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 K.Q.1997 (talk | contribs) at 22:07, 11 May 2021 (→‎Question about reliable sources and liberal bias). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Washington Post and CNN

CONTINUED ON WP:RSN
This discussion was continued on the reliable sources noticeboard. It was then closed, and is now archived at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 334 § Washington Post and CNN. — Newslinger talk 06:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggest the reliability of these outlets be reduced given recent retraction of Georgia Sec of State story. Pkeets (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redactions are expected behavior for reputable outlets with journalism ethics. No need to change them because they redacted a story, just emphasizes why WP should be cautions of breaking news per WP:NOT#NEWS. --Masem (t) 22:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they're not necessarily reliable, and retractions don't make them good when they've based their stories on anonymous unreliable sources. Like every other news outlet they should have been treated with some caution, and the context should have been examined, before Wikipedia repeated their stories (as happened with Trump–Raffensperger phone call). But why bring this up here rather than on WP:RSN? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, we expect reliable sources to actively and quickly correct their mistakes. ElKevbo (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Masem and @ElKevbo: media outlets that issue corrections and retract stories are the reliable ones. The ones that never admit to mistakes are the ones to worry about. Retractions and corrections are common in scientific journals, too. (Obviously, we should stop citing any individual retracted article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pkeets: Wikipedia is full of activists that will NOT allow any wrongthing to seep through. Fox News is downgraded but nobody thinks fieryfalse but mostly peacefultrue story like this is a problem. Only sources on the "right side of history" will be allowed as top sources on wikipedia, and WaPo and CNN have constantly agreed with the groupthink of the remaining wikiactivists here. They never publish fake news, misinformation, disinformation, because they are on the right side of history, unlike Fox News. Therefore they will never be downgraded, as multiple people here have shown you. 2601:602:9200:1310:1596:19CF:A497:D49F (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note the current defamation suit brought by Project Veritas against NYTimes: A judge ruled this week for PV in the Motion to Dismiss, calling out malice in the process of injecting opinion into news articles and representing it as fact. To avoid potentially libelous material, that suggests source articles should be evaluated in the future for this failing. Pkeets (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if our own article on Project Veritas is anything to go by... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, source? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rulings in preliminary motions are made with specific assumptions that may not be substantiated later in trial and should not be used to make significant editorial decisions in Wikipedia (or anywhere else).
And why are we continuing this thread of discussion anyway? ElKevbo (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The ruling though the markup is from a site "friendly" to PV. But I've confirmed that's the right case and that the NYCourt system is reporting that they did deny the Times' motion to dismiss. But as a order to refuse dismissal, that's not case law, only prelim ruling that may not hold in a final review. That said, if that ruling holds true and through subsequent appeals (which I feel it won't), it does point to the problem of this "accountability journalism" that AP has taken the lede in, the mix of factual and op-en without the clarity of being op-ed. --Masem (t) 20:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The newspaper doesn't do "op-ed". The "op" in op-ed stands for "opposite", as in "the newspaper's editorial board prefers the Demican this election, but because we think that being fair is good for business, we're going to let someone with the 'opposite' view explain on the next page why you might want to vote for the Republocrat in a separate opinion piece".
That is: there are two basic kinds of opinion pieces: the "editorial", which is written by "the editors", and the "op-ed", which is written by basically anyone else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pkeets: can you clarify what retractions you are referring to? This seems to keep coming up but I cannot find any recent retraction, or even a correction, from the Washington Post let alone CNN related to the Georgia Secretary of State. [1] There was a correction by CNN of a different story, the one about Trump and Georgia's election investigator. This involved the claim Trump said to "find the fraud" and also that the investigator would be a "national hero". I believe the investigator was working for the Secretary of State's office, but the secretary of state himself was not otherwise involved in the story. (Well I think I think he may have confirmed the phone call happened too, but that wasn't the disputed part. AFAWK, he wasn't the source for the erroneous quotes.) Other sources who relied on the Washington Post also corrected their stories [2] Some crazy sources incorrectly claimed that the find the votes part of the Trump–Raffensperger phone call was retracted which was dumb, since AFAICT, that phone call has had the audio and transcriptions available since basically the beginning. But anyway given the high profile correction combined with this craziness, I'm having trouble finding any recent retract which deals with a story about the Georgia Secretary of State. Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is this story: [3]. --Masem (t) 12:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Has it now become acceptable at Wikipedia to alter someone else's posts and then make raucous comments about it? I'm posting in good faith about issues I feel are important, and I don't appreciate harassment. Pkeets (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question about reliable sources and liberal bias

