Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

How many sources?

There should be a defined number of reliable third party sources an article needs to be considered notable. I have seen articles with as few as 4 sources, so that seems like a reasonable amount. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• A lot is going to depend on what those sources are. For example, a somewhat obscure historical person might be deemed notable even with only one cited source listed in the article - if that source is substantial and written by a well regarded biographer. Another historical person might not be deemed notable even with multiple cited sources - if all those sources are simply brief mentions of the subject’s name in books about other things entirely. In other words, quality of sources matters a lot more than quantity of sources. Blueboar (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  If you want to follow up on this, then you should probably be talking about it at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Before you do that, though, spend some time contemplating WP:NACADEMIC items 4 and 7, which do not appear to require any sources at all (third-party or otherwise) to justify their inclusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  Ok. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Amend REPUTABLE to be explicit that reputation must be from other reliable sources

Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, current article reads. We should make it explicit that the reputation is one as found in other reliable published sources. This may be a bit circular, but it resolves an ambiguity. I believe this is already implied. Andre🚐 23:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I would say among high-quality sources instead. This makes it clear that the quality matters; not every WP:GREL source is equal. And it somewhat reduces the circularity, while incorporating all the other things we use to judge a source's quality. --Aquillion (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Works for me. Andre🚐 23:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. No examples have been given that might hint what the intended effect is, but one might be: instead of repute being something that the general population accepts, it becomes something that appears only in the journals that pat each other on their respective backs. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

So you believe it is better to have the reputation be based on the general population? And how is that measured? Isn't it better to have the reputation be amongst reputable fact checkers, reputable books and academic journals, and other high-quality sources that we consider usable and generally reliable for facts? Why should it be a popularity content amongst the general populace? And an example of the intended effect would be to require other reliable sources to be used for evidence in RSN discussions, and categorically exclude sources such as WP:MBFC and WP:ADFONTES from being used. Andre🚐 00:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Cambridge Dictionary definition starts with the words "the opinion that people in general have ...". For ways to measure read Public opinion. Thanks for an example, now I know that an intended effect is to prevent other editors from citing sources even in noticeboard discussions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

But we've never had these discussions about what public opinion polls say. We have them based on what reliable sources say. Andre🚐 19:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you indicate where this has recently been an issue? NebY (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_385, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_390, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_384, CTRL+F for "ADFONTES" and "MBFC" Andre🚐 19:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you'll find it's more complicated than that.

First, WP:MBFC and related entries are exclusively about what you can write/cite in an article. There is absolutely nothing in there that says you can't, as an exercise of your own personal Wikipedia:Editorial discretion, look at one of those and decide that, since Ad Fontes Media gave a poor rating to Pseudo News, you're going to look for a better source. That would normally be a highly desirable outcome.

Second, we don't require all sources to have that "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"; we only want articles to be Wikipedia:Based upon such sources. Some sources that have bad reputations (Trump's Twitter account?) or no reputation at all (very common) can still be used, just like non-independent sources can be used, too. Such sources shouldn't dominate the article, but they can be used, and they can be used for key points and even contentious or unpleasant content ("I am not a crook" – said nearly every crook ever).

Third, I wonder how you could demonstrate a reputation (for anything) if you have no sources indicating anything about the reputation. Consequently, I wonder whether such a change would make any practical difference.

As a practical matter, we normally enforce this at the opposite level: It doesn't need to have a reputation for being good, but it shouldn't have a reputation for being bad. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The exceptions for SELFPUBISHED sources like a twitter account are very specific carveouts. They would lack WEIGHT and can only be used for very specific types of facts. I'm talking about amending the policy to define "reputable" and "reputation" to make sure that reputation comes from other reliable, high-quality sources - but that could also apply only to the "based upon" sources or "high quality" sources. Currently, if this is a gray area or charitably, the interpretation is that a "reputation" means a reputation amongst editors or amongst the general populace, that makes it a popularity contest. To your point that how you could demonstrate a reputation (for anything) if you have no sources indicating anything about the reputation you could demonstrate that by citations in other sources, or by sources that describe that reputation e.g. newspaper A calls newspaper B a paper of record. Right now, as you say, we only look for the opposite: when a source was discredited. My point is that the source for acceptable evidence should come from other reliable sources: not from unreliable ones, or from editors' heads (original research) Andre🚐 23:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

