Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by A Quest For Knowledge (talk | contribs) at 17:17, 27 November 2023 (→Cutting most of the header: For what it's worth, the previous header was created in 2012...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
WikiProject iconReliability
WikiProject iconThis page is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ReliabilityWikipedia:WikiProject ReliabilityTemplate:WikiProject ReliabilityReliability articles

Dexerto archived without RfC close

I don't know the standard procedure, but can this thread be un-archived so it can be closed properly? Alyo (chat·edits) 15:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was this taken care of? Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_416#Dexerto. --Hipal (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was, thanks for checking in! Alyo (chat·edits) 04:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting most of the header

There're several problem with the notice board header. It's bloated, contains overly detailed instructions (which are likely to just be skipped), has multiple points about RFC, and other redundant boxes and text.

  1. Are a box to purge the page or the Cent box really necessary?
  2. Pointers to other noticeboards are all well and good, but they are ignored by those they'd help and unnecessary for those that don't need them.
  3. Overly detailed instructions on what to include in your post is read by no-one, as proved by every thread. Simpler cut down instructions may actually be read.
  4. Instructions on how to setup and RFC should just be cut. Editors who don't know how to setup an RFC are unlikely to be setting up an appropriate RFC.
  5. Both new and more established editors seem to have odd ideas about RSN. The text While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy could do with being a bit more prominent.
  6. The formatting is mangled on narrow screens.

