It is a bear that needs to be discussed fully. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was an extensive RfC which I instigated around half a year ago, that found Fox News to be generally reliable for topics other than politics and science, for which there was no concensus on reliability. no concensus ≠ unreliable Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know. Part of the political reasons I have heard for Fox News to not be reliable is because it was supportive of Trump. Now it is switched so there might be some RFC changes happening soon for some sources about being reliable for politics.

Elijahandskip (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC was well attended, there is no reason to run it again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I actually disagree with you. At this moment, there might not be a reason to do it, but I just read a decent amount of it. One of the biggest things I saw was a decent amount of "Option 1's" that was for completely reliable and a decent amount of "Option 2's" which was for not reliable in politics/science. Reading the option 2's it was really clear that the majority of them were talking about their political bias, for instance "There is clear bias in how they report certain things, and which things they report and which they don't." (Mubushgu) I think once Pres. Biden has had a while in office, some of the roles taken by news organizations like Fox News will be switched with roles of that of CNN. So for this instant, there isn't a reason to run the RFC again. But, I believe sometime near the middle to end of 2021, there might be a good reason to re-run it. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The concern was never about how a news organization felt about a particular president. The concern was about journalistic integrity. If journalistic integrity becomes a concern, it can be discussed on a case-by-case basis. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, why is the electric intifada deemed as unreliable in comparison to Haaretz? If both are considered to be accurate but contain political bias, then shouldn’t both be banned? Reinhearted (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSP links 8 discussions about that publication (and 9 about Haaretz), Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_250#Electronic_Intifada_(Again) being the latest. Perhaps there's a reason in there. It's possible to start new discussions at WP:RSN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battery University listing

I have boldly removed the listing for this source on RSP. I'm seeing no evidence that this is anything anyone's trying to consistently use, is doesn't seem to have ever had a formal RFC (just a couple discussions on a single article talk page), and it hasn't been discussed in years. The very first sentence of WP:RSP says This is a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed, and that does not seem to apply to Battery University at the time of this writing at all. Hog Farm Talk 06:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delfi

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Delfi
 –  Newslinger talk 23:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Republic News Agency

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Islamic Republic News Agency
 –  Newslinger talk 23:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of untruths that have led to an "unreliable" rating

As political commentary from Mother Jones, People, Buzzfeed News, Slate & The Daily Beast is permitted as "reliable" on wikipedia --- but political commentary from Fox News, National Review, Forbes, & Newsweek are considered "unreliable" - is there a repository of the articles that led to the unreliable designation?

If an article is deemed "unreliable" and a citation against an organization, couldn't we dissect the article/s in question for where they made errors in fact? TuffStuffMcG (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On "the articles that led to the unreliable designation". On the WP:RSP page you can find links to the discussions that lead to the current rating. For example, if you check the Fox News entry, you have links to 20+ such discussions, 2009 and onwards. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Individual errors on specific articles aren't usually the reason a source is depreciated (though discussions will often focus on them because they're something concrete); the question of whether a source is generally unreliable is established by looking at their long-term output, hence the "generally." You can find the detailed discussions that led to the classification of any particular source linked on WP:RSP. Also note that many of the sources you named are not strictly classified the way you said they are - eg. Forbes contributor pieces are considered unreliable, since they lack fact-checking and accuracy, but other things on Forbes are generally WP:RS. Likewise it's important to note that Buzzfeed News is a separate organization from Buzzfeed, with much higher editorial standards. --Aquillion (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for pointing me in the right direction, much appreciatedTuffStuffMcG (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post have its rating downgraded like Fox News

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-call-georgia-investigator/2021/01/09/7a55c7fa-51cf-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html