See also: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § 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) 22:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I answered this at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#‎Question about reliable sources and liberal bias, didn't see before posting that that the user had posted the question in two places. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checking back and noticed none of the above editors answered my original question about the bias found throughout Wikipedia on American political articles. Instead people brought up stuff about how Trump is a liar (which I agree with) and how conservative media are all in a cult and embrace alternative facts. This makes me thinks the issue could be the editors themselves who have a partisan bias and are able to skew Wikipedia in one direction. What are the credentials of people who edit Wikipedia articles? Also to be fair I don't follow politics of other countries but as a person who identifies as a centrist on most issues/liberal on social issues like abortion & LGBT rights, the bias in favor of one side is pretty obvious. K.Q.1997 (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are fewer center-right publications in the American media landscape. To increase this number, the general public would need to support high-quality center-right publications outside of Wikipedia and ensure that they stay in business. On Wikipedia, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources", keeping in mind that "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered" (WP:NPOV). — Newslinger talk 04:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are there so many "high-quality" center-left publications and so few center-right ones in the United States? K.Q.1997 (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A detailed answer to that question would span the length of a book. See Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics for research from Harvard University's Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society that addresses the question. The publication is open access, and available free of charge through Oxford University Press at the link. — Newslinger talk 05:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many people on this website seem to genuinely believe (I'm going to assume most are acting in good faith) there is not significant bias in corporate mainstream media (MSM) like NYT, WaPo, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. But how do you then explain the way media covers Democrats vs. Republicans? Again, just to be clear I'm not a conservative or a Republican but when I watch/read mainstream news it seems blatantly biased and agenda-driven (almost like MSM and Democrats work hand in glove). Evidence of this would be several now-debunked stories reported in corporate media like the Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy theory and the more recently debunked Russian bounty program story. Another example would be how MSM covered up and censored the Hunter Biden laptop story in October 2020 claiming it might be "Russian disinformation". Last month Hunter Biden gave an interview and admitted the laptop could have been his (in other words it was his laptop). Honest journalists like Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi (there are a few others but those are two "big" names) have exposed a lot of this. People on this website should be aware that media in United States is not like mainstream media in Europe or Canada or Australia, it is controlled by a corporate elite that have zero interest in getting accurate information to the American people. K.Q.1997 (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something about NYT, WaPo and CNN

IAR closing this because we all know it's heading to nowhere (and it comes from an editor just off of a topic ban in American politics). FWIW, WP:BIASEDSOURCES tells that bias does not make a source unusable or unreliable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

These two media outlets seem to be consistently failing to verify what they hear from unnamed sources. See the articles from multiple media outlets this week about the unreliability of reports (broken by the NY Times) about the Russian bounty program. Pkeets (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[citation needed] --Orange Mike | Talk 14:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See articles on the Project Veritas videos here where a CNN staffer admitted the outlet's bias: [4] [5] [6] [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkeets (talk • contribs)

Oh, this is hilarious: we are supposed to deprecate a reliable source, based on an "expose" from an unreliable fraudster and conman???? It is to laugh! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sicknick story

I see someone already complained about CNN and the NY Times just above. Is anybody going to say anything here about Sicknick? NY Times broke that story about how he was clubbed to death with a fire extinguisher and then everybody else ran with it, even the Democrats that cited the Times article in the impeachment documents. That's not a very good advertisement for reliability, is it? CNN STILL has articles out there saying Sicknick was killed during the Capitol riot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4000:f910:e139:4a7e:24d8:4a56 (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for discussing the text of the reliable sources guideline. Your comments would be better suited at Talk:Brian Sicknick. — Newslinger talk 15:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable sources