What problem is this going to fix? Can you point to a discussion where this would come into play? Springee (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the major effect of this in practice would be to constrain the available sources for discussion on the RSN to other RS, and prevent usage of non-RS to make arguments for or against a given source's reliability. Since right now, one can argue, as it is argued above, that a "reputation" doesn't mean a reputation within the normal source of factual record we use (i.e., RS) but that a reputation is simply according to editors or the general population. So if editors read a non-RS, such as a twitter page or a site like MBFC/ADFONTES, they could use that to determine the reputation of a source. IMHO, that is a misread of the policy but if it's a gray area, or the policy doesn't actually specify the source of the reputation, this would address that scenario. Andre🚐 00:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I'm opposed to that. When trying to decide if a source is good/bad we certainly should be allowed to make/use arguments from sources that wouldn't be acceptable in the article space. Adfonts et al would be one example. A self published paper by a subject matter expert would be another. For example, if Burt Rutan disagreed with a RS on the subject of aircraft design that would be a red flag even if the NYT said the source was solid. I do see your concern regarding popularity contest but what if an auto writer for the WashPo disagreed with Racecar Engineering Magazine? Do we automatically assume the WashPo is correct? If Adrian Reynard said a book on automobile dynamics was crap despite being well reviewed in the popular press, well I would listen to Adrian before any writer in the mainstream press. Is there an example where you think this change would have made a difference? Springee (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

In the cases you give, a high-quality expert source, or academic source, would still weight more highly and be valid. This would exclude sources such as Newsguard, Adfontes, and MBFC, from RSN, that consensus had already determined were unreliable for article space, from being used to determine what sources are reliable. A source that would be usable for a high-quality cite in article space, would still be usable for determining reliability as well. It completes the web of trust by ensuring that sources are judged by only other reliable sources that could be used to cite a fact in article space. Adfontes and MBFC are considered unreliable, because they have an unclear methodology and are essentially self-published, same with Newsguard, recent RFCs on RSN have determined they aren't reliable and there's even an explicit warning about MBFC when you go to start a new posting on RSN, as I've mentioned in the past. Present ambiguity would allow editors to consult unreliable sources to form an opinion on a source's reliability. This would firmly enmesh the reliability of sources into what can be demonstrated using only other reliable sources, preventing original research, or consultation of potentially skewed or misleading sources of information for determining reliability. Without this amendment or a similar amendment, I do think there's an ambiguity and the reliability guideline on less sound footing than it could be. Andre🚐 01:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: This looks like a bad idea. Springee (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Not Reliable. Published.

Except that 'published' is NOT 'reliable'. Is it? Published is only ... published. All manner of crap is published. Nothing - not anything - is reliable merely by virtue of publication.

If Wikipedia wants to rely on published sources (God help it) it should say so, and not resort to [ironically, unreliable] euphemisms such as 'reliable'. 122.151.210.84 (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Acceptable sources must be both published and reliable. It is not complicated. Cullen328 (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, there are countless sources that are published but clearly unreliable. Those sources are of no value as references on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia will declare the New York Times as reliable while saying that Breitbart is not. The New York Times is quite obviously biased for the left, while Breitbart is biased for the right. The reliable sources requirements on Wikipedia often include "old stallwarts" like Vox, Vice, and other far left publications, while not extending the same courtesy to far right publications. The vast majority of the editors on Wikipedia are leftists and liberals.... so no one should be surprised. 172.59.104.102 (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we're more concerned about the problems that have resulted in the Breitbart News saying that they have "published a number of conspiracy theories and intentionally misleading stories" than about its "bias". Biased sources can be reliable. Publications that edit videos to make it seem like the speaker said something that they didn't – well, not so much. The Wall Street Journal, for example, is widely considered to be right-leaning, and it's cited in tens of thousands of articles. That's because it doesn't have a reputation for publishing fiction and pretending that it's news. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times is not obviously biased to the left. But if you are pretty far to the right you'll probably see most media biased to the left. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The short list in Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources#"Secondary" does not mean "good" might be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

RSQUOTE

WP:RS/QUOTE says:

The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article.

