Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

RfC: 9to5Google.com reliability?

Which of the following best describes 9to5Google's (9to5google.com) technology articles?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable

-- Yae4 (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3: Generally unreliable: In two citations at GrapheneOS, written by a "Videographer" they mostly un-critically re-publish material from the subject's website[1] or from their Twitter[2]. Although their contact list[3] has some Editor titles, it looks like another ad-infested group blog site, intended to advertise and sell Google products with affiliate links.[4]

To my knowledge, 9to5Google has only been mentioned in passing once: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_298#PhoneArena_et_al at WP:RSN. Apologies in advance if this RfC is somehow incorrect. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 They are reliable for basic facts, X was released on Y, but not for anything contentious and certainly should be considered a biased source. See their about page that starts "9to5Google believes that Google is one of the most important companies shaping the future.". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Yae4, why are you bothering with this? If it's only been mentioned in passing once, then why do we need to spend hours of editors' time to evaluate it now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

An attempt was made to discuss it at Talk:GrapheneOS in August 2022. It was archived already, with no responses: Talk:GrapheneOS/Archive_2#XDA_source_on_Camera_and_PDF_Viewer,_and_9to5Google_source_on_"early_12L_release"_parrot_Twitter? It has been used in many other articles.[5] -- Yae4 (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3: Generally unreliable. Another technology rumour site, along with sister projects 9to5mac.com, 9to5toys.com and others. Not that they don't get things right; they most often do. But they also present gossip and speculation as facts or announcements. A businessperson, I'd never make any investment decision based on the content of these sites. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
• Came here from WP:VPM. I'd be wary of using a site like this. Their about page says, "We only run reviews of hardware and software that we deem interesting to our audience and worth looking at. This is the reason you don’t often see poor reviews on 9to5 sites: If we review something we don’t like or find interesting, we usually won’t post it." That's kind of a non-neutral bias. On the other hand, that's not really any different from, say, the New York Times' Wirecutter service, so maybe that's a silly complaint. I suspect they're accurate for non-controversial statements of fact. To pick one more or less at random, "Founded by ex-Googlers, Flatiron Health was acquired yesterday (via CNBC) for $1.9 billion by Swiss medical giant Roche".[6] I have no reason to doubt any of the facts in that statement, but it's really just a rehash of what CNBC said, so why not just cite CNBC directly? IMHO, sites like this are valuable as aggregators and filters of industry-specific news. They're a great place to start to research a topic, but it's not what I'd like to see a good wikipedia article based on. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• Their "about us" page states that they use and publish sponsor-provided content and also accept training and equipment in return for some of their reviews. Definitely not a reliable source. Banks Irk (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• Unreliable Mishmash of unasked for opinions, sponsored writeups, low quality rewrites of content posted elsewhere, and basic stat data. Nothing useful can't be found from a higher quality source. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Strong option 1, since no good evidence of unreliability has been offered. So far, the discussion falls far short of the rigous we should have when determining reliability. The "uncritically republished" material in the first two links are a set of release notes. "Uncritically" is simply false: the author points out ProtonAOSP is not the "stable update path", and recommends against using GrapheneOS altogether for "all the but the most privacy-conscious people". No proof has been offered that any of those articles' contents is factually incorrect, which is normally de-rigeur in such WP:RSN discussions. 9to5Google itself has been cited in numerous published books, including scholarly books: [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. See WP:USEBYOTHERS. Importantly, they have done some good exclusive reporting, which seems to have good quality, and it would be a shame if we couldn't use it (if due, which is a big if for all WP:RS). They've been cited by the Financial Times[16], among others. The people behind them have credible prior journalistic careers.

Keep in mind that even reliable sources sometimes make factual errors, or take things out of context; in those cases, evidence should be offered on the talk page, and consensus may decide to ignore a given article, per WP:RSCONTEXT. Declaring a source unreliable or biased is a blunt instrument. DFlhb (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@DFlhb: Re "uncritically republished": the actual statement was "mostly un-critically re-publish". They mostly republish something said in another source, and add a comment. In my opinion, the comments are not critical, and they do not add insight of significance. I checked your first 3 examples of "scholarly books" citations, and the same comment applies to them, except in the first example, 9to5google may have independently observed the Youtube and play store outage; however, they added no further significant insight. The 3rd example had a typo in the citation URL ("toassistant" versus "to-assistant"), which does not support the book's reliability either. I checked a couple of the "exclusive reporting" articles, and they also look like mostly brief rehash of information from others, with minor comments. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll just add that all books I link to were published by academic publishers (Springer, in the case of the third link), so those books are reliable par excellence. The fact that they all cite 9to5G as a source for statements of fact, without any comments raising doubts about their accuracy, is quite a strong indicator in favor of option 1, again per WP:UBO.

As for their exclusive reporting: it's very extensively cited by established, reliable sources, like ArsTechnica, PCWorld, and ComputerWorld, as a quick Google search shows. The fact that other tech sources take their original reporting seriously is yet another sign of their factual reliability. Early comments focus on alleged bias, or misstatement of rumors as fact, yet I've seen zero examples of this whatsoever; for example, their about page stating that Google is an important (i.e. influential) company is factually true; not a statement of bias. DFlhb (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Extending RfC for another month, but may stop it a week or so after the last comment someone adds. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1, strongly – First of all, I'm bewildered that interested editors were not notified of this sooner. WikiProject Google may be dormant, and I realize there aren't many active editors in that space, but the WikiProject talk page still serves as a central location to notify editors of discussions within the WikiProject's scope. I'm relieved that I saw Yae4's talk page notices when I was slowly going through my watchlist to see what I missed during the holidays, I would hate to have missed this. As one of the most active editors who edit Google articles, I use 9to5Google all the time as a source, and I've seen it being used as a source on many articles for many years without a problem. Sure, it may not be as high-caliber as The Verge or CNET, but its articles are still of decent quality in my experience, comparable to publications such as ComicBook.com, Screen Rant, and CBR in the entertainment field. When possible, of course we strive for more reputable sources, but if none exist, it is considered acceptable to resort to these lesser-known, lower-caliber but still reliable sources. I have yet to encounter a sketchy article from them, and they do have editorial oversight as seen here. They're verified on social media, as are their reporters ([17], [18], [19]). They've been cited by The Washington Post, LA Times, Bloomberg News, The Guardian, CNET, Axios, CNBC, Business Insider, Fortune, Ars Technica, The Verge, XDA Developers, Gizmodo, Engadget, IGN, PCMag, etc. I'd be happy to go dig up more links, but you should get the idea by now. Business Insider and The Verge also found the site notable enough to report on an incident involving the site itself a few years back. Lastly, regarding the thing about "rumors", we deal with that the same way we do with every other RS: WP:FRUIT. If said "rumor" is their original reporting, then by definition it is not a rumor but a report, and it should be OK to use it. But if they're getting the rumor from an unreliable source, for instance a leaker whom they can't independently verify, then we can't use it. The allegation that they also present gossip and speculation as facts or announcements is false. As far as I know, rumors that they got from someone else are always labeled as "Rumor" in the article's title. The editors above who are basing their judgment solely on their About us page are clearly unfamiliar with the site's content and track record.