Hello all. I just want to know that references cited in Draft:Smile Foundation are really questionable? Because most sources are from major Indian mainstream media. Some of them are scholarly sources. It would be really appreciative if someone could point me out which sources are problematic? Pratikbhansali123 (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusion of sources that obviously misrepresents the sources on which they are based

We've been having a longer discussion on [8] about a meta-analysis that misrepresents the data of another study. Comparing the tables of the two studies directly, the data as presented by the meta-analysis is clearly not the same as the data presented by that other study. However, I'm told that the meta-analysis cannot be removed from the article as a source because it's very credible and has been published in The Lancet, and apparently if The Lancet decides that 16 is the same as 13 (13 being the number presented in the original), and that 7 is the same as 6 (6 being the number presented in the original), then the fact that 16 is NOT 13 and that 7 is NOT 6 is overruled as per The Lancet's credibility. In my opinion, this policy is deeply harmful to Wikipedia's credibility, as it prevents obviously flawed sources from being removed. There should be some policy stating that if a source either obviously misrepresents data from a source on which it is based or directly contradicts basic rules of inference, then this disqualifies the source, whether published in The Lancet or not. 5.186.122.187 (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addition for clarification

Hi, we should add the following sentence

If scholarly consensus is absent, cite the different positions or opinions in accord with due weight.

after this sentence:

Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent.

Otherwise there is lack of knowledge of what to do if scholarly consensus isn't available. Uni3993 (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria Please reply. Uni3993 (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uni3993: Have I interpreted correctly that you re-added your preferred version despite objection from Nikkimaria? I don't see how that is compatible with WP:WPEDIT. I think that Crossroads tried to adjust it, and I objected to the adjustment. But Nikkimaria was right to go further. Can you show, with some reference to article histories, what trouble was being caused, that this edit solves? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It explains what to do if consensus is absent, which happens frequently.Uni3993 (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not well. I think Crossroads' addition helped, but really rather than going back and forth in a live guideline we should work out, if this is really needed (and as Peter notes, are there specific examples of cases where it would have helped?), how specifically it ought to be worded here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look you're introducing a bifurcation by saying that you have to only include consensus but it might not even exists, if exists do this, but the part about if not exist is missing. Logically it has to be included. Otherwise it's awkward. If not exists do a backflip, ride a horse anything can be said about that case. Here Zodiac_Killer#Public_speculation is an example where there is no consensus, all possible scenarios are explained though. Uni3993 (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that section is something we want to be pointing to as a good example. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, also I already gave you the very rational explanation. Try to refute that. What kind of example do you want me to give you if you don't like that. The other case has to be explained like I said its a bifurcation. Uni3993 (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That example demonstrates the problems with the addition that was made: we don't really want to indiscriminately include every example of an opinion on the topic that exists. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then either we should add notable as a qualifier to examples or we could remove the bifurcation it would say only include material that has scholarly consensus. Which one do you choose? Uni3993 (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither, as neither is correct. As I said, I thought Crossroads' addition was helpful - perhaps Peter can elaborate on his objections to it, as a potential way forward. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am actually a bit confused by this entire passage... We should CITE reliable sources for everything we say in WP, regardless of whether it reflects scholarly consensus or not.
Perhaps what is meant is that we should HIGHLIGHT scholarly consensus? I can agree with that, but it is not a reliability issue... it is already covered by our WP:Neutral point of view policy. On any given topic, we want to cover ALL significant views (citing reliable sources to support what we say about them). If one of those views enjoys scholarly consensus, we clearly identify it as such, and give it a lot more WEIGHT than lesser significant views that don’t have consensus... but we cover those other views in brief. If there is no scholarly consensus, then we give the significant views more or less equal WEIGHT... (and, of course, fringe views are given no WEIGHT at all, and can simply be omitted - as they are not significant).
But we still need to CITE reliable sources to verify any of the views that are mentioned. Blueboar (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NYTimes, NBC and WaPo