I propose removing the word secondary from the middle. We need the text to be taken from a reliable source, but it doesn't really matter whether that source is secondary. There are times when another primary source (e.g., a press release by a company or politician that quotes and apologizes for a tone-deaf tweet they made) or a tertiary source is just as good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing made a bold change to remove "secondary" on 22 December 2022, I reverted, along with a reference to a disagreement on the WP:V talk page, Sources that summarize other sources. I can't think where "not possible" actually applies. I suppose the example of a "tone-deaf tweet" is for a tweet that was deleted, but the tweeter's press release is a discussion of what the tweet supposedly said and so is secondary. I continue to oppose this change. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Press releases are primary sources. (They are also self-published and frequently non-independent of their subject matter.) Quoting someone doesn't transform the source into a secondary source. See WP:LINKSINACHAIN.

"Not possible" could apply to since-deleted recent contents, but it can also apply to lost works. Frequently what we know about works published a thousand years ago is only what someone claimed was in it 500 years ago (see "medieval and ancient works, even if they cite earlier known or lost writings" in the relevant policy).

Similarly, if a history textbook for schools quotes a bit of the US Declaration of Independence, or even reprints it in full, then that tertiary source is accepted by editors. Specifying that we must use secondary sources amounts to a ban on most textbooks available to students. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Citing a school textbook for a quote of that declaration, despite the fact that original or secondary sources could be found, would be against the current wording of WP:RS/QUOTE. Are you suggesting that your proposal would make it okay? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• I have to agree with WhatamIdoing here… The key is to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. If you looked at the text of a high school history textbook when quoting the Declaration of Independence, that textbook is what you should cite. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  Isn't the question one of where you should take the quotation from - in your example, should you look at a high school history textbook for it? NebY (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• More Background: Possibly wrong: The first edition of the section is due to an addition in April 2009 by Mangoe. The specific phrase "from a reliable secondary source" is due to an edit in November 2010 by Blueboar. Blueboar said "based upon talk", which I guess means talk page thread = Quotations. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  Looking at that discussion, it appears that editors were thinking that there are only two available sources:

  • the original, authoritative source for the quotation, which is primary; and
  • sources that discuss the quotation, which are secondary.

  This is, however, a significant oversimplification of reality, especially for pop culture and recent events. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• As the instigator of the passage, I have two remarks here. First, the textbook sourcing for the Declaration is not a compelling case. We are on the internet; we can source it from the National Archives. Both are, technically, secondary sources, but the second is clearly more authoritative as a transcription. Either way I'm not seeing the relevance here, because the word "secondary" is implied by the context. The point of the prescription is that, in the quest for accuracy and authority, quotations need to be taken from as close to the original as possible. When it is not possible to use the primary source, we need to minimize the train of transmission. And when we're talking ancient "quotations", the primary source is actually the initial publication of the translation, and yes, we ought to get as close to that as possible. And again, this being on the internet, those primary translation sources are typically on-line. Mangoe (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Mangoe, what makes you think that an accurate transcription of a document is a secondary source? From the article: "Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." It's not a matter of counting up the number of WP:LINKSINACHAIN. An accurate transcription of a primary source is still a primary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Saying that it's an accurate transcription is begging the question: you don't know it is accurate unless you compare it against a more authoritative copy. And if such is available, we ought to prefer it as our source. That's really what my original version of this guideline is about. Mangoe (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mangoe, let's stipulate that the National Archives has put an accurate copy of the Declaration of Independence on its website. Their accurate copy isn't a secondary source. Reproducing a primary source results in a copy of a primary source. It does not result in a secondary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to try to re-phrase this in a way that makes the problem clearer. Here are two versions of the disputed sentence. These two sentences mean exactly the same thing.