I'm not technically adapt with the relevant markup, but I've mocked up something to show my points here. I wanted to merge the archive boxes at the end into the "Search the noticeboard archives" box, but it's beyond me.
Suggestions, criticisms, and edits to the mock up would be warmly welcomed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging BilledMammal, Bon courage, Banks Irk, Springee, Selfstudier as you where part of the discussion above. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm all in favor of cutting this down to simplify and increase the odds that editors actually read it. All of the points are good ones. I'm a big fan of point #3 of the XYZ formula that I often repeat, but it's probably going to be ignored just like the current version, which is basically the same thing. Banks Irk (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We're all flooded by messages and warning in modern life, to the point they are just ignored. My thoughts were that by minimising it editors might actually feel like it could be worth reading. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree 100%. Minimizing instructions increases the likelihood that they'll be read and followed, but by no means guarantees it. Banks Irk (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not certain this change will fix the problem but it seems at least to be a reasonable try. That said, I would suggest posting the proposed text/changes here first. Springee (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mocked up an idea of how it would look here. I thought posting the whole header into the talk page might be a bit much. The mock up isn't a complete but gives an idea of what I suggest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That does reduce the length but I think I missed how that would address the concern about too many RfCs. Am I not following this correctly? If the intent is to cut things down then add some sort of statement about "before RfC do X" (not saying to phrase it that way) then I think this is moving in the right direction. I would suggest getting more eyes before making any changes because this is a high traffic notice board but many may not notice this discussion. Springee (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My intent was to remove all mention of RFCs. Most of these seem to come from new(ish) editors, and I'm guessing the one bit of the header they read are the parts about RFCs. Editors who already know about RFCs don't need instruction on how to set one up. Any advice on how to garner more attention? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I see your intent. I'm not sure that's better than a prescriptive instruction but given the length in question perhaps you are onto something. As for getting more traction, I would suggest adding a notice on RSN (non-talk), VP-(not sure which one), perhaps RS-talk? Springee (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's got to be worth a try, at least. We seem to have had loads of unnecessary and badly-formed RFCs recently. I don't see anything obvious that your mockup is missing which I think desperately needs inclusion Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Three cheers for fewer RfCs. As a suggestion: Keep all the instructions but put them behind a hard-to-find link. For people who have trouble remembering how to do things. For sure, though, when it comes to something you want people to read, an uncluttered and simple layout will greatly improve the odds of it being read. Elinruby (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good idea! I'd keep just the instructions (#3 in your list) after trimming them a bit. Hopefully once the other stuff is removed they will be more prominent and more users will follow them.
The rule about an RfC needed to deprecate or "gunrel" a source needs to be *somewhere*, either here or in WP:RS. Alaexis¿question? 09:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some text for the instructions you think would work?
I'm wondering if how RFCs for sources should be handled, including deprecation, the standing of WP:RSP, etc might be better handled in an essay that could be linked from the header. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need {{notaforum}}? I don't see many forum-esque posts here, and it is overly prominent compared to other elements. Ca talk to me! 14:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I think that the notaforum template could be dropped. Banks Irk (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the box, and replaced it with a bulletin point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I generally support the trim but I oppose removing the text to the effect of Requests for comment for deprecation, or for blacklisting or classification as generally unreliable of sources that are widely used in articles, should be registered here using {{rfc|prop}}. These RfCs should only be opened if a source has been subject to perennial discussion. As usual with RfCs, consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based argument. It can be made more concise, though, and more descriptive. Andre🚐 18:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about
RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been subject to perennial discussion. RFCs must comply with WP:RFC, including WP:RFCBEFORE. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based argument.
Banks Irk (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if an essay for RSN might be an idea. How and when RFCs should be used, what the generally reliable, marginally reliable, unreliable, deprecated mean and how and when they should be used, common issues (e.g.WP:SPS/WP:UGC/WP:BIASED/WP:MEDRS etc). This could then be linked in the header, rather than trying to put it all in the header directly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all in favor of shorter vs longer when it comes to the header, though I do like the idea of something in there right up front that actively discourages RFCs. Banks Irk (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the place to put the "Essay" is in the intro to WP:RSP, along the lines of "if you want something listed here, jump through the following hoops". Banks Irk (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Banks Irk has a good idea about where to locate the instructions. Please include something like "Add a links to at least three prior discussions of this source. If there haven't been at least three prior discussions, we'll remove your RFC." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to that. Andre🚐 16:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I love the idea of reducing this, but I think that we've kept more than we need (e.g., RSP is mentioned twice; we don't need to make a big deal about WP:V being a policy and RS being a guideline) and lost the one thing that I have always valued. I think we need to push the idea that WP:RSCONTEXT matters, and therefore you need to show up with:
  • the source,
  • the article, and
  • the sentence/claim under discussion.
Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine is an excellent source, and one that I'd like to see in Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, but it is completely unreliable for statements about celebrities, or films, or books, or sports. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is how to state this simply without many caveats. Having a lot of bolded bullet points just ensures they are not read. RSCONTEXT is key but a simple one or two line explanation is required that can direct new users to supply the details required. I've tried adding such into the first box, replacing a sentence that half covered the same details.
Andrevan and Banks Irk I've done something similar for the RFCs, but folded the second sentence into the first (so the WP: links appear as normal text).
Link to the mock-up. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It generally makes sense, but I would add something to the effect of "You can also start a general discussion about whether a source is reliable" since that is something that is permitted in the current iteration. Andre🚐 21:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made changes to the wording, and invite others to review. DFlhb (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the changes, much easier wording.
Andrevan I think editors will do this anyway. It's certainly allowed, and although context is key it's not always necessary to have all three point (you can't use forum posts about the validity of vaccines it doesn't matter what article, you can't use a blogpost not written by the subject in a BLP regardless of the claim). Also it's helpful to remember that many posts are editors asking for advice, so pointers on how to identify a reliable source might be the right answer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like these edits. Banks Irk (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the previous header was created in 2012 after much discussion with the goal of keeping the instructions simple and clear as possible using minimal text and careful selection of bolding and colors.[1] At the time, it contained 177 words (1,768 characters). It appears that over time, it suffered from scope creep until it reached 485 words (3,109 characters).[2] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the header

Having fixed a formatting issue. I've boldly made the changes to the header discussed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good job!Banks Irk (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Next I'm going to look at at the edit notice. It has the same overly detailed instructions, and on mobile most of them don't even display. First pass at a mock-up is here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also wondering if it's possible to change the box for the archives search to eliminate the long list of every archive page. It seems to be that it's pretty useless and takes up a lot of room especially on mobile. Banks Irk (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should auto-collaspe, is it not for you? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the current header on an Android phone running Chrome. The long list of archive pages doesn't collapse below the archives search box. Banks Irk (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added nomobile to the archive list, so I think this should now be fixed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also any issue if I move this to the section above, as this is about the header rather than the edit notice.
(I did this) -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested changes to the edit notice

The current header can be seen here:
Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Following the changes to the header I'd like to suggest changing the edit notice as well. It currently consists of the detailed instructions the header had, and instructions on RFCs. It suffers the same points as the header, specifically:

  1. Overly detailed instructions on what to include in your post is read by no-one, as proved by every thread. Simpler cut down instructions may actually be read.
  2. Instructions on how to setup and RFC should just be cut. Editors who don't know how to setup an RFC are unlikely to be setting up an appropriate RFC.