Addendum: I know this technically isn't part of the RfC question, but I glanced at Yae4's link to the discussion at Talk:GrapheneOS, and I would like to add that XDA Developers (note the bluelink) is also considered reliable — in fact, it's more reliable than 9to5Google, I personally classify it a mid-caliber source. Android Police is another one of those low-caliber sources I was talking about — it's still reliable, but a better source should be used if possible. PhoneArena is not reliable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1. I am very surprised to see this raised and don't find the criticisms compelling at all - or, to the extent they are, they are a criticism of the vast majority of Internet media. 9to5google isn't like, an academic peer-reviewed journal, no, and sure, you can find some empty "hey check out this story elsewhere" articles. But that's true of nearly all local newspapers that purchase stories from the Associated Press or the like, too. No compelling evidence is offered of actual problems as best I can see. A site that sometimes covers gossip & speculation is very different from a site that is unreliable. And I find the "Videographer" complaint baffling - is the problem that the article was published by someone whose title is "video editor"? That hardly seems a problem. Anyway, use common sense applies: don't cite empty slow news day non-stories (in the same way to not do this with legacy media like newspapers), but citing their usual work is fine. SnowFire (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Upgrade to strong option 1. Yae1's comment below makes me consider them unreliable on this topic. I was willing to grant that there was perhaps a grain of truth with the complaints, but Yae1's comment seems as if they're talking about an entirely different website - accusing the site of being user-generated? This isn't a wiki. What. SnowFire (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oh, let me think, let me think... Oh, I know! Option 1: Generally reliable! Because clearly a website called 9to5Google is going to be a completely unbiased and reliable source for all technology articles. I mean, who needs fact-checking and credible sources when you have a catchy name like that? Man-at-Bogomil (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, so by the same token, you believe Bloomberg News is biased when it comes to reporting news on Mike Bloomberg, and The New York Times is biased when it comes to reporting news on New York City? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  PinkNews has a well-documented magenta bias. DFlhb (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Summarizing what I see so far, following WP:RELIABLE categories. I agree there are some (i.e. more than zero) examples of decent reporting in 9to5Google; however, on balance closer to option 3 - unreliable, with rare exceptions is still my view.

Negatives:

• Biased and opinionated WP:PARTISAN
• Age matters (recentism) WP:RSAGE and Breaking news WP:RSBREAKING
• News organizations WP:RSEDITORIAL
• Questionable sources WP:QUESTIONABLE: Little evidence of editorial oversight, corrections or similar.
• Sponsored content WP:SPONSORED
• User-generated content WP:USERGENERATED: Examples have been given of using ...adding... Twitter or website post quotes as the primary basis for short articles with no other sources or quotes given, and no significant interpretation or comment.
• Quotations: WP:RS/QUOTE They use a lot; no signs of independent checking.
• Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources WP:RSPRIMARY: By republishing primary material, they are essentially a primary source proxy.

Neutrals:

• Context matters WP:RSCONTEXT

Positives:

• Usage by other sources WP:USEBYOTHERS.

Notes on InfiniteNexus examples:

TheGuardian example subject was an advertising campaign (recentism, sponsored?), and 9to5Google looks like part of that campaign with links to YouTube.

CNET is a Red Ventures platform, i.e. a publisher run by an internet marketing and advertising company.

Axios: "Some editors consider Axios to be a biased or opinionated source." The example is one that was updated; however, it was updated to include tweets; not great per WP:RSPTWITTER.

CNBC is not on WP:RSP

WP:UBO is one of several criteria, but it is not a go/no-go criterion. "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims."

The Verge: One good example. Perhaps having more than one contributor to the article is an indicator.

-- Yae4 (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• All of these "negatives" are misapplications of policy. RSBREAKING applies to how we should treat breaking news stories, not to outlet reliability. Their articles are not user-generated, and their sponsored content is clearly marked. You say you haven't seen any corrections, but still haven't pointed to any factual mistakes which would merit one. Partisan-ness doesn't affect general reliability, and the alleged "statement of bias" was a misinterpretation. RSQUOTE again applies to us, not to them; reliable outlets routinely quote the subjects of their articles. The fact that they embed tweets has no bearing on their reliability (NYTimes does it too).

It's unusual for a source, which is used by Springer, Wiley, and The Guardian (among others), to be brought up at RSN without any examples of misstatements of fact. Could we at least see some evidence of misstatements?

(Note: I've actually found one case of 9to5Google being inappropriate used as a source on GrapheneOS for a statement it didn't support; now fixed.) DFlhb (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• This comment, wow ... no. It's neither WP:PARTISAN, nor WP:QUESTIONABLE, nor WP:USERGENERATED. I am struggling to see why you think so. WP:RSAGE, WP:RSBREAKING, and WP:RS/QUOTE have nothing to do with this, I strongly suggest you re-read those links to see what they are actually referring to. WP:RSEDITORIAL content is perfectly fine to use for reception info, and WP:SPONSORED content is clearly identified. The WP:RSPRIMARY claim is absurd, secondary sources that reprint statements from primary sources do not automatically become primary sources. And all of what you said can very well be applied to highly reputable sources. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• @InfiniteNexus, DFlhb, and SnowFire:, Your opinions are appreciated, but not the only ones. I count opinions at:

• Option 3: ||||| (two unspecified but interpreted as 3-)
• Option 2: |
• Option 1: |||

I will make a short addition to my WP:USERGENERATED comment above. If a source interprets and elaborates significantly on the Twitter or website posts they quote, that is one thing. Basically repeating the posts with only insignificant comment is another. In my examples above, it's another IMO - they basically just re-publish the posts with little to nothing of significance added.

DFlhb, I note the affiliated site 9to5Mac is cited a few times at Mac_(computer), sourcing is still an open item at the GA nomination, and at Talk:Mac_(computer) ProcrastinatingReader criticized 9to5Mac as one of many "Apple-focused news sites". BTW, I don't entirely agree with your changes at GrapheneOS. Also, the "Pointy" comment was inappropriate IMO. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yae4: No, that is not what WP:USERGENERATED is about. Please re-read the essay. It's about stuff like wikis, Facebook, or nearly-anyone-can-join blogs like Forbes contributor sections. If a hypothetical news site did nothing but re-post material from elsewhere, albeit filtered through a real human journalist picking the content rather than a bot - that wouldn't fall afoul of USERGENERATED. Such a site is probably crappy and might be downranked on other grounds, of course, but not USERGENERATED. As long as there's a staff journalist doing the vetting and posting, it's in the clear.