• If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source.
• If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable source that provides generalization, analysis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original quotation.

@Peter Gulutzan and others: Would you be satisfied with the second version? Keep in mind that all I've done is replace the word secondary with the standard definition of what that word means.

If, as I have suggested, you believe that the key point is that we need a source that is unlikely to have screwed up, rather than a source that provides some sort of transformative scholarly comment on the quotation, then perhaps you will see why I think this word should be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess you're thinking of WP:SECONDARY when you say "the standard definition of what that word means", while I admit I think of non-Wikipedia definition e.g. Oxford Learner's Dictionary "book or other source of information where the writer has taken the information from some other source and not collected it himself or herself", I don't believe that's the wrong thing to do when Wikipedia's description doesn't match an ordinary meaning that an ordinary user might know. But if it is, then the other argument, that secondary excludes tertiary, is still in your way. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the line I quoted comes from the Wikipedia article, Secondary source. For Wikipedia's purposes, a secondary source is something that intellectually transforms one or more original ("primary") sources into a new thing. Merely repeating it secondhand is not enough; see WP:LINKSINACHAIN.

(It sounds like that dictionary may be engaging in the practice of lies to children; secondary is not identical to secondhand.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The grownup version is about the same. OED entry for "secondary", 3a: "Belonging to the second order in a series related by successive derivation, causation, or dependence; derived from, based on, or dependent on something else which is primary; not original, derivative." I had to go down a long way till I saw something remotely resembling what you called standard: "Draft additions September 2007 ... In the context of academic research or writing: designating or relating to analytical or critical commentary on material which forms the primary subject of study; designating a text with another text as its subject. Frequently contrasted with primary adj. 17." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Are restaurant reviews reliable sources?

Are restaurant reviews reliable sources? Are restaurant reviews independent sources?

There are a lot of articles about restaurants in Portland, Oregon, that are for a big part sourced with restaurant reviews and listings from "local" newspapers (i.e. newspapers active in Portland). As example this version of restaurant Yonder that to my opinion is filled with spammy and irrelavant info, so I did cut it out. The original author declares on the talkpage Talk:Yonder (restaurant)#Recent changes that restaurant reviews are reliable sources.

I like to have more opinions. The Banner talk 18:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"RS" alone doesn't address what I think that you are asking about. IMO the fundamental question is whether they can be used to fulfill the the source/coverage requirements for WP:Notability. IMO no, and we should reinforce that somewhere. North8000 (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@North8000 For this discussion, I'd appreciate if we focus on the appropriateness of using such sources and not necessarily notability. As far as I can tell, The Banner seems to think reviews cannot be used for adding claims to articles, even for details such as menu items, which to me is absurd. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes I segued a bit, but to an area which be relevant on many of those discussions...where the article itself shouldn't exist. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I have stated two clear questions at the beginning: if restaurant reviews are reliable sources and if they are independent sources. Let us start with getting an answer on these questions first. The Banner talk 21:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• A restaurant review is reliable for the attributed opinion of the reviewer. The next question is whether that reviewer’s opinion is WP:DUE… and THAT depends on who the reviewer is. Blueboar (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• It's obvious that this is so conditional on the source itself. If it's a reviewer that isn't paid to review, like most newspapers and news sites, you can cite them for describing the facts like attributes and history of the operation, and cite their opinions, staying clearly that they opine that. Other than that qualification, we really just have to look at places like WP:RSP to see if the publisher itself is reliable. ɱ (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

RSP is not the be-all-and-end-all of reliability. It is simply a list of sources that have been discussed “perennially” (ie over and over again). Blueboar (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Duh, read my comment again. ɱ (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

When I see how some editors use and talk about RSP, I'm not sure that they consider this to be such an obvious point.