Nobody wants to discuss why supposedly reliable sources publish verified news from anonymous sources one week and then retract it the next week? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4000:f910:18c0:6d81:cba5:b07b (talk • contribs)

I do not think they use anonymous sources. Their reporters talk to people they know but who will not let their names be used in print/ The journalists evaluate their credibility before publishing. Rjensen (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This - they will not directly name their source in print but they internally know who they are talking to, and typically identify "according to our source, who wished to remain anonymous..." or the like. As long as the publication is reliable, we presume they are following proper journalist confidentiality here. --Masem (t) 04:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But why did these publication decide just the next week that their sources weren't credible after all? They've published misinformation, and made a big impact with it, and then retracted it within just a few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4000:F910:18C0:6D81:CBA5:B07B (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they retract things is a point in their favor, not a point against them. When we deprecate a source, one of the big things we look for is failure to issue retractions. Hypothetically if it got to a point where a publication were having to issue major retractions every month, then maybe that would stop counting in their favor. But short of that, it's a sign of good journalism. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 05:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A sign of good journalism that they failed to properly vet their sources and had to retract within a week? Doesn't it become a ploy to publish sensationalist fake news to generate traffic and then retract it later? How does this count in their favor? Plus, it must be hard to keep track of all the falsehoods. Here's a story from CNN that still says Officer Sicknick was killed at the Capitol [9]. No retraction in sight.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4000:F910:18C0:6D81:CBA5:B07B (talk)
It's good journalism. You picked a bad example, CNN relied on open-source court papers not anonymous sources. Several days later it reported that an autopsy showed the policeman died of natural causes not the injuries. Rjensen (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So then The Daily Caller or The Blaze, for example, could improve their reliability ratings by retracting claims in their articles after a week? Is that the way it works? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4000:F910:FCEC:F3F6:74FB:45A5 (talk)
Read again from Tamzin: Hypothetically if it got to a point where a publication were having to issue major retractions every month, then maybe that would stop counting in their favor. Please sign your posts.—Bagumba (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See above. The NYT's last major retraction was just last month. 2601:844:4000:F910:FCEC:F3F6:74FB:45A5 (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Every month, not Within the past month. Either you need to start reading comments more carefully, or you're trolling. If you want to convince people that you're participating in good faith here: Let's define "major retraction" as one which garners widespread coverage in not exclusively media-focused sources other than the retracting publication. (That is to say, not a few publications gravedancing over another's mistake, and not media blogs that chronicle everything.) Using that definition, draw up a list of major retractions by NYT, NBC, and WaPo, and report back your findings. And then we can all discuss whether the frequency is excessive. Otherwise, I don't think there's anything left for me to say here. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 06:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to spend hours in busy work, but here's a sampling I put together in a few minutes. My point is that the "reliable sources" in Wikipedia's list are subject to the same movement toward sensationalist misinformation as many considered less reliable. That means arguments based on the reliability of these sources are starting from a false premise that they are always reliable. This has implications for using them without question in articles, as well. The NYTimes recently admitted that it's writers frequently present their opinions as fact. Doesn't this suggest the WP policy for "reliable sources" needs another look?

2601:844:4000:F910:FCEC:F3F6:74FB:45A5 (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why does so much of this page just copy and paste WP:V?

Aren't duplicated sections like this a problem? They are just minor variations of the other, but it becomes arbitrary which section is linked to people, and sometimes one misses out on a point because they happened to read the different version to someone else. It also makes the PAGs look longer than they are. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Drummond

Regarding my comments on "Henry Drummond": I know that Henry Drummond had at least one child because Henry Drummond is my great-grandfather. His concubine, Karoline Kahn, conceived the child Herman Kahn out of wedlock, therefore there is no documentation. (signed) 73.254.97.23 (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Richard Karnes[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources&oldid=1022683133"