WaPo has retracted a massive controversial story around the election. It's extremely unusual for a news source to retract a news story fo this caliber. It's not the first time supposedly reliable sources have been forced to retract stories (first hit after a 30 sec search). I doubt the wikiactivist cabal will actually care, but if outlets like Fox News have been given a lower rating, I don't see how WaPo can be objectively be given full trust by a website that is supposed to be encyclopedic. 205.175.106.86 (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a correction, not a retraction, and it's what reputable organizations do when they publish things that turn out to be wrong. Unlike, say, The Federalist, which still proudly declares that "Democrats are trying to steal the election". The material difference between Trump saying "find the fraud" and asserting that there was "dishonesty" in the vote, and between Trump saying the official would be "a national hero" and saying she had "the most important job in the country right now" is negligible at best. Several quotes were incorrect, but the thrust of the story is still true, and in fact proven by the release of the tape - Trump attempted to personally pressure a state election official into doing what he wanted her to do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Was this even a massive controversial story? I'm not an American but I've never heard of this before even though I had heard a lot about this before. There seem to be 2 factors of significance here. One is that the request to find votes (not "find the votes" which AFAICT, no reputable source has ever said was said) was much more controversial. That story came out before this one on "find the fraud". Two is that this story only came out of the Capitol Hill riots. So while I'm sure it gained a reasonable interest, I don't think it was as massive as you suggest. As further evidence quite a few crazy sources and forums an the like are incorrectly reporting that the Washington Post retracted the story on finding votes even though that's just silly as the audio has been there for them to listen to all this time. Nil Einne (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, WaPo has been consistently inaccurate for a long period of time. The Covington affair is one example. It's russian propaganda article is another. Should be unreliable.Nweil (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nweil, what do you propose? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was a recent noticeboard discussion at WP:RSN § Washington Post and CNN that was closed with consensus against your position. — Newslinger talk 15:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation is a single instance for which there was a specific outcome. The other is an explanatory note after some websites complained following WaPo's coverage of a third parties investigation, and that third party subsequently removed those sites from the list unrelated to WaPo. Other instances brought up during the recent RSN were tiny proportion of their overall output when compared with the repeated regular issues with Fox and affiliates. Koncorde (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New York Daily News

I find it a bit odd that the New York Daily News is classified as "no consensus", but the text next to it says "Most editors consider the content of New York Daily News articles to be generally reliable". The entry for HuffPost indicates its headlines are sometimes clickbait, yet it is classified as generally reliable? Heartfox (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The headlines being clickbait doesn't have much impact if the full body of the article is still reliable. —El Millo (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah that's my point if they're not a problem for HuffPost why are they for the Daily News? Heartfox (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe change it, and the see if stands or you get reverted. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfox, yes there are a few odd ratings like that on here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for updating the classification, Heartfox. I've checked the discussions, and removed the first one from 2009 in Special:Diff/1014821921, since it does not meet the inclusion criteria with only one qualifying participant who commented on the source's reliability. I believe the New York Daily News was previously classified as "no consensus" because the entry was created before WP:HEADLINES became a guideline. Now that headlines are no longer considered reliable for any source, criticism directed toward the New York Daily News's headlines is less relevant to the reliability of the source on Wikipedia. Based on the listed discussions, the source is very close to the boundary between "generally reliable" and "no consensus". If any editor disagrees with this reclassification, I recommend starting a new discussion on the noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 08:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was more a criticism that this page does not really correspond 100% with outcomes of the noticeboard discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Before the WP:HEADLINES guideline was in effect, the reliability of a source's headlines was given greater consideration when evaluating the reliability of a source. Now that WP:HEADLINES considers all headlines unreliable in general, whether a particular source's headlines are considered unreliable plays a lesser role in determining the reliability of the source. That was what I meant when I said, "Now that headlines are no longer considered reliable for any source, criticism directed toward the New York Daily News's headlines is less relevant to the reliability of the source on Wikipedia". — Newslinger talk 05:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Film Music Reporter

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Film Music Reporter
 – Chompy Ace 21:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question about reliable sources and liberal bias

I have read Wikipedia articles on a regular basis (usually daily) for several years now. What I've noticed is that the large majority of reliable sources are liberal/left-leaning news media outlets. This is a fact based on simple analysis (not opinion). Why are so few right-leaning/conservative news outlets considered reliable? I could be wrong on this but I believe WSJ is literally the only right-leaning outlet considered "generally reliable" (i.e. the green check) according to perennial sources page, while there are at least 15 or 20 liberal/left-leaning sources. How can Wikipedia be considered a neutral and balanced encyclopedia when this is the case? K.Q.1997 (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources&oldid=1016578729"