Worse on mobile the details overflow the top of the screen, so only the RFC instructions are actually visible.

As a solution I'm suggesting to replace the current notice with the statements on CONTEXT the new RFCs from the new header, with a new addition covering common questions. The mock-up can be seen here:
User:ActivelyDisinterested/temp2
All comments welcomed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like it Banks Irk (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous instead of previously but overall that is nice and concise, I checked on mobile and the original really is as bad as you say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support the change. Springee (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea. I just checked how it looked on my mobile phone and it still doesn't fit on screen. Maybe we can lose the previous RFC note too? Obviously unproper RFCs aren't that damaging, I think. For the avoidance of doubt, I support the change even if the RFC note stays. Alaexis¿question? 20:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One major consideration in shortening the header was to actively discourage and limit RFCs. Banks Irk (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no objections by the weekend I'll post a edit request on the template. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I were you I would add the MBFC notice:
Do not start discussions just because Media Bias/Fact Check differs with WP:RSP, as MBFC is an unreliable source.
But otherwise great job. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could we hold of on this for the moment? Although there was a spate of such comments they seem to have died down, and space on the edit notice is limited as discussed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Szmenderowiecki, ping as I doubt you're watching the thread. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathise with the thought behind the suggestion, but I agree that instances of this have fallen off recently. I would not include this; the impetus for these revisions is shortening and simplifying the notices and instructions. Banks Irk (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll see if there is a resurgence of MBFC posts Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobin

Kind regards. I'm starting this discussion following the advice of the closing statement of the last Jacobin RfC, which said that a separate discussion could be started.

The main question that I have is how we can address the concerns about the previous discussion closure, as well as questions raised afterwards (such as at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 407#https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea). Since the previous closure was not disputed and I gather that RfCs are the only way to review statements, how can we proceed?