More generally, regardless of the policy cited, I'd want to see evidence of Actually Problematic Use. Such stories are not necessarily a problem if used for what they are. The "value add" of a 9to5google repost is essentially "this is considered relevant by at least one journalist" compared to the sheafs of press releases and patch notes that nobody cares about. If such a "lazy repost" is cited merely for that - that company XYZ released this and said blah - then it's fine. If it's treating the company's more contestable claims as truth, then that can be fixed by making the Wikipedia text match the citation and qualifying the claim, not by deprecating the source. (And this kind of story is not a majority of their posts anyway.) SnowFire (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yae4: I have no issues with your edits at GrapheneOS in general, and the "pointy" comments weren't addressed to anyone (I didn't bother to check who wrote those sentences; but I think most would agree that their wording was exaggerated). RFCs at RSN are supposed to show examples of bad stories, but I don't think either article shows that.

Regarding ProcrastinatingReader's comments: "Apple-focused" isn't criticism; that topic simply has large amounts of book sources available, which should be preferred. ProcReader did question the reliability of other web sources.

But, as a general comment on this subthread: it's highly unusual for one involved editor (who isn't a closer) to try to "summarize" the consensus, or try to "count !votes". Anything that could be considered "suggestions for the closers" is generally inappropriate, and closers don't count the amount of votes, but evaluate the strength of each argument. This entire subthread is pointless. I only replied to it because of how un-kosher it is. Could we avoid this, and let closers do their jobs?

I'll also ping WP:WikiProject Computing with a neutral notice, which I don't believe has been done yet; this RFC might impact them the most, so they deserve get a chance to participate. DFlhb (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yae4, I don't understand why you are counting !votes, please read WP:POLL, RfCs do not operate on raw votes. Secondly, as many editors have explained to you, your previous comment indicates that you have grossly misinterpreted the guidelines you linked. Kindly reread them to better understand what they are saying, and you will find that 9to5Google does not pertain to any of them. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  @DFlhb, InfiniteNexus, and SnowFire:: WP:RFCCLOSE, Wikipedia:Advice_on_closing_discussions, WP:CLOSE have lots of closure guidance, not all consistent, and not all requiring formal request for closure. The consensus here looks fairly clear so far. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You are correct that a formal close is only required if the consensus is not clear. I see a rough consensus here that 9to5Google is considered reliable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinged WP:WikiProject Computing with a neutral notice DFlhb 22:44, 20 Jan 2023 (UTC)

DFlhb, You don't need to change it, but I just wanted to let you know that hatnotes aren't generally used like this. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I know, just didn't remember the right template. DFlhb (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what effect you were trying to achieve, but I'll take a guess ... were you thinking of {{Notified}}? I personally don't like that template, so I usually just go with custom text with <small> tags. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

(In reply to this) Oh, you must be referring to the WikiProject XX has been notified of this discussion text used by rmCloser. There's no template for that, just some text wrapped in <small>. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, that's the exact one! DFlhb (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 The arguments for reliability by others above are compelling and Yae4's statement just above shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of how reliability is determined that I can only consider this discussion to have been made because of a personal dislike of the website in question. Silverseren^C 16:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

RFC: People Make Games

Which of the following best describes People Make Games's videos in the area of video games?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Loki (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 1 People Make Games is reliable for video game journalism. They've been cited several times by multiple sources we consider reliable (including PC Gamer, Eurogamer, Polygon, Wired, and even the Washington Post somehow), and all their contributors are professional video game journalists. You can even see in the WaPo article (and other places) that they follow basic journalistic standards like asking their subjects for comment before publishing a story. Loki (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 They seem legit, given that other scrupulously reliable sources treat them as reliable. --Jayron32 12:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 for video-games journalism. They're a solid outlet, have broken at least one major story in that area, and are treated as reliable by other sources. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 20:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 and I'm glad that people aren't dismissing them automatically because they're on YouTube. casualdejekyll 12:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  So am I! Such a nice change of pace from normal, especially for those of us who remember how difficult it was to get consensus on Anthony Fantano's status as a "music critic." ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 as it appears to be a self-published source, but could be used with attribution as WP:EXPERTSPS. The authors are the publishers; there doesn't seem to be any fact checkers, editors, masthead, ethics policies, separation of news from opinion, etc. Just being cited alone doesn't make something an RS; this one is just not professional journalism, it's a well-respected blog, but it should be used only with attribution per EXPERTSPS. It's not like CNET or other professional publications. Levivich (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  Not that I find too much fault with your logic, but it's a little funny that CNET is the example you give given, well, the discussion basically directly below this one :) ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 04:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  Lol, true, that was the first tech publication that came to mind, but my mind is outdated ;-) Levivich (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• As we describe on its page, Nuclear Gandhi is an urban legend that Gandhi in the original Civilization was particularly likely to nuke people because of a bug. However, it's come out recently that in fact such a bug did not exist, nor was Gandhi even particularly likely to use nukes, and that this was purely an urban legend the entire time. On the page, we cite this dodgy Russian-language source (translation) for several important claims about it.

However, the source we cite openly says it got this info from the People Make Games YouTube channel, in particular this video, which originally broke the story. And by all appearances this video is a very reliable source. People Make Games is staffed by professional video game journalists, including the one who broke this particular story, they've been cited by other sources we consider reliable (like PC Gamer, Eurogamer, Polygon, Wired, and even the Washington Post somehow) and the video itself contains multiple interviews with the developers themselves saying no such bug exists. In my opinion, PMG is about equal in reliability to Bellingcat for the specific area of video games, and for basically the same reasons.

Yet not only do we not cite the video here, we don't cite People Make Games anywhere, about anything, as far as I can tell. Even for stories that they broke, we always cite someone else just repeating what they said. I believe this is primarily because they publish in video format, on YouTube, rather than in text, and we don't consider "YouTube" reliable. I think this is a silly bias against video content that we'd never allow if PMG was a news channel, and I'm aiming with this RfC to establish that just because PMG publishes its investigations on YouTube, that doesn't mean they're unreliable. Loki (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

While I enjoy watching PMG, they are arguably a self-published source, and thus shouldn't be used as a directly cited source for non-self BLP claims, eg their allegations of abusive behaviour by indie developers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Bellingcat is also arguably a self-published source, yet they're green on WP:RSP, and have absolutely been used for BLP claims before (e.g. they named several Russian intelligence officials involved in the Skripal poisoning). That's why I brought them up, to prove that we don't have a general policy against citizen journalism even in BLPs.