The fundamental problem is that whether a source is "reliable" depends on the sentence/material you want it to support. A video of Donald Trump is not a reliable source for the claim that "85 percent of the people that wear masks catch [COVID-19]". That same source could be perfectly reliable for a statement in a Wikipedia article that said "Donald Trump once said that '85 percent of the people that wear masks catch it'".

I wish we had different words to describe reliable-for-the-statement and probably-useful-in-general. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC: The elephant in the room: AI sources

As AI is becoming increasingly prevalent and beginning to be used by sources considered reliable, I think it is time to ask: are sources written by an AI reliable, regardless of publication? If an AI article is written by a reliable publication, does it differ from an article written by the same AI from a situational or unreliable publication? Does that differ from an average person using that same AI? What about articles only assisted by an AI? (see also: the ongoing RSN discussion of CNET). DecafPotato (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

No. This is obvious and does not need and RFC. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb, is it obvious? Most cases of AI writing aren't the CNET "running wild with tons of errors" type. Most of them are edited to contain factual information. This is asking about AI articles in general on reliable sources, not "is an unedited response I got from ChatGPT reliable".

If consensus is obvious, close it early, sure, but to me, it is not. And not a single person had a chance to reply when you reverted it. DecafPotato (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

One, there has been no WP:RFCBEFORE that I can find. Two, it clearly falls into WP:UGC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Taking a look at the Verge report over in the discussion about CNET, this is what stands out to me regarding AI assisted sources: "...editing its work took much longer than editing a real staffer’s copy. The tool also had a tendency to write sentences that sounded plausible but were incorrect, and it was known to plagiarize language from the sources it was trained on..."

Based on that report, AI assisted writing would therefore fall under WP:GUNREL. If a souce is using a specific byline for its AI writing then that byline can be deprecated much as we already to with Forbes: Columns written Forbes contributors are considered unreliabile opinion pieces but articles composed by Forbes staff writiers are reliable. But if we cannot differentiate between when and where AI assisted writing is being used then the entire source comes into question for reliability. Blue Riband► 01:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Here’s a question… how do we know whether a source was written by an AI? Suppose, for the sake of argument, a here-to-fore reliable source (say the New York Times) uses an AI to write a news article… how would we know? Blueboar (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  In a nutshell we can't know until a pattern emerges. Then there will need to be a discussion on whether or not the previously reliable source has become questionable after a certain date. Blue Riband► 13:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Whether AI was used or not isn't central for whether or not a source is trustworthy. In most cases it's just one tool used in the process of creating a source.

For each source we should look at it's actual reliability. Unedited ChatGPT obviously is not reliable. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the embargo on IMDB

A heckofalot of articles here on WP are about movies. A heckofalot of information about movies is on IMDB, and I would have to suggest it is pretty reliable, and should be considered as such. I get the feeling that most people there do their work in good faith. As an editor, as a person, I have to go on good faith. Same as Find a Grave, which I also contribute to. Has WP actually studied IMDB or FG and documented how frequently they perpetuates lies? or what sort of political bias they are governed by? Heck, I still advise people to worry about WP: the new/old adage still applies: don't believe anything you read on the Internet. check the sources; read'em if you have to. Because the IMDB is a valuable resource, a way should be found to allow its use. Here's a suggestion: a little disclaimer - just like the omnipresent BLP disclaimers at the top of bio pages: "This page cites IMDB for some of the information presented herein. While we believe IMDB to be generally reliable, please use your own judgement when reading it. Seek other sources if you are in doubt." I say all this because I was reverted for trying to answer some questions about TV appearances by the actress Tracy Camilla Johns. I might simply have gone to the editor who asked for the additions to go to IMDB. It certainly would have been easier than spending 20 minutes on lookups. And on this complaint. Verne Equinox (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Verne Equinox: Have you read WP:IMDB? This was discussed and agreed some years ago. It's not likely to be overturned unless IMDb seriously change their policy regarding user-submitted content. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I want to add name

I want to add name of poet of my city who died 30 yrs ago but his work is still encouraging younger generation of my city. How can I add? Please help 2402:3A80:B52:AA41:1446:7D2E:6794:C7E6 (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)