Pinging discussion previous participants: @Banks Irk, Springee, Selfstudier, ActivelyDisinterested, VickKiang, Bobfrombrockley, TarnishedPath, and JPxG:, as well as the closer, @David Gerard: NoonIcarus (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was closed less than six months ago because it was malformed as nothing whatsoever merited reconsideration of the prior RFC. Let's start with the most basic question at RSN: What specific statement at this source is proposed to be used at what specific article for what specific content? Absent an actual, live, dispute, there is no basis whatsoever to reopen a very recent discussion of the source that was itself malformed. This ain't 'Nam! We have rules. Banks Irk (talk)` Banks Irk (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a live issue concerning usage of this source? Or has this thread been raised to attempt to re-litigate previous discussions? TarnishedPathtalk 01:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies on not being familiar with the material in question; what are the concerns? jp×g🗯️ 01:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that this is the talk page for RSN, which causes this to make a little more sense. I suppose the issue at hand is how RSN itself works. Still, I am not quite clear on what it means to address concerns in this context; do you mean to dispute the closure, to discuss it in general, or what? jp×g🗯️ 01:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This being the talk page, makes more sense now. I was wondering where all the threads disappeared to. Like you @JPxG, I'm a bit perplexed what concerns are to be addressed here absent a live issue. TarnishedPathtalk 02:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The concerns are raised here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Jacobin BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My view, as expressed in the recently closed RSN discussion: I have long been unhappy with the RSP summary of the many RSN discussions of this source, where the consensus has clearly been much more negative than the summary. It is clear that several editors have major issues with its use in specific areas (e.g. Russia/Ukraine, Venezuela) and that this should be flagged, and that it publishes content by a few conspiracy thinkers (Branko Marcetic was mentioned in the last discussion, McEvoy flagged here) and again this isn't highlighted in RSP. So I'd favour a rewrite of the RSP and possibly a change from green to yellow as a better reflection of the community consensus.
So, my question would be: does the wording and green colour-coding at RSP best summarise the several in-depth discussions of the source which have occurred at RSN (and not just the very inconclusive RfC)? I don't think it does. Procedurally, can the RSP entry be rewritten slightly to reflect these discussions, or does it require a new RfC? IF it requires a new RfC, then I think we need one. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think an RfC would be required but WP:RFCBEFORE would need to occur first. I don't really know if there is much to discuss at this point absent a live issue. TarnishedPathtalk 10:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't my wheelhouse so this might be a stupid question, but if it needs an RfC in order for any change to happen, then what would RFCBEFORE consist of? A discussion of whether it's worth proceeding with an RfC? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. That's not the way to start. Several people have told you the same thing. The way you start is by asking a simple, direct question at RSN. Is X source reliable for Y statement in Z article? Banks Irk (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allright, here's a recent one. This source has a clear bias, as shown in this article. Should it be used in place of numerous high-quality unbiased generally reliable sources, as in this instance? The introduction of that highly biased source in that context, when other higher quality and non-biased sources are available, is likely to head towards using the source in UNDUE ways in other places. It wasn't used in undue ways in this particular use, but why use it at all when there are unbiased sources that can be used? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat what I said previously, in the May 2023 RfC, it was speedily closed, but there were a few editors in good standing that felt that a properly held discussion would be welcome i.e., Thebiguglyalien, Generalrelative (no ping),, and there were many who voted generally unreliable and others who voted generally reliable. Of course, that RfC was started purely by a pointy and disruptive OP now blocked indef, so was validly closed, but many suggested a future discussion being beneficial. The examples SandyGeorgia points to above, the Ukraine piece discussed in May, and this piece are specific cases that lend me to want discussion on the reliability of this source as to 1) the reliability of several specific authors that have been mentioned and 2) whether it's suitable for the broader Russo-Ukrainian War issues seems needed (of which I have no opinions on, as I don't frequently edit these contentious topic areas). All of these examples were post RfC (it was first closed in 2021, which was overturned in AN, and then was closed in early 2022, but discussion finished before that), and won't be able to resolved just in individual talk, hence my desure for some more specific discussion. VickKiang (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI VickKiang, this edit did ping me. I'm not actually in favor of additional discussion absent an ongoing content dispute. My point in that previous discussion was that Jacobin should probably be distinguished from its peer-reviewed offshoot Catalyst, which publishes some decent academic work –– albeit always from an anti-capitalist perspective. I agree that the editorial standards of Jacobin proper are abysmal. Generalrelative (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, I have amended my comment. VickKiang (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Banks Irk and TarnishedPath: One of the last issues with the sources is at the National Democratic Institute article (Talk:National Democratic Institute#Venezuela disputed and better source needed for Jacobin???), where Jacobin is used to support the statement that the NGO had an important role in the opposition victory in the 2015 Venezuelan parliamentary election, while omitting crucial events that happened in the years before, such as a chronic economic crisis, widespread shortages of goods and a significant wave of protests, to mention some. I placed a Disputed tag in said section as a result.
Since I didn't start this discussion with a fixed question, I thought that editors could be free to revisit previous discussions, but it has been proven that there are new topics that definitely should be discussed, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Latin America (for instance, I put forward examples of conspiracy theories about Colombia published by Jacobin). The RSP description would definitely benefit from those. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good example of how it's often not the biased source per se, but editor misuse of the biased source. I wonder how anyone thought that DUE, and what the full context of the NDI self-congratulatory puffery would be if an unbiased source had thought it worthy of reporting on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per @SandyGeorgia, that appears to be a misuse of a source, rather than an issue with the source itself. We can have editors misuse sources that none of us would ever think were biased. I'm still not seeing a live issue. TarnishedPathtalk 22:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go try to delete and see how live it becomes; we have boatloads of editors running around adding UNDUE content from biased sources because they've been greenified at RSN, and then creating a ruckus when the UNDUE content is removed. Which is why editors are concerned that the closing statements summarize the state of consensus correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia It's still not about the source per se and an editors misuse of it as I understand it? Unless I've misinterpreted something, that could happen with any source and is more a editor issue than a WP:RSN issue? TarnishedPathtalk 04:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both: it's an editor education/behavioral issue being furthered by RSN functioning (or misunderstanding of RSN functioning). This behavior is impacting RSN as well as causing POV issues in articles and lengthy talk disputes.