To be clear, I believe the actual situation in both these cases is that PMG/Bellingcat is the publisher and the particular journalist breaking the story is the author, making neither of them WP:SPS. (This is the same as the situation with, say, the NYT; if we said that every employee of an organization is that organization no source would be reliable.) One of the key distinctions between self-published and independent sources is that independent sources have organizational editorial standards, which both PMG and Bellingcat clearly do. Loki (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Per Loki, what makes a self-published source self-published is the lack of a layer of editorial control between the writer and the publication of the information itself. People Make Games is not self-published; they appear to have an editorial staff and vet their stories as well as any other journalism organization. --Jayron32 12:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

People Make Games is a YouTube channel run by 3 people who all collaborate together, far less than the number of journalists working on Bellingcat, so I don't possibly see how it could satisfy having a layer of editorial control between the writer and the publication of the information itself. Most major scoops by PMG have been covered by regular video game journalism websites, so this is really moot anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

But the fact that they keep getting covered by regular video game journalism websites shows that other video game journalists consider them reliable, even despite their small size. And just because other sources frequently cover their work doesn't mean that we don't need to mark them reliable. So for instance, they did an interview with the creators of Blaseball that we ought to be able to quote from, even though to my knowledge it hasn't been cited elsewhere. Loki (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Video game websites cover a lot of shit, frequently including stuff like Twitter posts.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Question Do they have a corrections policy? Do the follow it? Adoring nanny (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  They don't have a website outside of YouTube and Patreon, so, as far as I can tell, not a published one. However, they have responded to criticism of their work before at length. Loki (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Not sure why we need this source when Sid Meier himself has said this is a myth. But it's not the countless callbacks and references that make the nuclear Gandhi story so funny to me. It's the fact that none of it is true. The overflow error never happened at all. (Sid Meier's Memoir!: A Life in Computer Games p. 262) Although it did exist as an Easter Egg in Civ V. Geogene (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  It's not just Nuclear Gandhi I'm talking about here, they've broken other scoops in the past as well. Loki (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Beware: CNet running AI-generated articles, byline "CNet Money"

CNet, usually regarded as an ordinary tech RS, has started experimentally running [20][21] AI-generated articles, which are riddled with errors. Currently these articles are under the byline "CNet Money". So far the experiment is not going down well, as it shouldn't. I haven't found any yet, but any of these articles that make it into a Wikipedia article need to be removed - David Gerard (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Since November, no less, per your sources. If they haven't yet given up on it, it's concerning. Could it be time to downgrade CNet? I note that at WP:RSP, they are green, but the RfC is dated. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That is very worrying... Its one thing if an AI assisted and human edited article is up to the normal standards but I think we do have a real problem here with the content being so much less accurate than their standard content. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm hoping this is one high-up editor or publisher with a bee in their bonnet, and the reputational damage will put paid to the initiative before it spreads too far. I've never been a huge fan of CNet, but even at my most cynical about it I wouldn't have classed it with SEO spam blogs - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I have always thought that CNET was a mediocre source, but this is really on another level. I would support downgrading the source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Is downgrading necessary? These articles don't affect the rest of the articles they make. Just putting a note on RSP that any with the byline CNet Money are unreliable should be good enough. Silverseren^C 19:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I concur - just that for now would be more than enough. Hopefully they come to their senses. FWIW, the AI articles are all under www.cnet.com/personal-finance - I just looked through them all, and Wikipedia has 24 articles with that string in their source, and none are from the bot - David Gerard (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I also agree for now. Seems like there is consensus among the participants here. Do we need an RfC? Or can we just do it? Adoring nanny (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that if we have some reason to believe that CNET's personal finance section has a lot of stories with material inaccuracies, we should put a clarifying note for editors using this department to reference articles. I'm not sure if futurism.com is a reliable source, but the things they've pointed out seem to be obvious errors (like if you deposit $10,000 into a savings account that earns 3% interest compounding annually, you'll earn $10,300 at the end of the first year). These are the same kind of errors that human writers tend to make, so I don't know if this is a special case, apart from the apparent failure of editorial oversight. jp×g 00:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Futurism is an ehhhh source, a lot of reblogging, but they've been doing some good journalism lately.

On CNet, I'd wait until and unless this is more of a problem. I was posting more to warn editors to look out for this sort of thing.

I do think in general, any source that starts putting up AI-generated text in this manner warrants a close inspection - David Gerard (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I just read this article from The Verge, which corroborates Futurism's report. Very concerning, but it would seem only their Money-related articles are affected. At this stage, I wouldn't suggest they be blacklisted, but this scandal should be noted at RSP and editors should be warned against citing Money-related articles published since November 2022. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a note, WP:RSP currently has no link to or mention of this discussion, or the brief one from spring last year. The last linked discussion was back in 2015. This may be a concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137a (talk • contribs) 15:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Update: https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/20/23564311/cnet-pausing-ai-articles-bot-red-ventures InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I added a link to this discussion (as well as one other discussion about CNET that has been archived) in WP:RSP, but I have't changed the status or the description yet. 137a (talk • edits) 14:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Red Ventures's portfolio

Following this, I think it's time to downgrade CNet's reliability. That's just outrageous. Given the reports, it's probably time to check and see if there's anything else we need to do about Red Ventures's huge portfolio, which seem to also employed the same tools and processes. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Why would them stopping a limited section run of AI generated articles be a reason to downgrade them? If they had expanded the articles to any section, then sure. But the article you're responding to is them doing the exact opposite. Silverseren^C 06:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's take a step back and consider what we've witnessed here. CNET generated a bunch of content with AI, listed some of it as written by people (!), claimed it was all edited and vetted by people, and then, after getting caught, issued some 'corrections' followed by attacks on the journalists that reported on it ("Some writers — I won’t call them reporters ... "). According to the reporting we've seen so far, they've evidently implemented these tools and approaches throughout their portfolio but won't say exactly where or how.

And why should we believe anything this company says? Red Ventures has not been remotely transparent about any of this—the company could at best be described as deceitful—and the company runs a big stable of SEO-focused content mills across its ecosystem just like what we're seeing on post-acquisiton CNET, including Healthline and an EDU-focused branch (!). It's worth looking into how we're using properties that they own as sources—that is, those that aren't already listed as extremely dubious (Red Ventures owns, as you'll notice, the notorious The Points Guy).

I expect we'll probably hear a lot more about this in the future, as Red Ventures seems to have to date been largely passed over by investigative journalists, but in the meantime we should be tacking stock of what this company is pumping out and where it's appearing on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Then we should consider splitting CNET into pre-September 2020 and post-September 2020 (when they were acquired by Red Ventures), in a similar fashion to Newsweek and Forbes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Would oppose this pretty strongly (for now), given that the relevant articles have all apparently received corrections, and that CNET is suspending this dubious "experiment". Source downgrades are meant to address general reliability problems, not to be punitive. The other properties owned by Red Ventures are not relevant, since the WP:RSP entry is specifically about CNET; and we don't judge one property's reliability based any other media properties that share the same owner. DFlhb (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Further on this from Futurism: CNET's AI Journalist Appears to Have Committed Extensive Plagiarism: CNET's AI-written articles aren't just riddled with errors. They also appear to be substantially plagiarized - the hazard of AI text generators where they spit the source back out. It's possible that this will give Red Ventures pause ... - David Gerard (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Current Affairs (magazine)

