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 19:06, 19 May 2021 (→‎Who decides what is reliable on Wikipedia?: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 [1]. 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]

@Newslinger: Can I get your thoughts on this, as one of the resident experts in reliable sources? Can we streamline the wording either here or on WP:V? I think this page intends to be a complete summary on reliable sources from A to Z, which is fine, but then it'd be nice to see WP:V streamlined for duplication. This currently reads and flows much better than that page IMO. Or turn this back into "Identifying reliable sources" and move things like section 1 (definitions) and section 3 (policy on certain types of questionable sources) into WP:V? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:25, 16 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]

Disagree: "Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes) may be reliable, their audience ratings based on the reviews of their users are not."

Many movies have interesting splits between their Rotten Tomatoes "approved" reviewer aggregated scores, and their audience ratings. These splits are notable in their own right for many movies, and I would argue that because both forms of score aggregation are in-itself aggregations. In the end, there is no discernable difference between them other than elitism. Citing a single audience rating could is problematic as self-published original research, but aggregate is not that, and I would argue, extremely meaningful. I will edit this policy if nobody objects.64.46.20.154 (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See review bombing and similar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The current words are mostly due to some edits in early 2019 e.g. here by RTG. Can you show an article which has been harmed by the sentence's existence? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Greenwald talks with Tucker Carlson

Read the discussion here: [2] K.Q.1997 (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great journalists like Chris Hedges, Matt Taibbi, and Glenn Greenwald have written that since around probably the 1990s corporatist elitists have controlled most of the mainstream media in the U.S.

Greenwald in particular is great at exposing these people, here is a great article from just today: [3]

There's a lot of literature on the ability to use paranoia and tribal fears in order to manipulate people. You know, when Obama used to be pressured by Marco Rubio and McCain and the hawks in the Democrat party, he used to say that Russia is not a scary power. They have an economy smaller than Italy, they are like a regional power at best and yet in the Democratic party mind, Vladimir Putin is like Darth Vader, Russia is an existential threat.

They've contaminated and infiltrated institutions, they are deliberately stoking the fear constantly among their liberal flock because doing so keeps them frightened, and keeping them frightened means that they are more submissive and more malleable to control. K.Q.1997 (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we close this discussion.
It might also be useful to work on blocking K.Q.1997 per WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLE, WP:IDHT, and WP:ARBAP2. --Hipal (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From BIASED: "Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context."

What does this sentence mean? More generally, if I am reading it right, does it imply that biased sources may only be reliable in specific contexts? For context, I feel like the usual interpretation of policy is that bias alone cannot disqualify a source, and was considering WP:BIASED in the context of an RSP discussion for a site with extremely strident, fringe-y views. When I reread this sentence, my brain locked up for a moment because it seems to be written from the assumption that biases disqualify sources by default and that only a "specific context" can salvage them and make them usable. Am I misinterpreting it? Should it be reworded or eliminated, or should it be expanded on to discuss how strong biases may or may not limit the usages of a source and what contexts are appropriate to use them in? --Aquillion (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions. I don't know the original intent here, so I'll just offer some thoughts for consideration.
When the opposing biases found on both sides are mild and close to center, they may exist without ignoring or distorting the facts, and thus both may be truly "reliable" and usable.
As one gets further from center, biases tend to distort things, leaving neither or only one side enough in touch with reality to be considered reliable. That seems to be the explanation, at least during the Trump era, for why any Trump-friendly bias immediately rendered the source as likely unreliable and a pusher of his lies, while opposing sources with strong bias were still fairly accurate and usable. Those sources were still judged by fact checkers to be reliably accurate, even with their biases.
So here's the relevant connection to this thread. If a source is factually accurate in a specific context, then any bias is irrelevant and the source can be used in that context.
Some biases are good because they are still tethered to facts, while others are disqualifying because they let their agenda trump the facts. That's what Trump did and still does. Facts are an inconvenient nuisance to him, so any source favorable to him is suspect, and no context can change those lies to truth. -- Valjean (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides what is reliable on Wikipedia?

I have three questions about reliable sources on Wikipedia:

-what are the criteria for determining if a source is reliable or not?

-who exactly on wikipedia decides if a source/website is reliable or unreliable?

-what credentials do these people/editors have that makes them so knowledgeable to decide if a source is reliable or not?


I also want to state in response to another editor who accused me in this thread[4] of being a troll that I'm only posing questions on this website in good faith. For some reason other editors are able to do this (I'm assuming this is because they are established editors who are allowed to insult "newbie people" and not be penalized, which is fine by the way but it should be noted). I was also accused of being a Trump supporter becaue I pointed out how mainstream media bombarded the U.S. public for years with propaganda about Trump colluding with Russia. So instead of just being someone who can see how corrupt mainstream media is in the U.S., I must be someone who thinks Trump is good. K.Q.1997 (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given you're a new account, with zero history of any contribution to Wikipedia content, with an obsession with "liberal bias", I'll point to you WP:SPA and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I propose we close this discussion.
I believe K.Q.1997 should be blocked at this point per WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLE, WP:IDHT, and WP:ARBAP2. --Hipal (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Please stop trying to distract from the conversation and address the 3 relevant questions related to reliable sources and their usage on Wikipedia.


Also other users here like Hipal and Headbomb continue to make false accusations and attempt to get me blocked and/or censored, please stop doing that or I will report you. I'm only here to ask pertinent questions in good faith about how reliable sources work on Wikipedia. To reply to Headbomb, I'm not "obsessed with liberal bias" but I am concerned about propaganda in mainstream reliable sources used throughout Wikipedia (mostly related to American political articles since other first world countries don't have the level of propaganda and bias and corruption in their MSM and reliable sources). I should have clarified this but what I really mean by "liberal bias" is a certain type of elitist/corporatist bias which falls broadly under the term "liberal" but who's primary concern is obtaining power and wealth and controlling the narrative that enables them to gain more power and more wealth and start wars for example in Iraq based on lies and fabrications. We also saw this same media for two years constantly speculate without any real evidence that Trump (who for the record I think is also a corrupt and disgusting human being) somehow "colluded" with Russia to help win the election. After a team of 20 attorneys, 50 FBI agents, numerous intelligence analysts and forensic accountants (who issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses) a lot of MSM still wouldn't admit there was no collusion with Russia like the Mueller Report concluded. That says a lot about the irrationality and partisanship of these so-called "journalists".


Also I just read this now on WP:SPA so please other editors follow the rules: "New editors have the right to be treated with respect and civility...editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly and civilly, and to not bite newcomers. Remember that every editor on Wikipedia was new at some point. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits. K.Q.1997 (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Think tanks

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Think_tanks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources&oldid=1024038285"