We have seen recurring threads at RSN over the battleground that has been made of Venezuelan articles because editors misuse sources, misunderstand DUE WEIGHT and ONUS, and think that getting a source deprecated or green-lighted governs all use of sources in articles. In a country where there is no free press, we have editors seeking to deprecate all press that is independent of the State-controlled (which is everything in the country, so independent press has all been "exiled"), and elevate all sources friendly to the State, and then using/removing said sources, at times indiscriminately or independently of any other policy. And chastizing/threatening those who remove content that doesn't meet DUE WEIGHT, ONUS or any other policy. The drive behind all of the Venezuelan reliability threads has aimed at removing sources independent from the State, which because of the absence of press freedom are often the best or only sources, and then rework articles to the State-friendly sources promoted via RSN threads. The two examples of use of Jacobin on this page are the tip of the iceberg; they are introduced, then content based on them is expanded, then a fuss is created if the content is removed per ONUS or DUE WEIGHT or any other policy.
(I've not yet commented myself on Jacobin as I haven't had the pleasure of seeing an article from them worth citing-- I've seen the two examples in this section of articles that are so highly biased as to be lies in camoflauge. Were another RSN to be opened, I'd ask someone to show me an appropriate use of this source.) If this is indeed a source which has some use, a) an example would be nice, and b) it is being poorly served by those who are using it in Venezuelan content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I've only really seen Jacobin used in political pages. My experience is with Australian politics (because that's where I'm from). A quick search finds 2,096 articles that it's being used on, and that's a wide variety of political stuff. While I've not liked some of the analysis I've seen in the past and found it a wee bit biased, I've never considered it to be unreliable on the whole.
I really think we need to separate the editor behavioural issues from anything and those should be addressed by those editors involved before we make a mountain out of molehill. Because as far as I'm reading things this is first and foremost an editor issue and that's what should be dealt with. RSN is not the place for editor behaviour issues/education. TarnishedPathtalk 12:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I couldn't agree more; it would be helpful if your feedback when these behaviors come before dispute resolution fora lined up with your statements here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia, I'm hoping that you're not suggesting that is not the case. Regardless, I find myself less inclined to engage in dispute resolution fora at present given my recent experiences at AN\I. As far as I'm concerned most of the time it can be someone else's problem. TarnishedPathtalk 15:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, I closed that discussion because it seemed too many editors just didn't see a live issue since the last RFC. As I suggested in the close, bring a substantive live issue or two. Diffs that couldn't be resolved in talk, that sort of thing - David Gerard (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley: Overall I think there's sort of a "RSPitis" issue -- the only possible answers are "green", "yellow" or "red". This creates an absurd situation with outlets like Jacobin, which is "red" in the literal sense that they're reds (their about page says "Jacobin is a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture"). But it is "green" in the sense that its factual claims are generally reliable and it doesn't just make shit up. Meanwhile, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are also green. So, if all we have to go by is the color of the RSP cell (and many people do this), there's basically no difference between these three in terms of which opinions can be cited as generally held, and which should be cited with attribution, et cetera. For example:
Factual claim: In June, British American influencer Andrew Tate was charged in Romania with rape, human trafficking, and forming an organized criminal group to sexually exploit women.
Not a factual claim: For all the hot air spent insisting on the need to cultivate the hypermasculine self, through an attitude of buccaneering individualism and refusal of convention and conformism, these claims amount to meek compliance, comforting illusions, excuses and alibis about an inescapable essence.
Not a factual claim: Improbable though it is, instead of their pursuit of their conception of the good life, obsession with failure, warrior-capitalist boosterism, and bemoaning of a weak and effeminate society, the manosphere’s most prolific spokesmen would do better to pay attention to figures like McCabe and French writer Édouard Louis. [...] Louis, himself brutalized as an adolescent, is an impressive advocate of the popular classes and marginalized.
Would it be acceptable to just write in an article about these people, straightforwardly, that they "pursue warrior-capitalist boosterism[1]"? Of course not. But Jacobin is GREEN!!!!!1111 so we end up with a lot of silly arguments and endless pissing contests at RS/N. Personally, I think that RS/P should be replaced with a simple list of cells that link to RSN discussions and the sources shouldn't be given "ratings". Failing that, I think the cell colors should be abolished, and people should be forced to actually read what the summary says. But who knows: I am just some guy. jp×g🗯️ 22:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the National Democratic Institute talk page link a little above here is a good example of someone invoking the source’s “Green tick” status without attending to the actual content of the RSP summary. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An editor could invoke any source's green tick status at RSP as an excuse to misuse the source. That's not an indictment on the source. TarnishedPathtalk 00:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what I mean: RSP/RSN in their current incarnation actively encourage and enable this kind of nonsense. jp×g🗯️ 01:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does it? Surely editors need to have common sense and read WP:RS and know that the source they are using must be used in context of the edit being made. Just because it is marked as generally reliable at WP:RSP it is not an excuse to use it to claim things that the source does not say and if they do that is an editor issue not an issue with RSP/RSN. TarnishedPathtalk 04:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If editors are misusing sources that needs to be dealt with in article talk in the first instance and if necessary at the appropriate board. Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. None of the examples cited in this discussion involve any actual dispute about reliability of the source or any false or incorrect statement of fact. Until there is live RS issue, a RFC remains premature.Banks Irk (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. TarnishedPathtalk 15:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But there is. The main example I have provided here cites incorrect causes for an election, and in the previous RfC I included at least three more examples of falsehoods about Colombia (that Colombian paramilitaries were present in the 2002 coup against Chávez, that Colombia supported paramilitary incursions into Venezuela, and that the country actively sought to sabotage and promote a military intervention in Venezuela [3]). --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 2022 closing was viewed as problematic in large part because it moved the source from RSP yellow to green. This move went unnoticed because the actual closing of the discussion was done within the RSN archive after the discussion had been archived. When this was challenged the consensus was such closures shouldn't happen but due to the time laps the best option would be to redo the RfC. I would say that the problematic "it's green" use of the source is probably a reason to start a new, focused RfC. Instead of running it broadly, focus on if the source should be "green but biased" or moved to "considerations apply". That said, I will echo what Bobfrombrockley said, the 3 color system is a bad system. Virtually all sources will operate on a spectrum and it would be better to simply link to summaries rather than what we have now where editors are incentivized to push for a particular color based on their preference and where "my source is green so it's better than your yellow source" is treated as a valid argument. Springee (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible questions