Over at James A. Lindsay, there is a dispute occurring that seems (to me, at least) heavily predicated on what we make of this source. There are also opinion/news issues, but I think this is the place to start. The mechanical parts of reliability (staff and whatnot) seem largely met to me, but it does describe itself as "surreal" and the like. Moreover, while I have tried to investigate whether it has an appropriate reputation for an RS, the unfortunately common name is frustrating most of my attempts. I would love to get others' opinions. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Its reliable but I think you've identified that like with similar sources the opinion/news issue is going to be the major stumbling block. In particular articles by Nathan J. Robinson should probably be treated as self published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll paraphrase my position at the James lindsay article here. The magazine appears to deal with publishing arguments and persuasive style articles. I would put it's content as equivalent to editorial content on a newspaper, as such reliable for the opinions of the author, but not reliable for statements of fact. When looking into the magazine, I didn't find any indication of it's use by others to see if the opinions covered by the magazine are of high enough quality to be included in a BLP. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That is certainly a charitable paraphrase of your position, the one on the article talk page flirts with the fringe a lot more. There you seem to be questioning whether there really is an academic consensus that the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the sourcing provided doesn't meet the requirements called out in WP:RS/AC. I don't weigh in on the subject at all. If we want to assert academic consensus on a subject, we have to source it appropriately. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That is not how it appears to an outside observer, you appear to be casting shade on the very academic consensus itself (you do agree that the academic consensus exists, correct?) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source that meets WP: RS/AC? Our opinions on the matter are irrelevant, and RS/AC actually makes that point. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that makes it appear to impartial outside observers that you are pushing a fringe theory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I see, enforcing our sourcing requirements means pushing a fringe theory. Good to know that that is your position on the subject. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

And now you're just being disruptive and facetious. Have a nice day. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This section is about the use of Current Affairs, which is simply used to support that Lindsay has promoted the conspiracy theory. Sourcing for statements to the effect that there is no secret conspiracy of academics who are attempting to destroy western civilization is a separate issue - but if we're going to litigate that here as well: The sourcing standard for that is not WP:RS/AC but WP:PARITY. - MrOllie (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest any discussion on the merits of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is done on the talkpage of that article. It will only lead this discussion into chaos otherwise. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. We should focus on Current Affairs Magazine. --Kyohyi (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

My question is answered to my satisfaction: reliable source, but as with many, need to be cognizant of opinions. Thanks to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Not a reliable source for facts. A not particularly prominent opinion journal focusing on somewhat contrarian opinions, so reliable only for the opinions of contributors and not good for showing due weight. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of Sources on Azerbaijan and Armenia

Are the following authors and works reliable sources with respect to Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921)?

• Baberovski, Yorg (2010). Враг есть везде. Сталинизм на Кавказе [The enemy is everywhere. Stalinism in the Caucasus] (in Russian). Moscow: Rossiyskaya politicheskaya entsiklopediya (ROSSPEN) Fond «Prezidentskiy tsentr B. N. Yeltsina». ISBN 978-5-8243-1435-9. Archived from the original on 8 October 2022.
• Balayev, Aydyn (1990). Азербайджанское национально-демократическое движение 1917-1929 гг [The Azerbaijani national-democratic movement in 1917–1929] (in Russian). Baku. ISBN 978-5-8066-0422-5. Archived from the original on 7 November 2022. {{cite book}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 6 November 2022 suggested (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Coyle, James J. (2021). Russia's Interventions in Ethnic Conflicts: The Case of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-59573-9. ISBN 978-3-030-59572-2. S2CID 229424716.
• Hasanli, Jamil (2015). Foreign Policy of the Republic of Azerbaijan: The Difficult Road to Western Integration, 1918–1920. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-36616-4.
• Kazemzadeh, Firuz (1951). The Struggle for Transcaucasia, 1917-1921. New York: Philosophycal Library inc. ISBN 9780802208347.
• Korkotyan, Zaven (1932). Խորհրդային Հայաստանի բնակչությունը վերջին հարյուրամյակում (1831-1931) [The population of Soviet Armenia in the last century (1831–1931)] (PDF) (in Armenian). Yerevan: Pethrat. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 February 2022.
• "Les musulmans en Arménie". Le Temps. 25 July 1920.
• Levene, Mark (2013). Devastation: The European Rimlands 1912–1938. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191505546.
• McCarthy, Justin
• Mammadov, Ilgar; Musayev, Tofik (2008). Армяно-азербайджанский конфликт: История, Право, Посредничество [Armenian–Azerbaijani conflict: history, law, mediation] (in Russian) (2nd ed.). Baku: Graf and K Publishing House. ISBN 9785812509354.
• Tarasov, Stanislav (7 July 2014). "Зачем Азербайджану Новая «Историческая Родина»" [Why does Azerbaijan need a new 'historical homeland']. iarex.ru. Archived from the original on 14 October 2022.
• Volkova, Nataliya G. (1969). Gardanov, V. K. (ed.). Кавказский этнографический сборник [Caucasian ethnographical collection] (PDF) (in Russian). Vol. 4. Moscow: Nauka. Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 July 2022.

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Some of these seem to be good academic sources: Coyle, Hasalni, Kazemzadeh, Levene. McCarthy might or might not be acceptable; would have to be attributed ("according to"...). The Le Temps article is a hundred years old and would have to be treated as a primary source. The others are very hard to evaluate. Basically, we are looking for academic texts by academic historians. There are academic journals on genocide studies which may have useful articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Itsmejudith Coyle's book makes lots of WP:Fringe claims and tries to write Armenians out of the history of Nagorno-Karabakh. Coyle also denies the destruction of the Armenian cemetery in Julfa and has been called out for this by another academic.[22] Hasanli is a genocide denier. The Kazemzadeh source is very old now and was outside his specialty area, I can also quote lines that show he had a bias if you would like. And the reliability of the Levene source isn't being questioned so much as the reliability of a single line within the source, which Levene uses McCarthy as a citation for. Levene also makes a comment in his footnote for McCarthy where he indirectly acknowledges McCarthy's reputation ("though with the unfortunate corollary that McCarthy radically downplays the specifically Armenian catastrophe"); not being willing to call McCarthy a genocide denier shows that Levene shouldn't be considered a reliable source for Armenia and Azerbaijan topics. It seems that Levene's field is Jewish history, and he also apparently disagrees with the UN definition of genocide. --Dallavid (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Coyle has been director of Middle East Studies at the US Army War College. You will need a very good argument to show that he is not generally reliable. Hasanli is clearly very close to/part of the Azerbaijan government, but the work cited is published by Routledge. Kazemzadeh, yes it is getting old. Levene is exactly the kind of scholar whose work we should be using. The book review you cite says that his definition of genocide is actually wider than that of the UN. These are just comments on the sources per se, and do not relate to how they are used in the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith, Hasanli's book was published by well established reliable scholarship such as Routledge 2 years after he joined the opposition, so he had no governmental ties when the book was published.

Firuz Kazemzadeh was a respected historian who wrote a number of published books related to the history of Caucasus. With regards to his book being very old now - I don't think it should be a huge problem, considering that WP:OLDSOURCES is mostly for cases when the subject is science, politics or fashion related, but when it comes to history, the guideline states that historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith On page 3 of Coyle book, Coyle calls Armenians "recent arrivals" in Nagorno-Karabakh and claims there were no Armenians before the 19th century, a common negationism in Azerbaijani historiography. Coyle is claiming the Artsakh (historical province) and Principality of Khachen didn't exist. On page 13, Coyle promotes Azerbaijani conspiracy theories blaming Armenians for the Sumgait pogrom as credible, which no reliable source would do. McCarthy has had his work published by the University of Utah and lectured at the University of Louisville, so I do not believe it is safe to assume every source is reliable just because it has an academic publisher. Turkey is known to provide funding to these institutes. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

You may be right but Coyle could only be dismissed as a source on the basis of academic reviews. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Coyle has been criticized for academic dishonesty by another academic. Coyle has also been cited extensively by Armenian genocide denier Michael Gunter to write about Armenians hostilely.[23] --Dallavid (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I forgot to ask an opinion on one more source:

• Hovannisian, Richard G., The Republic of Armenia, Vol. I (1971), Vol. II (1982), Vols. III & IV (1996) Berkeley: University of California Press - Is it considered mainstream academic history? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

20th-century ones are too old and shouldn't be used because newer sources are available, per WP:AGEMATTERS. The 21st-century scholarship published by established academic publishers (Springer, Routledge, university presses) are the best sources to use (WP:TIER1). Specifically:

• Baberovski 2010 - I do not know if ROSSPEN is reliable or not. My inclination is not to trust sources that are published in authoritarian countries without free speech protections (like Putin's Russia), especially about controversial matters, especially if this source contradicts other sources published elsewhere, because I don't know if the source will be independent of the authoritarian government. But for all I know, ROSSPEN might have a stellar reputation as an academic publisher, I'm not familiar enough to say one way or another.
• Balayev 1990 -- not OK, too old (WP:AGEMATTERS)
• Coyle 2021 - OK, recent scholarship (WP:TIER1)
• Hasanli 2015 - OK, recent scholarship
• Kazemzadeh 1951 - not OK, too old
• Korkotyan 1932 - not OK, too old
• Le Temps 1920 - not OK, too old
• Levene 2013 - OK, recent scholarship
• McCarthy - what is the citation?
• Mammadov 2008 - no idea, not familiar with the publisher
• Tarasov 2014 - probably not OK. The source refers to itself as an "essay", so it doesn't look like peer-reviewed scholarship. iarex.ru appears to be a group blog ([24]). It might be OK as WP:EXPERTSPS but I'm not familiar with the qualifications of the author. See my comments above about Russian publications, which apply here as well. Given how much recent scholarship is available, it's probably not necessary to use this source.
• Volkova 1969 - not OK, too old
• Hovannisian - not OK, too old

Levivich (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Assuming every source with an academic publisher to be reliable is probably safe at least 90% of the time, but it's still a very flawed reasoning. The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey was published by University of Utah Press but has been widely criticized for promoting genocide denial. Armenian History and the Question of Genocide by Armenian genocide denier Michael Gunter was published by Palgrave Macmillan. Turkey is known to funded western academics to promote genocide denial narratives, so it's wrong to assume academic publishers are incorruptible. In situations like this, shouldn't we be able to tell that if a source is full of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE content, it's not reliable? --Dallavid (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see Gunter in this list, so I'm not sure what relevance he has to these sources. It's not possible for a source to have WP:UNDUE content, that's a policy that applies to Wikipedia articles, not sources. (We don't require a source to be neutral.) I see no evidence presented here that any of the scholarly publications on this list are considered WP:FRINGE; maybe they are, but I just haven't seen the evidence presented yet. Levivich (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Scientific Journal Impact Factor (SJIF)

In this talk page thread, there is a discussion about the reliability of a paper published in the Review Journal of Philosophy and Social Science (website). There are various reasons why the paper itself is not reliable in context (see the thread on Talk:Badi' al-Din#Habs-I-dam above), but here I have a question about a metric used by the journal itself to present itself as reliable.

On the journal's website, it cites a Scientific Journal Impact Factor (SJIF) of 8.28. But this SJIF factor (see http://sjifactor.com/masterlist.php) itself seems rather dodgy. Whenever I type in the name or ISSN of a journal which I know to be highly reputable (e.g., Middle Eastern Studies, Bulletin of the School of Oriental & African Studies), I get 'There is no record with this parameter'.

I'm wondering whether this 'impact factor' includes any reputable journals at all, and if so, in what proportion? More broadly, is SJIF a reliable metric? Interestingly, Review Journal of Philosophy and Social Science on its website also cites Global Impact Factor (GIF), which redirects to a section in our article about impact factors on 'Counterfeit impact factors'. Would SJIF perchance be similar? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb: you called SJIF "fake" here; would you happen to know more? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thompson Reuter's JIF is the gold standard in that space. I believe that SJIF and RJIF are competitors of questionable merit, not sure they're fake exactly but certainly not as widely used or reliable. IMO JIF is the only one I've ever seen used to evaluate an academic for a position or tenure. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The only impact factor that has any weight is the ones compiled in Journal Citation Reports, all others are fake. That includes SJIF, GIF, and anything else with the word 'impact factor' in them that is not produced by Thomson ISI/Clarivate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Note that WP:UPSD will flag the SJIF as a dubious metric. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks a ton for that! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Impact factor is more of a metric for people who wish to publish with the journal. It is not in an of itself a stamp of approval for any paper. What matters on wikipeida is editorial oversight of some kind (e.g. fact checking process in place). If a paper is unreliable or not good, in your eyes, and is from a journal that does do peer review, then try looking for a paper from another journal challenging that paper. Can try google scholar to find many papers.Ramos1990 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thought if a journal advertises fake impact factors, that's a pretty clear red flag that it's a terrible publication to begin with, and shouldn't be cited. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you Headbomb. For sure that would be a red flag.Ramos1990 (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Why Behind the Voice Actors should not be considered a reliable source

I continue to believe the BtVA should be considered an unreliable source. I started an RfC a couple of months ago on this topic but it failed to attract any attention. I said this then: How on Earth did it manage to get listed as reliable this year? That they claim to do research does not make them reliable, since we have no way of checking that they did indeed do research and they are quite happy to list credits without any sort of public source. That their response in their FAQ to "your credit is inaccurate" is to defend their honour rather than provide information on a correction-submitting process is not a good sign, in my opinion. In fact, as far as I can tell, there is no correction-submitting process, which is a severe problem for any source hoping to be considered reliable, especially as I know for a fact, using actor's websites as sources, that their credits for at least one video game are wrong. If we have no means to know if they are actually doing research and fact-checking, yet keep them as a reliable source, why shouldn't we allow every random website that claims to have a fact-checking process as a source? I know someone will bring up the green tick, but if a credit has a green tick that means there's another, almost certainly better, source we can use. I appreciate this comes very soon after a previous RfC on the same site, but I wasn't aware of that until today and it seems to have been waved through based simply on its own claims of accuracy. I still agree with everything I said. Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Without any links to, well, anything, this is not a useful post. Can you explain exactly what is the problem here, using diffs to guide editors towards the problem you are describing? Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • It doesn't look reliable for very much, if anything. What do you mean, it was listed as reliable? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
    • previous thread, previous previous thread Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry Eldomtom2, I was thinking of commenting on your previous RFC. I think we need more links on their process to make a clearer decision. I see that previous discussions on reliability have been fairly short so probably a good idea to get deeper into this.Ramos1990 (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is my issue with them. All I can find by looking on their site regarding their process is this and this, and from the descriptions there at best their process is on par with Mobygames, which we don't consider a reliable source.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Ryan Wiik