Reading through the comments, regardless of one's position, I see that the main contention can lie of the RSP descriptions and categories. I've thought that for a RfC to not be so controversial, said statements could be narrowed down to more specific questions. Namely, I've thought about the following statements:

  1. Is Jacobin reliable as a source for topics related to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine?
  2. Is Jacobin reliable as a source for topics related to Venezuela?

What are your thoughts? Any input is welcomme. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is Jacobin currently being used in either of those two topic areas which would give rise to such question being asked? Is there a live issue? TarnishedPathtalk 01:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said four times now, Jacobin is currently used in the National Democratic Institute to back the statement that the NGO was a crucial factor for the opposition victory in the 2015 Venezuelan parliamentary elections, and it is pretty much a live issue. The outlet is also used in Patrick Duddy's article to back the claim that In March 2008 Duddy had requested funding from the United States Agency for International Development and the United States Department of Defense "to influence the information environment within Venezuela", which at the same time uses WikiLeaks as its original source.
Additionally, Jacobin is used in the Zarah Sultana and the Stop the War Coalition articles to defend the position of the organization during the invasion, and is likewise cited in the Proposed no-fly zone in the Russian invasion of Ukraine to back critics of the proposals. From what I can see, the source mentioned in the previous RfC was used in the Russo-Ukrainian War article to change the description "the Euromaidan protests" to "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests". --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I see with a lot of Jacobin pieces is that they are opinion pieces masquerading as news. The National Democratic Institute and the Stop the War Coalition articles appropriately call that out and specifically say that what is being said is the opinion of the author of the Jacobin article.
I've removed Jacobin from Zarah Sultana and Proposed no-fly zone in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, so there's no longer a live issue there.
Is there anything further to discuss? TarnishedPathtalk 01:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I believe that Jacobin doesn't clearly distinguish opinion articles and news articles, at least for its online version. Basically all articles have an editorial voice instead of being straight news. This isn't a mark of unreliability by itself, and a lot of magazines does this (The Economist, for example, writes exclusively in editorial voice with no byline as its main feature, but is still reliable for facts, and RSP consider it generally reliable with a short disclaimer that The Economist publishes exclusively articles in editorial voice with no byline, with a few featured commentary pieces by pseudonymous bylines), but probably justifies some more caution. IMO, this could be made clearer for Jacobin on RSP, but if there's no consensus for that, starting another RSN discussion seems to be fine. VickKiang (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't really take a university education to get when something is an opinion piece and if editors are using opinion pieces they need to call them out as the opinion of the author. When editors aren't doing as such perhaps it needs to be discussed with them and if they repeatedly do it, then it should be brought before AN/I on the basis of WP:CIR. Editors not property attributing opinion pieces as opinion should not be a RSN thing. TarnishedPathtalk 02:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1187128379"