Need some help with this. COI editor and subject User talk:Gryanwiik performed a "cleanup" which I reverted; it seemed like whitewashing to me. They disagree; see the article talk page and their talk page. They really want the article gone. C.Fred, last year, declined a PROD but sent it to AfD, which was inconclusive: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Wiik. I think the person might well be notable but in part that depends on the coverage in the Norwegian press. What this article needs is a good review/assessment/edit by an editor who can better figure out what to do with the sources than me, and your help is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

As a note on this, I didn't decline the PROD so much as it was ineligible for PROD, because it had been previously proposed for deletion and contested. As Drmies noted, what the article may need is somebody with skill in Norwegian, on account of the sources. But above all, the article needs to be reviewed by independent editors. I have no problem with the article staying, but because of the BLP issues in play, I'd prefer it be after multiple editors have affirmed the state of the article than from just a no consensus result at AfD. (Disclosure: I have no connection to or contact with Ryan Wiik, save for on-Wikipedia interactions with the editor who holds himself out as Wiik.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

C.Fred, thank you for the correction. Listen, I'm having one senior moment after another--I really should have put this on BLPN. Still, there's sourcing questions here--you think I should leave it here or move it? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies At some level, anywhere that bring additional eyes to help is good. Since there may be a concern with the Norwegian sources, this is as good a place as any to start. —C.Fred (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

A note on the Global Times

We've deprecated the Global Times, a tabloid owned by the Chinese Communist Party. Just as well, really - I was chatting to a couple of ex-GT journalists who confessed that they used to make up nonsense specifically so they could get it into Wikipedia! They concurred that deprecating the GT was absolutely the right move. Both are now working for solid RSes, I'm glad to say ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

OH. MY. GAWD. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

one of them was paying for (well, expensing) the evening out, which is the ideal condition to get journalists to admit things - David Gerard (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow, in what area did they do it? Alaexis_¿question? 09:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

bustimes.org and WP:UGC bus fleets

Hi all, looking for some further perspective on the matter of UK bus fleet lists.

I might be slightly biased from past contributions to that site, but bustimes.org, a UK-wide tracker of buses using timetables and tracking data from the Bus Open Data Service, began allowing registered users to make edits to 'fleet' sections of operators that have buses tracked on the service.

Unfortunately, I believe that now makes the site fall under WP:UGC, and I'm of the mind the the site should be considered highly unreliable when referring to bus fleets; timetables shouldn't be, however, I don't see any problem due to them being taken from BODS and uneditable by users.

I contend depreciating fleet list sourcing because users are free to change about tracked buses such as about bus type, bus livery and branding (there was a major internal conflict over this making routes harder to see in March last year), and crucially, whether a bus is withdrawn or not, at their own will - there have been edit wars about this in the past, see: [25], [26] and [27]. The site itself also says, very boldly, at the top of fleet list pages:

This is an unofficial and probably incomplete list of [operator] vehicles (or their ticket machines), created purely as a by-product of the live bus tracking system.

Remember: Ticket machines IDs don’t always correspond with the actual vehicles they’re attached to. Equipment is often swapped between vehicles.

Vehicles don’t always track all the time. If a journey isn’t listed, it doesn’t necessarily mean it didn’t operate.

I've removed a few fleet citations using Bustimes already, replacing those with fleet figures from either the operator or local/bus industry news sites, but I was wondering if there was wider consensus on this from other experienced editors. Not entirely sure if this really should be an RFC because I personally think the reliability issue is pretty clear-cut, but again, I'm open to different opinions. Hullian111 (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, anything which can be edited by any registered user is WP:UGC and therefore not reliable. Unless there's anyone disputing the facts as you have reported them, this seems totally clear cut and in no need of discussion Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a note that it is not currently an RfC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Showtime Analytics

Hi. I wanted to ask about the reliability of this website. According to a user editing the Dragon Ball Super: Broly article, Showtime Analytics is "literally the most accurate source you could possibly get and where all these reporting sites like Deadline and Box Office Mojo get their numbers from in the first place." Despite this, I just found four articles (including the previous mentioned) directly citing this website; in all of them, the website was cited by the same user. I can't find evidence of their claim nor previous discussion about the site, so I want some input about it.

On another note, there is another issue in the way the user is citing the website, which I already reported on Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Dragon Ball Super: Broly. I would appreciate any comment on it. Xexerss (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Legacy.com for death date of bio subject?

Is Legacy.com an RS for the date of death of Truddi Chase? Nightscream (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems like it can be. It works with newspapers. But if there are newspapers on Chase's obituary, it may have better standing - assuming they too are consistent with the dates. I do know that newspapers do get peoples age and dates of birth and death wrong too since many news articles are not fact checked well - with say youtubers who have died.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I looked into Legacy one other time since this was asked and this is what I found. As part of the obituary process, Legacy requires information to authenticate that a death occured. Usually a contact from a nursing home, or other end of life service. According to Legacy they pass this information onto the newspaper so the newspaper can use it in its own fact checking processes. Since this was apparently published in the Washington Post's newspaper, which is generally reliable, we can presume this is also reliable. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "since this was apparently published in the Washington Post's newspaper, which is generally reliable, we can presume this is also reliable" is correct. Most such entries are announcements that someone has paid for, not editorial content. Where does legacy.com state that it requires evidence of a date of death, and that it passes such evidence to a publisher? EddieHugh (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

If you actually go through the process on Legacy to get an obituary one of the things you need to provide is a contact from a death care provider and a name of a death care professional which Legacy says may be used by the newspaper affiliates to verify the death. So it's not Legacy which verifies the information, but the newspaper, in this case the washington post, which would have to verify the information. So the reliability is dependent on the newspaper and not Legacy. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

So in other words, the citation is reliable in this case, but this does not mean that Legacy.com is reliable as a general rule. Nightscream (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, if an honest-to-goodness reliable source has the information, like WaPo, why do we need to cite Legacy.com at all? --Jayron32 14:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Because we don't have the honest-to-goodness reliable source. The editor who added the cite added the Legacy.com page, and I couldn't find the original WaPo article via Google. Nightscream (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

How do we know that Legacy.com is actually citing a WaPo obituary? If it isn't reliable, maybe that isn't true either. --Jayron32 14:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The first three respondents above indicated that it is reliable. Nightscream (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Legacy.com works as an affiliate for multiple newspapers for their obituaries. It's not so much that Legacy is citing WaPo, but WaPo links to Legacy for obituaries. If you go to washington posts obituaries, and click the search death notices it takes you to legacy.com's search function for the washington posts's obituaries. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

But, that just means that the obituary exists at WaPo, and Legacy is just scraping WaPo for the obit. What I am saying is that Legacy.com is redundant here: Either it allows you to find the actual obit at WaPo and read it yourself, which means don't cite Legacy, OR it claims to be doing so, but when you look you find that it can't actually be done, which also means don't cite Legacy. WaPo already exists. Use Legacy if it helps you find the original issue of the Post to find the obit itself, if you want, but cite the original. --Jayron32 16:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but WaPo providing the link function to search for obituaries is an obvious use by others situation. We trust Legacy for this because WaPo trusts legacy for this. If the original can't be readily found, which would be very likely for local print versions of WaPo, then there is no reason to not use legacy. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thats not a "use by others situation" obvious or otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

How WaPo, a highly regarded source, uses legacy is a use by others situation. In this case they use legacy uncritically by providing the search function from legacy directly on their obituaries page. The death notice search function on WaPo's obituaries page is Legacy.com. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Using a search function is not the same thing as using something as a reliable source. This is not a "use by others situation." Many sites use Google to provide a search function, that doesn't make Google a WP:RS RE used by others. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you just not follow this entire discussion? The reliability on legacy is dependent on the reliability of the news org publication. Legacy acts as an affiliate for the newspaper, and provides online archival of things that would make it to physical print, but may not be on the online newspaper. Death notices published by WaPo are handled online by Legacy. You can see this by going to WaPo's obituaries and clicking on any of the death notices, they go to Legacy, with a note on legacy saying it was published in the WaPo. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we can circumvent this entire question by saying in the article, "It was reported by Legacy.com that Foo Barson died on date", and let the readers decide how much to credit the information. BD2412 T 19:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't do that. Ever. But Legacy.com is a reliable source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

We should do that for relatively noncontroversial claims such as the specific date of death for a subject for whom it is uncontested that they are dead. We can never be 100% accurate—even the New York Times makes the occasional mistake—but we can always point the reader to the best available information. BD2412 T 21:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

True. We provide the best available information, be it from The New York Times or Legacy.com. We don't ask the reader to work it out. That's our job. If it is uncontested, then we present it to the reader. The reference provides the source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

What about using the "via" parameter in the citation template like I did here? Cite WaPo as the original source, but Legacy in the "via" parameter as the source that reprinted it, where we, the editors, found it? Would that be an acceptable compromise, at least until the original article, or a substitute, may be found? Is Legacy not reliable enough to even do this, as the other editors above opined? (Just asking.) Nightscream (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Back to "one of the things you need to provide is a contact from a death care provider and a name of a death care professional which Legacy says may be used by the newspaper affiliates to verify the death"... but does that cover the date of death or merely the fact that a person has died? EddieHugh (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

FYI last month I asked a similar question in a specific case at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive344#Paid obituaries as sources for death of BLP and the general answer was paid obits are OK to use for date and maybe place of death. I'm not sure how far that consensus goes, but I hope we can put some guidance at WP:OBITUARIES. Levivich (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't notice that one at the time. I would probably have disagreed, or at least recommended more caution, but it's archived now. EddieHugh (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7:: "We don't do that. Ever."

Well, actually, we do do that, in particular when we need to emphasize the attribution of the information, like when we attribute an opinion to a film critic in an article on a movie, or when we describe positions held by different sides in a controversial matter, or when we present a direct quote, etc.

Btw, hope your legs are healing well. :-) Nightscream (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

spanamwar.com

Noticed this site being added to several articles. It doesn't appear to have the necessary features to be a reliable source, and may be a sales portal for Amazon, but I thought I'd seek some additional opinions. Thanks - wolf 23:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• My initial reaction was that this was that it's just another of hundreds of military history fansites regularly cited here, that are nothing more than self-published group or individual blogs. But in this case, reviewing the "about us" page, it appears that the principal author and editor is actually a subject-matter expert who has been extensively published in other reliable publications. So, I think that this source, contrary to all expectations, is actually reliable. Banks Irk (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Meduza and

Hello everyone, is this work by Meduza reliable enough for mentioning, with attribution, the first explanations for the 2023 Brovary helicopter crash? Mhhossein ^talk 06:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

There's also also another source on this matter. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything controversial here and this is pretty much what was reported by other sources. Why do you (or someone else) think it may not be reliable? Alaexis_¿question? 08:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I would say Meduza is generally reliable though regrettably they often repost social media messages (with attribution). Their own materials are usually fine, both in English and in Russian. Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

In my experience it is generally reliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

FightBack! News reliable enough for citations?

I'm working on revamping the article Students for a Democratic Society (2006 organization), which hasn't had any substantial updates since 2009 despite still being an extremely active organization to the present. The problem is, as a grassroots activist group, it isn't well covered by news, and as a student activist group, student news coverage is often way too difficult to find if there is any. That said, it's very well covered by FightBack News, since most of the articles about SDS are written and submitted by the members of SDS themselves, making it a primary source. The site itself is affiliated with Freedom Road Socialist Organization, but its paper is open to circulating news from groups unaffiliated with the Organization, including SDS.

I would frankly argue it is reliable, despite politically motivated claims to the contrary. As someone who's attended some of the protests being written about, it's one of the best sources for information from the perspectives of the organizers. Again, these are often effectively primary sources. It would be a shame if I can't use this as a source as it would basically leave the article as is, which is to say extremely inaccuarate and outdated without much ability to add information about the work SDS has carried out in the last 14 years. Thoughts? -Skyler 21:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem with the article as it stands is that about half of the sources are SDS sources and some of the others are dubious. I would argue that the Alternet source, which needs to have the archive at [https://www.alternet.org/story/49557/the_%2760s_are_gone%2C_but_one_of_its_most_controversial_organizations_is_back] is ok because it is written by Astra Taylor. The whole politics section is self-sourced. Just as I would argue for a right wing article, this needs to be based mainly on secondary sources, and it isn't. Doug Weller talk 14:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that's doable. -Skyler 15:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing needs to be reliable and independent. Sounds like FightBack News fails that second part, if articles about SDS are written by SDS then they are self published sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of two Japanese gaming websites (Den Fami Nico Gamer and Automaton Media)

Are Den Fami Nico Gamer (https://news.denfaminicogamer.jp/) and Automaton Media (https://automaton-media.com/) considered reliable sources? It appears that both websites have been used in numerous articles throughout Wikipedia (some of which are GA) for mostly Japanese video game/anime subjects, and they appear to be reputable within gaming communities in and out of Japan. I'd like to hear what others think, especially if you understand Japanese. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)